Product Description

Studio: A&e Home Video Release Date: 01/30/2001 Run time: 100 minutes Rating: Nr

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #15437 in DVD
• Brand: A&E
• Released on: 2001-01-30
• Rating: NR (Not Rated)
• Aspect ratio: 1.33:1
• Formats: Color, DVD, NTSC
• Original language: English
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 100 minutes

Amazon.com
Boy loses girl, boy wins her back, boy loses her again and is killed in his pool. F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic Jazz Age tragedy once again makes a somewhat rocky transition from page to screen in this A&E production starring Academy Award winner Mira Sorvino as the feckless Daisy. This version has Paul Rudd (the stepbrother who got the girl in Clueless) doing the honors as narrator Nick, who reintroduces his married cousin to his lavish-party-throwing neighbor Gatsby. Toby Stephens captures the heartbreaking single-mindedness of Gatsby, although not once does the phrase "old sport" seem to fall naturally from his lips. Director Robert Markowitz uses flashbacks of Daisy and Gatsby's prewar courtship in an attempt to explain their reckless relationship, but they do little more than slow the pace of an already leisurely 93 minutes. The costumes and sets are opulent, however, and Montreal substitutes nicely for Long Island. --Kimberly Heinrichs

Customer Reviews

A successful attempt to honor Fitzgerald's masterpiece
While many of you may turn your nose at a movie version of perhaps the greatest American novel starring Mira Sorvino and Paul Rudd, I assure you the casting was wonderfully done. Sorvino fulfills the character of Daisy, somewhat ditzy, materialistic, and self-centered. And Paul Rudd has always been a wonderful actor (let's just pretend "Clueless" never happened). The rest of the cast is wonderful as well. As I mentioned in my review of the OTHER movie version of the Great Gatsby, I was disappointed that (among other things) there was no narrator. Nick DOES narrate this one. It is brilliantly accomplished as well, because he is only narrator at crucial moments where dialogue would otherwise be lost. This movie also includes the famous last words of the novel: "So we beat on, boats against the current, born ceaselessly into the past" which I feel is a crucial part to include in the movie. Scenes were also accomplished with more tact and finesse than the other. The important ones had more time to sink into your memory. It's shorter than the other one, yet you gain more from this version than the older. A&E does not dissappoint!

Gatsby as Godfather
This wild shot at Fitzgerald's masterpiece sees it all as a sort of proto-Godfather saga, 60 years ahead of its time. Beautifully costumed and with a sharp and accurate period look, this British TV version is a very distanced interpretation (if you can call it an interpretation, rather than an abject misunderstanding) of Gatsby. The take is pure gangland style -- an element certainly in the book, but which hardly subsumes it all -- or ought to, anyway. The story is really about romantic extravagance and earnestness; that takes more than mere costuming and sets, but actors with a lot of heart. The men here have no appeal whatsoever; they're all thugs. Mira Sorvino's Daisy, however weird, is presented as some sort of heroine -- about as far from Fitzgerald's intent as you can get. The dialogue is all accurate, mind you, and the story line is not significantly altered. Simply, this total misunderstanding of Gatsby is an object lesson on how mere "textual faithfulness" is far from enough to properly mount a literary work as film.

You can't blame our cousins across the Atlantic River though. The tight, terse Fitzgerald text is obviously based on the reader sharing certain cultural assumptions; this version exposes that fact about the book, and to that extent is useful. And the Brits never understood Scott Fitzgerald from the get-go, though he has always bugged them. The late great British literary critic Cyril Connelly summed it up perhaps best, "Scott Fitzgerald is an American imposition, and I am beginning to resent him." This was in the 60s, in the heights of the Fitzgerald revival which continues to this day.

The film still rates 3 stars because -- paired off against the more famous Redford Gatsby (which is also quite textually accurate) -- it presents fascinating issues of textual interpretation and personal and cultural orientation. Know the book well though, and see the other film first before coming to this.

In the Footsteps of the Great Gatsby
I am a great fan of Toby Stephens, who consistently turns in splendid performances (even making the dour Mr. Rochester terribly appealing), but I believe that in the role of Jay Gatsby, Toby Stephens has been miscast. It is not merely that he cannot fit into Robert Redford's shoes, but he cannot fit into the shoes of Gatsby as F. Scott Fitzgerald has conceived him--larger than life; a man of mystery, who is anonymous in a crowd of what Shakespeare would have called "gilded butterflies" and what Fitzgerald himself seems to portray as moths blustering too close to a guttering candle flame. The dreamlike quality of the novel (which, as I recall was evident in the David Merrick/Jack Clayton/Francis Ford Coppola version), is almost totally missing from this latest production.

Where Fitzgerald suggests, the director of this film states outright. in the novel, for example, Nick's memories of his first encounter with Daisy and Jordan--on a seemingly floating couch--are suffused with light drifting through insubstantial billows of white curtains. In the movie, however, Nick simply walks into the living room of an elegant house in which a couple of beautiful girls are lolling on a white couch. In the novel, Nick's first memory of Gatsby is of a lonely stranger, standing at the edge of the water, gazing across the sound at the distant winking green light on Daisy's pier. In the movie, however, the concept has been reversed, in a closeup of a wistful Daisy standing next to the green light on her own pier looking across the sound in the direction of Gatsby's mansion. The reversal of perspective completely misses Fitzgerald's point that Daisy is Gatsby's dream, not the other way around.

These are not the only differences. In the novel, for instance, through Nick's eyes, we witness a deterioration of the mansion, as Gatsby's created world of false elegance gradually disintegrates. As autumn approaches, the proper servants have been replaced by sinister subordinates with underworld connections. In the movie, however, there is no hint of the ugliness beneath the luxurious façade that Fitzgerald seems to suggest with the change of servants.

The disconnect between the novel and the movie is particularly noticeable in the party sequence: in Fitzgerald's narrative, Gatsby's extravagant fete has an impressionistic quality as partygoers and snatches of conversation flit in and out of Nick's consciousness; in the movie, however, the raucous flappers and their outrageous antics are thrust not only in Nick's face but also that of the viewer. Moreover, because of the literal orientation of the director, Gatsby's extravagant festivities have about the same impact as Tom and Myrtle's tawdry party. Furthermore, Fitzgerald's subtle use of Gatsby's name and his delayed introduction of the title character, which whets the reader's interest, is mishandled in the movie with clumsy flashbacks of various characters repeating the name, "Gatsby" . . . "Gatsby" . . . "Gatsby!"

While one might laud the use by the filmmakers of Fitzgerald's prose in a voiceover, the writers have taken inexcusable liberties with it. For instance, Fitzgerald's "Owl eyes," an inebriated guest who marvels at the fact that Gatsby has real books in his library, in the film utters words to the effect of "Oh yes, I look just like Dr. T.J. Eckleberg on the sign in the Valley of Ashes; everybody says so!" Although Fitzgerald may have used "Owl Eyes" as part of his recurrent imagery of viewing (including the disembodied billboard eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleberg), he never expresses the idea explicitly. Fitzgerald leaves it to the reader to make the analogy between Eckleberg's eyes staring down at the Valley of Ashes and "Owl Eyes" scrutinizing Gatsby's coffin--"Owl Eyes" being the only other mourner besides Nick and Gatsby's long-forgotten father at the funeral.

But back to Toby Stephens. He has charm to die for (Consider his portrayal of Kim Philby in "Cambridge Spies;" or Duke Orsino in "Twelfth Night."); but somehow, and I believe that the fault can be laid at the door of the director, in this role he lacks that air of elusiveness that makes everyone in the novel speculate about Gatsby's origins; Stephens is certainly likable in the role, but he somehow seems too 'small'--not in height but in stature--for Gatsby, a man who has invented himself so expertly that he keeps everyone guessing as to whether he has been a German spy; an Oxford scholar; a war hero, or a con man. In Stephens' otherwise excellent portrayal, unfortunately, no guesswork is necessary.