I doubt that you could spoil it for anyone here on MeCha. Anyone here who is likely to see it has probably read the book at least once. Hell, I have read the damn thing three times despite not liking it all that much, and I will probably read it at least one more time.

I've no real interest in seeing it, so spoil away.

I say spoil away, because as Ardiril pointed out, most of us have probably read the book. I'll see it either way, but would love to hear your take on Luhrmann's interpretation of Fitzgerald. I enjoyed the thread on the blue a while back that discussed a puff piece wherein a writer stated she never really "got" Gatsby. The ensuing discussion was quite entertaining.

Anyone here who is likely to see it has probably read the book at least once

I know almost everyone's read the book, but that doesn't have any bearing on the stylistic adaptation, performances, sets, costumes, score, etc. which are the entire point of a Luhrmann adaptation. Perhaps "spoilers" is the wrong word to use, but detailed discussion about what's special in this adaptation could certainly have taken the surprise from it, and I didn't want to read a lot of that sort of thing before seeing the film itself.

What you propose is precisely what I want to hear from you! I want your take on Lurhmann's adaptation. I am familiar with Fitzgerald as a writer and I am familiar with Luhrmann's peculiar take on cinema. I will see the movie for that reason, and already have a pretty decent understanding of what I am getting myself into. I would love to hear your take on it - irrespective of whether I have yet seen the movie or not. I say share away, Miko!

Yes, go for it. You may be the one to convince me to see it.

Yes, what msali said!

I found Moulin Rouge completely unwatchable, so I can't imagine I'll be paying to see this. The trailer I saw was enough to put me right off.

I also found Moulin Rouge unwatchable - a fundamental weakness of plot (there wasn't one to speak of). This came with plenty of plot.

Some reactions: I was ready for the Super-Luhrmannized presentation of his Romeo & Juliet. In that I was somewhat disappointed. The idea of 3D and a hip-hop soundtrack seemed to promise a radical reenvisioning; what this is is actually a fairly straightforward retelling of the plot, with truly vast attention to detail in sets, props, and costumes, but not overly stylized at all. I wish I'd seen it in a theatre with better speakers, but even so, the musical score was a lot subtler than I expected and nothing seemed out of place. There were some interesting hybridizations of 20s and contemporary music in the score, and I just wanted that to come forward more. Similarly, scenes of dancing and parties were fantastically staged, but there seemed to be an odd, un-Luhrmanly reserve throughout - something about the frame seemed too quiet or too distant. The eye wants to linger and indulge itself on some of these things, wants more with the visual feast, but you can't access it too well because of the weird midrange position of the frame relative to the viewer. I'm no film studies person so I don't know how to express it better than that, but if you see it, you'll know what I mean.

Those critiques aside, this is a very solid movie and without a doubt the best screen adaptation of Gatsby (not a high bar, admittedly). It's extremely faithful to the plot and the writing, with only minor tweaks like the framing device that gives Nick his narrator voice. The pace is slow for the first 3rd but accelerates rapidly through the middle and end. The performances are quite good, and DiCaprio is truly excellent at a real cipher of a role. I would recommend people see it just to see DiCaprio at his finest - he negotiates every note, every beat, every line, just perfectly.

One thing that surprised me mildly was the masterful performance of Daisy. It's pretty subtle, but she manages to make Daisy empathetic (which I don't find the book does) even as she remains shallow, naive, and lost. The 180-degree shift that sets in about 3/4 of the way through is as well acted as anything I've seen in years.

Many of the visual elements are truly beautiful. Not just the vaunted party scenes, but the shots of the Queensboro bridge, the CGI'd 1920s view of NY from Lower Manhattan (just gorgeous and fun for a history geek to see - no Midtown skyscrapers yet), the green light at the end of the dock, the astounding gritty expanse of Queens (now that is over the top, but in a good way) - all very enchanting. Some people were fretting that the makeup and costuming isn't 100% period accurate - no great concern. It strikes the right tone and always looks essentially in keeping with the period, and much of the costume detail is really well observed.

Short version - Luhrmann doesn't get in the way of the plot or the actors. It's lushly produced, but not as self-consciously in-your-face or avant garde as his Romeo & Juliet. I feel pretty confident that if you like the book, you'll feel the movie captured it pretty well - especially for a novel famously called "unfilmable" by more than a few.

One thing that surprised me mildly was the masterful performance of Daisy.

Not that I wasn't going to see the film, but I've been pretty pessimistic reading the reviews. The majority pretty much condemning the movie, and really down on the role of Daisy, and for me, if Daisy doesn't work, the film doesn't work.

I'm pretty sure after seeing the movie I'll still feel the book is 'unfilmable', but all I want is to be entertained, so maybe there's hope for that.

Oooh, I love Luhrmann, and I love "Gatsby," and I'm so excited to see this.

Did you see it in 3-D? And if so, is it worth seeing it that way?

And I have to say, "Moulin Rouge" is, to me, the absolute perfect example of a post-modern love story, with an awareness that everything anyone has to say to their loved one has already been said. But I've also been reading Jeannette Winterson quotes all evening and "Written on the Body" starts with a similar premise, and I love that novel, too.

“You said, 'I love you.' Why is it that the most unoriginal thing we can say to one another is still the thing we long to hear? 'I love you' is always a quotation.”

Did you see it in 3-D? And if so, is it worth seeing it that way?

I didn't and wished I had (Didn't realize I had to pick a special showtime). There really aren't a lot of glitzy 3D effects but I think it would enhance some of the really dimensional shots.

From the New Yorker's review: "The problem with Luhrmann’s film is that it’s under the top." That's my main critique.

It's still a good time. Worth seeing.

I don't know how the schooling system is in anglo-saxon countries. But when I was in highschool in NL you needed to study literature for your foreign languages. And do a final oral exam on the books on your list in that language.
The number of books was fixed but for a large part you could pick the titles yourself. As long as it was part of the literary canon in that language.
Gatsby was popular because it's not very thick and has a discernible plot. I read it myself as well. Other books I read were Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Michael Kohlhaas, Combray, Van oude menschen de dingen die voorbij gaan*). You get the drift. Mostly I plundered my parents' bookcases.
I have to say though that at that age a lot of those 'masterworks' did not really strike a chord. And Gatsby was among them.
So that may be the reason that I'm not terribly excited about that movie.
Or maybe it's because Hemingway spoke with some disdain of Fitzgerald.

Anyhow. Here's the harkavagrant comic.

*) I mentioned that book to janetland. So she got the English translation from interlibrary loan. Turned out it was the original 1918 translation. And looking at the stamps it hadn't been read anymore after 1926.

Love that cartoon, jouke!

I read it in high school, too. But I really think I get much more out of it now that I have some life experience. As a teenager, my reaction was sort of "these people are all stupid and awful, ugh." As an adult, I've had plenty of opportunity to interact with contemporary versions of all of these individuals, so I can understand the characters with a lot more depth, and also feel more deeply the commentary Fitzgerald was making on morality, social order, wealth, striving, etc.

A lot of that book is wasted on teens, I think. It's interesting how often assigned it is at that level. Gatsby was 29 when he wrote it, and I think the particular brands of disillusionment and hyper-awareness of the long trajectory of others' lives that the book draws so well begin to set in around then.

What puts me off about the book is Fitzgerald's use of a voyeur as a narrative device for what is ultimately a feeble morality tale. Nick's descriptions devolve into caricatures to the point that he becomes semi-unreliable, and the reader wonders what he is omitting. This fault is common in expressionist literature; expressionism works in visual arts and music because of its abstraction, but in prose, lengthier works expose their themes' banality.

... but man, could Fitzgerald craft a sentence!

Shakespeare's themes were pretty banal, too.

Don't I know it! I spent a third of my undergraduate studies in german literature comparing the Shakespeare translations by Wieland and Schlegel.

We're going to see it on Wednesday (husband's birthday) in 3-D, mainly bc that's the time that fits in with babysitting schedule. Will report back with opinions.

Meine Güte, Ardiril. That sounds rather forbidding.

That series of semesters culminated with Nietzche's analysis model of Francis Bacon's Apollo to Shakespeare's Dionysus. We dropped a lot of acid those 15 weeks.

Three months later, I was in the US Marine Corps boot camp on Parris Island because it was the furthest thing I could find from academics.

^s

ardiril, joining the marines to get away from Deutsche Philologie sounds rather drastic. I guess you could have joined the Legion Étrangère if you wanted to be even more extreme. But there's not much else.
I remember Nietzsches Appollo vs Dionysus dichotomy. I sometimes inadvertently refer to it. To the puzzlement of people around me.

Miko, I agree that there's a lot in literature that's almost impossible to get as a teenager no matter how bright. Since it's contingent on life experience that you don't have yet at that age.
But I must confess that ardirils judgement sounds familiar: caricatures, morality tale. It did feel rather schematic as I recall.

"schematic" - I am stealing that description for future discussions.

Judging Luhrmann's Gatsby: Five English scholars weigh in.

As for me, I really enjoyed it. I thought all the acting was really solid, especially DiCaprio and Edgerton. I have a weird hate-on for Tobey Maguire, don't know why, but he didn't annoy me so much in this film.