Great Gatsby Film Versions

I just looked up some film versions of The Great Gatsby and it looks like there are only two different versions. There is the 1974 version and the 2000 version, however I am sure that they both have their differences.



Here is some info on the 1974 film version from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071577

 

Many of the male extras in the party scenes were recruited from the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island because military officers already wore the clean-cut hairstyles that were worn by men in the period of the film. Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers): The billboard in the Valley of Ashes misspells the word "oculist" as "occulist".  And here is a review of the 1974 film, also from  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071577/  This version tries to stay very true to the roots of the story. It's greatest detriment is its lavish budget, made evident from scenery and costuming. Coppola does an admirable job with his script, but it is impossible to fail to realize that he borrowed heavily from the source material, often citing it verbatim. In this sense, the plot is very faithful to the novel. The film fails to recapture the feel, mood, and spirit of the novel and of the twenties. Fitzgerald made Gatsby a very personal character. For him, there was always something unattainable; and for Gatsby, it was Daisy, the lost love of his life, forever symbolized by a flashing green light at her dock.When it doesn't try, the film captures the mood of the twenties. This is especially true during Gatsby's first party, showing people being themselves. The majority the cast, particularly Mia Farrow, and with the exception of Bruce Dern (Tom Buchanan) play their parts as if they were silent actors. Even the flickering quality of silent film seems to haunt this film stock. It goes without saying the acting was overdone for the most part. This is true of the essence of the characters and of the times, although in the film, it is overkill. The set decoration was visually pleasing and it effectively captured the mood of each scene and the twenties.

Here is a review on the 2000 film version also from http://www.imdb.com/title/ttt0210719

like this adaptation far more than the Robert Redford version-- the sets aren't quite as lavish, but then, they aren't quite as pretentious either. The performances are sound and solid, and Mira Sorvino gives a convincing fragility to the rather high strung Daisy. Paul Rudd has covertly expressive features, that he uses to his advantage, and small town sophistication looks good on him. The book itself is full ofnarration and description with little dialogue, so finding the right mix of old dialogue (classic and remembered) and new dialogue is probably a real challenge. All in all, this is a fair version-- handsome and sweet-- and my only complaint is that Mira Sorvino is almost too sympathetic-- it's hard to believe she is the "careless person" that Americans have come to both revile and idolize.