The Great Gatsby 1974: So It Beats On

I was anxious to see this adaptation while the novel was still fresh in my mind. I have seen many Robert Redford movies from around this time period, and have always been a fan. I can't say what I would have thought of this movie 20 or 30 years ago, or if I had never read the novel. Watching it now after just finishing the novel, and being asked to notice particular things and be generally critical, I must say, for me, the film fell flat. I don't think it really captured the feel of the novel in several respects, and I'm not talking about things that are impossible to translate from words to film, rather things within the control of the film makers. Here are some of the things I think could have been better.

                                                               
WARNING: Keep volume low or wear ear 
plugs; not safe for women who are nursing or may be pregnant; may cause self-inflicted ear-drum mutilation; and, in rare cases, death.

                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                          


Very early in the film, we are abused by the tinny shrill annoyance that is Daisy Buchanan's voice.
What made that experience worse was the expectation of the "low, thrilling voice" the "whispered 'listen'" that Fitzgerald describes. There was one aspect of her voice however that rings true to the novel; her voice was one that "men...found difficult to forget". Mia Farrow is attractive enough, and, in that respect, suitable for the part; however, Daisy's voice is a significant part of Fitzgerald's description of her, too important to ignore.
                
                 

           The Hulking Prancer?
                                                                             
Next, we have Tom Buchanan, whose problem is just the reverse. It is Bruce Dern's physical prowess that is in question here; hardly the hulking figure whose muscles strain against his coat. In this fencing scene, his movements and physique betray his pretended athleticism and suitability for the role of Tom Buchanan. What's worse is, this scene is unnecessary, as it was not in the novel. Dern's personality is fitting for the role; however, I thought he could have been a little meaner, a bit more Dernesque. Also, he's not really the aristocratic type; more like a guy who doesn't shower, kidnaps child cowboys, and shoots old men in the back. I'm not suggesting that he should have, but Redford would have made a better Tom in my opinion, which brings me to what I consider the biggest disappointment, Gatsby himself.


Don't get me wrong. I don't think he was anymore badly cast or acted any worse than the others. For me it was disappointing because Gatsby is the most important character, and I'm a fan of Redford. For much of the film, he fits the idea of Gatsby. The problem is he never finds Gatz. He is never out of place, never really vulnerable, never really nervous. I never felt like he was Gatz pretending to be Gatsby--no facade. I would like to think Redford was just to cool for this part, but I fear the truth is simply a narrow range in his acting ability.

        Too Cool or Not Enough Acting School ???
                                         

The film was definitely a literal translation of the novel with a few minor embellishments, but even this ultimately works against the finished product, in my opinion. It's not that it's literal, it's the way it's literal, trying to 'copy and paste' chapter for chapter from text to film. What I mean is, it just feels like its trudging from one scene to the next, as if someone says, okay now we'll do this paragraph. It drags. One of the articles we read said that it takes about as long to read the novel as to watch this film, and then suggested the former--I agree. As I write these words, I realize I'm being very hard on this picture. Like I said before, under different circumstances, perhaps in 1974, it might have been a little better. (I'm not saying the age of the film makes it bad. There were plenty of films made in the 70s, and before, that are still great today). Seeing the 2013 version first probably didn't help though.

There were several more issues for me, but I will just mention this last one. How does one end the film 'The Great Gatsby' without quoting the vastly famous last line? Makes no sense to me. I'm afraid this film should be "borne back ceaselessly into the past".

On a positive note, the attention to detail with the cars, the music, and the dancing was impeccable.

I'll probably regret this, as I'm sure there are some fans of this version out there. What do you think?
Did the film do the book justice?  If not, was it acting, casting, something else, or just 1974?
If so, how; other than simply being literal?