Dude. When you mentioned the quote "her voice is full of money" I got so excited, because I was also pissed that didn't make the movie!! I thought I was the only one! Anyways, this is a truly thoughtful piece of movie/literary criticism. I really enjoyed this!
I'd say yes and no. I think the movie did a great job with depicting the excess of Gatsby's parties and the inclusion of symbolism along with the dream-like tone. The movie lacks a melancholic tone but replaced it with nostalgia (this latter theme appears in the book) I'd also say that the novel has a dark fairytale style see the Gothic elements. That story is Beauty and the beast. Just like Wuthering Heights, The Great Gatsby provides a rewriting of this fairytale and many iconic works of literature such as Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, Pride and Prejudice, and The Phantom of the Opera did so. Therefore, this adaptation was good but out of all the other adaptations it's probably the best one. This movie's a basic introduction to the book. Interesting video though.
It's a bad adaptation, and yet still one of the best adaptations of this story on film... I don't know if this is more of a commentary on the book itself or on society as a whole. But it's something.
@@shelbyherring92 this comment is very interesting. This is my second time reading it, I finally understood it……… and (despite never seeing the movie) this is a very interesting take. I dont know if I agree, but the truth in this is undeniably
I am so confused how Gatsby is evil??? Gatsby is the only likable character in the whole book? Everyone else is evil, except for mb the mechanic. The whole book is about elitism and Gatspy’s inability to change the past and where he come from,
This is my perspective (which is what I love about literature, it's up for interpretation), but I believe that it shows that not everything is black and white, Gatsby is not purely innocent, but also not entirely horrible. His relectance to move on from Daisy, which I felt most of his attraction was due to her wealth, showed somewhat of a moral lesson? To me it showed that you should not change for someone or something else other than who you want yourself to be. So I don't see Gatbsy as evil, more so flawed. Again, just my interpretation from someone who hasn't read the book in months, but I would love to hear yours as well, the more the merrier!
@@Theabrishmalik I pretty much agree with what you said yes. Not evils was a very strong word, no one is blameless, Gatsby was overly obsessed. But I feel like the fact both men who die are the one most “moral.” again for lack of a better word. (But I don’t t remember Gatsby wanting Daisy for her money, he got money for her to impress her I thought?)
@@aarbear83fierce if he wanted her for money is still up to interpretation, but what I (and my English class) thought of was the line “her voice is full of money” as more so he never loved Daisy, he loved what she represented (money and the American dream)
Imagine if every year they came out with a new artist's interpretation of the Mona Lisa. I think the only valid complaint against re-creating art is that the audience should be interested in the original more so than the adaptation. Sadly, most people today care more about the newer version and never care to explore the originals.
Hey, Gatsby is now in the public domain so anyone can adapt it. And I might as well mention two cases where the film version far exceeds the source material: The Zone of Interest is an OK book but 2023’s film outdoes it on every front. And, ahem, Adaptation (2002) highlights how being unfaithful to the text can actually improve it.
I wonder what you thought about the Redford version? Is there a video? The Redford version was the one I saw after we had to read the book in school. The only problem I will have when I eventually see this version is the fact that putting Jay-Z music into a film about the Roaring 20s might give me a headache--no matter how visionary. This is not like using Elton John for Moulin Rouge. This is literally putting Jay-Z in a time when we should be listening to jazz. Disclosure: I'm still upset about his desecration of "It's a hard knock life" as I am the world's weirdest theater kid. That would be like inviting Eminem (whom I like, by the way) to do the soundtrack for Of Mice & Men. Not saying it's not possible I'm just saying it would be weird. I do like the vivid images I've seen so far of the Jazz Age but, they seem a little bit more like what the 21st century thinks the Jazz Age was rather than a critique of the Jazz Age culture.
I feel like the Redford version does a better job depicting the actual literal sequence of events of the book. But it lacks a lot of flair and personality, both stylistically and in performances. Because of this, I actually prefer the Dicaprio version just purely because of entertainment value - even though I find a lot of its decision blasphemous. Both films are quite bloated, but the Dicaprio one is bloated in an "overly ambitious auteur" way, while the Redford one is bloated in a boring costume drama way. They're still the best we got though, because the 1949 one and the straight-to-TV 2000 one are worse.
I was a junior in high school when this movie was released. I think for me, at 16/17, I saw both the book and the movie as romantic, mainly because of the time period. 11 years later, I can see the story of The Great Gatsby is not a romance, its an anti romance- despite all of the adultry and daisy- and gatsby's affair and the romantic gestures present, its basically all anti romance.
The Great Gatspy Should have been a GREAT TV show! And make it stay true to the source material! By Copying and Pasting everything from the Source Material and do it justice with care and passion and patience!!!
I just read the book for the first time a month ago after seeing every adaptation that's been made and I can safely say the story is told so much better on screen by different artists, Baz being by far the best. The book was just kind of bland and outdated to think the book is better than this movie.
I think this video is useless You are saying from the perspective of a book reader I don’t like reading books that much so who cares if the movie is different from the book
Dude. When you mentioned the quote "her voice is full of money" I got so excited, because I was also pissed that didn't make the movie!! I thought I was the only one! Anyways, this is a truly thoughtful piece of movie/literary criticism. I really enjoyed this!
I'd say yes and no. I think the movie did a great job with depicting the excess of Gatsby's parties and the inclusion of symbolism along with the dream-like tone. The movie lacks a melancholic tone but replaced it with nostalgia (this latter theme appears in the book) I'd also say that the novel has a dark fairytale style see the Gothic elements. That story is Beauty and the beast. Just like Wuthering Heights, The Great Gatsby provides a rewriting of this fairytale and many iconic works of literature such as Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, Pride and Prejudice, and The Phantom of the Opera did so. Therefore, this adaptation was good but out of all the other adaptations it's probably the best one. This movie's a basic introduction to the book. Interesting video though.
This is was such a lovely commentary. I throughly enjoyed this, and hope to see more.
Here for my English assignment! Thank you for this 🤍
It's a bad adaptation, and yet still one of the best adaptations of this story on film... I don't know if this is more of a commentary on the book itself or on society as a whole.
But it's something.
@@shelbyherring92 this comment is very interesting. This is my second time reading it, I finally understood it……… and (despite never seeing the movie) this is a very interesting take. I dont know if I agree, but the truth in this is undeniably
I am so confused how Gatsby is evil??? Gatsby is the only likable character in the whole book? Everyone else is evil, except for mb the mechanic. The whole book is about elitism and Gatspy’s inability to change the past and where he come from,
This is my perspective (which is what I love about literature, it's up for interpretation), but I believe that it shows that not everything is black and white, Gatsby is not purely innocent, but also not entirely horrible. His relectance to move on from Daisy, which I felt most of his attraction was due to her wealth, showed somewhat of a moral lesson? To me it showed that you should not change for someone or something else other than who you want yourself to be. So I don't see Gatbsy as evil, more so flawed. Again, just my interpretation from someone who hasn't read the book in months, but I would love to hear yours as well, the more the merrier!
@@Theabrishmalik I pretty much agree with what you said yes. Not evils was a very strong word, no one is blameless, Gatsby was overly obsessed. But I feel like the fact both men who die are the one most “moral.” again for lack of a better word. (But I don’t t remember Gatsby wanting Daisy for her money, he got money for her to impress her I thought?)
@@aarbear83fierce if he wanted her for money is still up to interpretation, but what I (and my English class) thought of was the line “her voice is full of money” as more so he never loved Daisy, he loved what she represented (money and the American dream)
thanks for helping me with my homework
Imagine if every year they came out with a new artist's interpretation of the Mona Lisa. I think the only valid complaint against re-creating art is that the audience should be interested in the original more so than the adaptation. Sadly, most people today care more about the newer version and never care to explore the originals.
Hey, Gatsby is now in the public domain so anyone can adapt it. And I might as well mention two cases where the film version far exceeds the source material: The Zone of Interest is an OK book but 2023’s film outdoes it on every front. And, ahem, Adaptation (2002) highlights how being unfaithful to the text can actually improve it.
I wonder what you thought about the Redford version? Is there a video? The Redford version was the one I saw after we had to read the book in school. The only problem I will have when I eventually see this version is the fact that putting Jay-Z music into a film about the Roaring 20s might give me a headache--no matter how visionary. This is not like using Elton John for Moulin Rouge. This is literally putting Jay-Z in a time when we should be listening to jazz. Disclosure: I'm still upset about his desecration of "It's a hard knock life" as I am the world's weirdest theater kid. That would be like inviting Eminem (whom I like, by the way) to do the soundtrack for Of Mice & Men. Not saying it's not possible I'm just saying it would be weird. I do like the vivid images I've seen so far of the Jazz Age but, they seem a little bit more like what the 21st century thinks the Jazz Age was rather than a critique of the Jazz Age culture.
I feel like the Redford version does a better job depicting the actual literal sequence of events of the book. But it lacks a lot of flair and personality, both stylistically and in performances. Because of this, I actually prefer the Dicaprio version just purely because of entertainment value - even though I find a lot of its decision blasphemous. Both films are quite bloated, but the Dicaprio one is bloated in an "overly ambitious auteur" way, while the Redford one is bloated in a boring costume drama way. They're still the best we got though, because the 1949 one and the straight-to-TV 2000 one are worse.
I was a junior in high school when this movie was released. I think for me, at 16/17, I saw both the book and the movie as romantic, mainly because of the time period. 11 years later, I can see the story of The Great Gatsby is not a romance, its an anti romance- despite all of the adultry and daisy- and gatsby's affair and the romantic gestures present, its basically all anti romance.
The Great Gatspy Should have been a GREAT TV show! And make it stay true to the source material! By Copying and Pasting everything from the Source Material and do it justice with care and passion and patience!!!
Great channel btw - also I think Toby was the weakness of the film , as he was basically the key presence in the film
I just read the book for the first time a month ago after seeing every adaptation that's been made and I can safely say the story is told so much better on screen by different artists, Baz being by far the best. The book was just kind of bland and outdated to think the book is better than this movie.
honestly better than the book, the book was not that good
I think this video is useless
You are saying from the perspective of a book reader I don’t like reading books that much so who cares if the movie is different from the book
the video is about how its a bad adaptation...from the book. Its obvious that you dont like reading much, or reading at all.
It’s for people with taste, which it appears you don’t have