The Great Gatsby

Sad film about the sad lives of the ultra rich and the even sadder lives of the ultra poor. Ladd made a good go of it as the strange Gatsby with his hidden desires and odd ways. Barry Sullivan played the part of the vain and 'old money' snob to perfection. Shelly Winters was possibly the best yet at portraying the worthless, yet pitiful, Myrtle. Thumbs up to a very good drama.

This 1949 version was beautifully restored fairly recently but has been hard to find. Here in the US the dvd set is entitled The Great Gatsby Double Pack and costs less than $20. It was thrilling to see the restored version at last! Though this version has its flaws, Alan Ladd creates exactly the Gatsby described by F Scott Fitzgerald. He has that dazzling smile and that intriguing rather opaque personality. This outer persona contrasts with the vulnerable inner Gatsby, again beautifully interpreted by Ladd who seems so natural in the part. None of the other versions have a Gatsby who is so believable. (Toby Stephens perhaps comes closer than the other recent Gatsbys in the year-2000 version also included in this set.)

Unfortunately no version, including this 1949 version, has a completely satisfying Daisy. The only actress I can think of who would have been a perfect fit would be Norma Shearer (assuming a version had been made about 1932-34!) She had a gift for playing glamorous jazz-age debutantes, and she also had the skills to bring out the other sides of Daisy's character.

At the end of the 1949 version a narrator "cleans up" some of the plot elements and re-interprets some of the characters' deeds. It is very odd, obviously connected to the Production Code, and probably a rewrite -- as it does not fit with the original script. (Ditto a brief prologue at the beginning of the film.) Also it is likely Shelley Winters's part was written larger but was left on the cutting room floor. She actually played the part brilliantly, but it was so truncated that only someone familiar with the book and with Shelley Winters's other work would see what the part was meant to be.

So yes, this movie is imperfect but so worth seeing, especially now that it has been restored!

This version of Scott Fitzgerald's short novel is remarkably faithful to the original and infinitely more successful as a film than the big budget version which appeared two decades later, starring Robert Redford. Alan Ladd puts in an excellent performance in the title role simply by playing the usual Ladd persona. The character of Gatsby in the novel is not fully fleshed out, nor did the author intend him to be more than an illusive figure fired by an obsession. Ladd, who was not an actor of any great talent, seems to be particularly suited to the part. Redford, a much greater actor, added a dimension, the aura of the 'glamorous' leading male star, which the reader does not associate with the Gatsby of the novel and as a consequence, is not convincing. The 1949 version, in monochrome, captures much of the atmosphere of the 'jazz age' which strangely does not come over in the lavish period detail of the later version. The gallery of supporting players contributes significantly to the success of the film. There are a few minor faults, such as the montage shots in the opening sequences which border on cliché. Nick Carraway is less prominent than the author might have intended. But the essence of the novel is there.

~~~6.5/10~~~

It has been a while since I read the novel, so I was able to detach myself from the source material enough to watch the film from that vantage point. And I have to say, I believe this greatly aided in my enjoyment of the picture. I'm not saying it is a perfect film by far, but as a stand alone film, it is better than the average B melodrama of the period.

However, once I finished the film I began to make comparisons to the novel, which is definitely in my personal all-time top 10 books, and that's where the film went from an 8 to a 7 or 6. Like many of the previous posters mentioned, the film does drastically diminish Gatsby's mystery by laying out his background early on in the story. And this does detract from what most people love about the book. Also, the script does not take enough advantage of it's source material and the wonderful prose of Fitzgerald.

I personally did not find the film extremely miscast and the leads were not a problem for me. Granted they are not what I envisioned Gatsby and Daisy being like when I read Fitzgerald's work, but in my opinion they are able to make the roles work. I thought the secondary leads and the character parts were for the most part well cast and that the actors each made the roles their own.

The problem with the film is that it IS based on the novel. And contrary as to how I was able to watch the film, one should be able to critique this film based on the vantage of comparing it to the novel. If this weren't the case, then the film should never have been titled "The Great Gatsby". So, if one is able to watch the film without constant comparisons to the novel, I think they will better enjoy the viewing experience, but that doesn't excuse the film's shortcomings when it comes to living up to its source material.

This is a pretty good movie that seems to be lost. It contains possible Alan Ladd's fine performance, and is far better than the vapid 1974 remake with Redford.