I feel Maguire is wrong as Nick (or Gatsby). Nick is from Daisy's family and he's portrayed in the book as laid-back, easy-going and friendly, but knows old money well enough to know the rules and knows poverty well enough to know how people try to get by. This is why people of different backgrounds spill secrets to him so easily. Going by the trailer alone, Maguire seems to portray Nick as an uptight, neurotic and highly strung person, which isn't what I imagined Nick to be. Ah, well.
I'm fine with Bachchan as Wolfsheim. Fitzgerald never mentioned Wolfsheim's ethnicity in the book, so film-makers can get away with it.
Oh come on, Tak. Meyer Wolfsheim? Who talks of Gatsby as an 'Ogsford' man? Who was based on the Jewish-American gangster Arnold Rothstein. It's pretty obvious - he's a Kike, a Hebe, a Hooknose, a Red Sea pedestrian - he's Jewish. Wolfsheim being Jewish also fits with Gatsby's backstory and his real name of Jay Gatz. Why on earth cast him as an Indian? I know there's some kind of running joke in the US as to who the 'new Jews' are - maybe it's a nod to that.
I do actually agree re DiCaprio. However, I'm still looking forward to the film, because Carey Mulligan strikes me as ideal for Daisy. Plus I love the book so much, so I like to see any adaptations.
I'm really struggling with that. Carey Mulligan is pretty enough but Daisy has to have a compelling beauty and exude Southern breeding and that sense of 'otherness' about the rich that so fascinated Scott Fitzgerald. Carey Mulligan would be fine as Daisy's maid..:D
Why the eye-rolling? I'm sure the choice of music makes sense in Baz Luhrmann's scheme of things. He's used pop to good effect before.
That's a very impressive new trailer, btw. Heavy on the flamboyant CGI-eye candy (the fakeness of the American dream?).
Though I have the feeling this film will divide people quite distinctly, it's good to see Luhrmann giving it the full-on treatment.
Indeed. You can't infer too much about the whole film from a trailer - they tend to choose the flashiest and most spectacular bits to grab people's attention.
I do hope there isn't too much of that ghastly auto-tuned R&B in it but, as you say, if you're trying to convey shallowness and style over content, musically, you can't get much better than that stuff.:D
Oh come on, Tak. Meyer Wolfsheim? Who talks of Gatsby as an 'Ogsford' man? Who was based on the Jewish-American gangster Arnold Rothstein. It's pretty obvious - he's a Kike, a Hebe, a Hooknose, a Red Sea pedestrian - he's Jewish. Wolfsheim being Jewish also fits with Gatsby's backstory and his real name of Jay Gatz. Why on earth cast him as an Indian? I know there's some kind of running joke in the US as to who the 'new Jews' are - maybe it's a nod to that.
But Gatsby isn't Jewish, though. He's from Minnesota, home to German, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish immigrants.
I had an impression that Gatsby and Wolfsheim met through Gatsby's mentor's connections. Millionaire Dan Cody introduced Gatsby to the rich society and its shadows while they travelled the world on his boat with Gatsby as a skipper or something like it. After he died and after the war, Gatsby reconnected with Cody's connections and met Wolfsheim along the way. I may wrong, though, of course.
I hadn't heard that he was modelled after Rothstein, though. I'd love to read up on it. Any suggestions, please?
I'm really struggling with that. Carey Mulligan is pretty enough but Daisy has to have a compelling beauty and exude Southern breeding and that sense of 'otherness' about the rich that so fascinated Scott Fitzgerald. Carey Mulligan would be fine as Daisy's maid..:D
But Gatsby isn't Jewish, though. He's from Minnesota, home to German, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish immigrants.
I had an impression that Gatsby and Wolfsheim met through Gatsby's mentor's connections. Millionaire Dan Cody introduced Gatsby to the rich society and its shadows while they travelled the world on his boat with Gatsby as a skipper or something like it. After he died and after the war, Gatsby reconnected with Cody's connections and met Wolfsheim along the way. I may wrong, though, of course.
I hadn't heard that he was modelled after Rothstein, though. I'd love to read up on it. Any suggestions, please?
Yes, I think that is the sequence of events. It's how Gatz gets his first sight of the glittering world of the rich. As Jews were establishment outsiders (no matter how rich) at the time Scott Fitzgerald was writing, I'd always assumed that the name Gatz suggested Yiddish origins, linking Wolfsheim's outsider status to that of Gatsby, both being Jewish. Of course, one of the key features of the novel is how non-specific much of the narrative is. Look at the number of times Nick uses verbs suggesting vagueness.
The Great Gatsby is one of my favourite novels and I re-read it every couple of years. Some of the editions out now have comprehensive introductions that flesh out quite a lot of the background of the novel, so I tend to read those rather than specific texts about the book. So, sorry, no specific suggestions. I picked up the bit about Rothstein from one of those intros but I see it's mentioned on wikipedia, together with suggestions for some of the other characters as well. Wiki's as good a place as any to start.
I'm looking forward to, and nervous about, the forthcoming film in equal measure. It's bitch of a book to film but Luhrman has shown a remarkable talent for re-inventing old stories without losing their essence. I loved Romeo & Juliet, even though Shakespeare never sounds quite right to me in an American accent. Heck, what's the worst that can happen? If nothing else, it'll increase interest in the quintessential American novel and that can't be a bad thing.
Yes, I think that is the sequence of events. It's how Gatz gets his first sight of the glittering world of the rich. As Jews were establishment outsiders (no matter how rich) at the time Scott Fitzgerald was writing, I'd always assumed that the name Gatz suggested Yiddish origins, linking Wolfsheim's outsider status to that of Gatsby, both being Jewish. Of course, one of the key features of the novel is how non-specific much of the narrative is. Look at the number of times Nick uses verbs suggesting vagueness.
Fair enough. I took it for granted that his family roots were non-Jewish German. Mostly because his first name was John or James, and I already knew Gatz was essentially German as I had a school friend (of non-Jewish German ancestry) with that surname.
I also felt the name change was due to Gatsby's anxiety that 'Gatz' seemed associated with 'immigrant' albeit 'poor'. You know he never liked his family's economic status, which made him embarrassed and resentful. This became a dominant issue when Daisy got married. It had him believing that his lack of pedigree and wealth were a barrier between them. Especially when comparing himself with Tom, who's from Nick and Daisy's world. Hence, his social climbing ambitions.
I was already aware that there were Jewish people in 'aristocratic' families like the Rothschilds, the Belmonts and other members of the elite 400 during the gilded era. So it didn't occur to me that it'd be an issue, let alone realising that Gatsby was Jewish.
So yeah, a massive assumption on my part.
Edited: I want to address your comment: "Look at the number of times Nick uses verbs suggesting vagueness."
I actually associated it with Gatsby's own vagueness. He was usually vague with facts about his family, past and achievements, and Nick responded to that. He never seemed sure whether Gatsby had told him the truth. Now I'm wondering if I got it wrong all along. Time to re-read the book, eh? Might as well.
I'm looking forward to, and nervous about, the forthcoming film in equal measure. It's bitch of a book to film but Luhrman has shown a remarkable talent for re-inventing old stories without losing their essence.
I agree, and that's what I'm hoping for with this version. Should be fun either way.
Fair enough. I took it for granted that his family roots were non-Jewish German. Mostly because his first name was John or James, and I already knew Gatz was essentially German as I had a school friend (of non-Jewish German ancestry) with that surname.
So yeah, a massive assumption on my part.
Edited: I want to address your comment: "Look at the number of times Nick uses verbs suggesting vagueness."
I actually associated it with Gatsby's own vagueness. He was usually vague with facts about his family, past and achievements, and Nick responded to that. He never seemed sure whether Gatsby had told him the truth. Now I'm wondering if I got it wrong all along. Time to re-read the book, eh? Might as well.
BIB: sorry, I didn't make it clear, I have also assumed that Gatsby was Jewish - I haven't seen it confirmed anywhere.:o
Re the vagueness thing. Tony Tanner's superb introduction to the Penguin Classic of 2000 estimates that about 4% of the book is in Gatsby's own words and that this was considerably reduced by Scott Fitzgerald from the initial draft. So we get far more of Nick's 'hypothesising, speculating, imagining - and, perhaps suppressing, recasting, fantasising. His account is constantly marked by such words and phrases as the following: I suppose, I suspect, I think; possibly, probably, perhaps; I've heard it said, he seemed to say, there must have been, I have an idea that, I always had the impression. As though and as if (used over 60 times) constantly introduce his own transforming similes and metamorphosing metaphors into the account.'
So it's not just Gatsby's own vagueness about his origins and earlier life but also Nick's interpretation of events and conversations - a whole other level of uncertainty. Nick kind of hero-worships Gatsby and that makes him an unreliable witness. Heck, I've rambled on for long enough.:o Go and read it again and ask yourself whether Tobey Maguire has the acting chops to pull off a character like Nick Carraway who tells us:
I liked to walk up Fifth Avenue and pick out romantic women from the crowd and imagine in a few minutes I was going to enter into their lives, and no one would ever know or disapprove. Sometimes, in my mind, I followed them to their apartments on the corners of hidden streets, and they turned and smiled back at me before they faded through a door into warm darkness. At the enchanted metropolitan twilight I felt a haunting loneliness sometimes, and felt it in others - poor young clerks who loitered in front of windows waiting until it was time for a solitary restaurant dinner - young clerks in the dusk, wasting the most poignant moments of night and life.
I'm fine with Bachchan as Wolfsheim. Fitzgerald never mentioned Wolfsheim's ethnicity in the book, so film-makers can get away with it.
From the book (chapter four):
'Roaring noon. In a well-fanned Forty-second Street cellar I met Gatsby for lunch. Blinking away the brightness of the street outside my eyes picked him out obscurely in the anteroom, talking to another man.
'"Mr. Carraway this is my friend Mr. Wolfshiem."
'A small, flat-nosed Jew raised his large head and regarded me with two fine growths of hair which luxuriated in either nostril. After a moment I discovered his tiny eyes in the half darkness.'
Still, I do agree with you that Gatsby probably wasn't Jewish, or at least that was not necessary to the story as such. His family were farmers (obviously, this also depends on whether you believe the backstory about Gatsby), and although there were some Jewish farmers in the US at the time (I'm talking about the 1890s to the 1910s, the period when Gatsby would have been growing up), they were relatively rare. Still, I could be wrong about the rarity, although a Google search seems to suggest that I'm not that far off (seems that in the 1920s that the number shoots up, but then that's way after Gatsby leaves home).
As for the film, I'm actually dreading its arrival. I've not cared for any of Baz Luhrmann's films, particularly despising his crass attempt at Romeo and Juliet. Hopefully my fears will be proved wrong... but I doubt it.
Thanks for the quotation (I had forgotten about the nose hair!), but I knew he was Jewish. I was referring to his race.
There have been Jewish people of different ethnicities/races including Indian, Japanese, Chinese, African and so on; just like there are Catholic, Christian and Muslim people of those ethnicities. Sculptor Anish Kapoor and author Esther David, for instance, are Jewish. In Gatsby's time, there were Hollywood actress Ruby Myers, Abraham Barak Salem and Sir Horace Kadoorie.
Yes, Fitzgerald most likely meant exactly what his text implies: a white Jew, but the fact he didn't specifically confirm this allows filmmakers to get away with it. They can thank the fact that he was one of the white-as-default subscribers. By this, I mean authors don't mention white characters' ethnicity while they do for everyone else who isn't white.
For instance, when a character is white, authors rarely mention or describe the character's actual ethnicity. It's usually everything but ethnicity itself. When a character isn't white or 'one of us', the author will either describe skin colour, use common descriptors or stereotypical traits to make it clear that the character isn't white, e.g. "A blond glanced at his Indian friend." or "A tall, lanky man with the skin of coffee jumped onto a platform while a red-haired man watched out for a security guard."
Readers including myself are guilty of this charge. When a character's race isn't mentioned in a traditional literary sense, we assume the character is white. You should pick up any novel and see if you could compare how its author describe characters of various ethnicities.
I'm willing to bet that you won't find a mention of ethnicity for white characters. I mean, there is an assumption that only white people can be blonde or red-haired, which isn't true. There have always been a number of non-white blondes or redheads. Malcolm X was a redhead, wasn't he? We all have seen a blue- or green-eyed South Asian at least once in our lives, so why the assumption that only white people can be blue-eyed? Likewise, why the assumption that only brown people can be Muslim when there are white, black and Chinese Muslims?
Of course, it's all down to being exposed to what's around us. We now accept the idea of having white people as Buddhists (thanks to famous Buddhists like actor Richard Gere) and people of any ethnicity as curryhouse chefs (thanks to our adoption of curry as a national dish). We've learnt that anyone can speak any language, so when we overhear someone speaking Japanese, we don't assume that that person is ethnically Japanese. We wait until we could see that person before deciding. Same thing with literature. We trust authors to do the job in describing characters as much as they can. When a crucial piece of information is missing, we make an assumption to fill that gap. Knowing this, authors take advantage of our conditioned assumptions to get away with using basic literary codes.
However, the 'white as default' habit can be advantageous for some filmmakers. When an author failed to note their characters' ethnicity in text, filmmakers can give these roles to actors of any ethnicity. Hence, my 'whatever rocks your boat, sir' reaction to Luhrmann's casting of Bachchan for the Meyer Wolfsheim role.
Still, I do agree with you that Gatsby probably wasn't Jewish, or at least that was not necessary to the story as such. His family were farmers (obviously, this also depends on whether you believe the backstory about Gatsby), and although there were some Jewish farmers in the US at the time (I'm talking about the 1890s to the 1910s, the period when Gatsby would have been growing up), they were relatively rare. Still, I could be wrong about the rarity, although a Google search seems to suggest that I'm not that far off (seems that in the 1920s that the number shoots up, but then that's way after Gatsby leaves home).
That's the basis I operated on when I read the book too many years ago.
As for the film, I'm actually dreading its arrival. I've not cared for any of Baz Luhrmann's films, particularly despising his crass attempt at Romeo and Juliet. Hopefully my fears will be proved wrong... but I doubt it.
I think it'll be a flawed gem, which is surely better than a complete failure. Then again, I didn't like earlier versions so I'm rather desperate for a better version. Hence, my high exceptations. Which isn't probably wise.
BIB: sorry, I didn't make it clear, I have also assumed that Gatsby was Jewish - I haven't seen it confirmed anywhere.:o
Oh, I know. I meant I'd completely failed to consider that angle you suggested.
Re the vagueness thing. Tony Tanner's superb introduction to the Penguin Classic of 2000 [...]
So it's not just Gatsby's own vagueness about his origins and earlier life but also Nick's interpretation of events and conversations - a whole other level of uncertainty. Nick kind of hero-worships Gatsby and that makes him an unreliable witness. Heck, I've rambled on for long enough.:o Go and read it again and ask yourself whether Tobey Maguire has the acting chops to pull off a character like Nick Carraway who tells us:
I will buy that edition. Thanks so much for that awesome insight, too. Hah, I didn't like the casting of Maguire at all. Nick is essentially a social chameleon, which is something I can't imagine Maguire pulling off. He's too neurotic and gormless for my taste.
I liked to walk up Fifth Avenue and pick out romantic women from the crowd and imagine in a few minutes I was going to enter into their lives, and no one would ever know or disapprove. Sometimes, in my mind, I followed them to their apartments on the corners of hidden streets, and they turned and smiled back at me before they faded through a door into warm darkness. At the enchanted metropolitan twilight I felt a haunting loneliness sometimes, and felt it in others - poor young clerks who loitered in front of windows waiting until it was time for a solitary restaurant dinner - young clerks in the dusk, wasting the most poignant moments of night and life.
Who knew you were such a romantic? I'm willing to bet my collection that you like Jack Vettriano's works.
Thanks for the quotation (I had forgotten about the nose hair!), but I knew he was Jewish. I was referring to his race.
There have been Jewish people of different ethnicities/races including Indian, Japanese, Chinese, African and so on; just like there are Catholic, Christian and Muslim people of those ethnicities.
Yes, good points; you're right. Mind you, I don't object to the use of an Asian for this role, whether as a Jew or not. My only issue would be the playing of the WASP characters, as that's definitely stated in the book and has real relevance to the story.
I think it'll be a flawed gem, which is surely better than a complete failure. Then again, I didn't like earlier versions so I'm rather desperate for a better version. Hence, my high exceptations. Which isn't probably wise.
Well, I hope you're right and will give my final judgement once I've actually seen it. This story deserves a better film than what it's got over the years. The Redford version is a bit so-and-so, but the book deserved better.
I'm a little confused by the music choices for this film given that it is set in the 1920s. Still quite looking forward to seeing it though as I had to study it for AS English in 2008.
I have to say that Leonardo di Caprio is growing on me as Gatsby but it surely must be clear to everyone by now that Carey Mulligan is woefully miscast as Daisy.
And what, exactly, is wrong with her appearance? Fitzgerald gives no detailed description whatsoever about Daisy's appearance, so I can't understand why you're using that as your reason for writing Carey Mulligan off before she's even spoken a word. There are no rules about what Daisy should look like.
The character has been blonde in every other film adaptation regardless of whether Fitzgerald actually intended her to be or not (and that's open to debate). The only difference I can see from previous adaptations is Mulligan's cropped hair rather than curls (and Fitzgerald isn't even specific about her hair anyway). She has the bright eyes and she's pretty, so what is the problem? If you're going to write her off without foundation, at least explain why rather than just make a sweeping statement about her appearance...
Any perceived differences of look between the WASPish Daisy and Carey Mulligan can be overcome by the actor's talent filling the role. I'm fairly confident that Mulligan is a good enough actress to overcome such difficulties, in much the same way that Colin Firth was able to fill in the role of George VI in The King's Speech, despite looking nothing like him (Bruno Ganz as Hitler in Downfall springs to mind, too). Sure, Carey Mulligan doesn't hit me as what I'd expect Daisy to be like in appearance, but she's not too wildly different and I'm sure she can overcome such a difference if allowed. I'm more worried that it's a Baz Luhrmann film than if Carey Mulligan looks WASPish enough...
I'm looking forward to this because the novel is one of my absolute favourites. I'm a little apprehensive as to how it will be handled though. Mulligan is a good actress and has the look to pull of a 20s flapper kind of thing but I'm not sure about her as Daisy. DiCaprio is growing on me as Gatsby though he's probably a few years too old for the role strictly speaking. I think Toby Maguire will be good though.
I'm interested to see how the soundtrack will work. Lana Del Rey's song sounds goo because it captures the languidness as well as the hopelessness of the book. Not sure about some of the other inclusions. I certainly hope there is at least some period music - jazz and swing is a must for the parties.
And what, exactly, is wrong with her appearance? Fitzgerald gives no detailed description whatsoever about Daisy's appearance, so I can't understand why you're using that as your reason for writing Carey Mulligan off before she's even spoken a word. There are no rules about what Daisy should look like.
The character has been blonde in every other film adaptation regardless of whether Fitzgerald actually intended her to be or not (and that's open to debate). The only difference I can see from previous adaptations is Mulligan's cropped hair rather than curls (and Fitzgerald isn't even specific about her hair anyway). She has the bright eyes and she's pretty, so what is the problem? If you're going to write her off without foundation, at least explain why rather than just make a sweeping statement about her appearance...
As you know, Scott Fitzgerald is famously sparse on the physical description of the characters in The Great Gatsby. He doesn't actually say that they aren't all black but only someone who knew nothing about the US in the early 20th Century would argue that Jamie Foxx would make an ideal Gatsby. Carey Mulligan is pretty enough in a vaguely Celtic way but she has far from the Southern breeding and WASPish elegance that Scott Fitzgerald hints that Daisy has. I mean, of course, Daisy might have been a right munter but for Gatsby to be so infatuated with her, I'm guessing she's closer to Audrey Hepburn than Wee Jimmy Krankie; we men are a bit shallow like that.
As for the actress only having to get the voice right, how on earth are we going to know whether she does or not? Scott Fitzgerald's famous line that 'her voice was full of money' is deliberately vague, like so much else in the novel. Even if we did know exactly what that voice sounds like, does that mean that Kathy Bates would make a convincing Daisy if she could pull off the accent?
Look, I suspect Luhrman's trying to subvert the stereotypes of the novel or something by casting Mulligan but there are a lot of better choices out there.
Carey Mulligan is pretty enough in a vaguely Celtic way but she has far from the Southern breeding and WASPish elegance that Scott Fitzgerald hints that Daisy has.
So, what you're saying is Daisy is supposed to be like Daisy in the book rather than the Daisy who's right for Luhrmann's interpretation?
And, even if she is, Mulligan hasn't got the acting chops to pull it off?
So, what you're saying is Daisy is supposed to be like Daisy in the book rather than the Daisy who's right for Luhrmann's interpretation?
And, even if she is, Mulligan hasn't got the acting chops to pull it off?
If you read my last paragraph, I do indeed mention that Luhrman's vision may be quite different to the novel. However, not having seen the film yet (have you?) the book's all I've got to go on. The fact that Luhrman seems to using a heck of a lot from Scott Fitzgerald's book suggests he wants it to bear at least some resemblance to the novel.
The fact that Luhrman seems to using a heck of a lot from Scott Fitzgerald's book suggests he wants it to bear at least some resemblance to the novel.
Which shouldn't be too surprising when you choose a bring a text like this to the screen.
However, given Lurhmann's record, and in the way it's being handled by its studio, this looks like a production where a lot of very forthright decisions have been made. I imagine it's going to be a film that works on its own terms rather than as a doleful, respectful, visual tracing over the book's plot points (which anyone could do, when you think about it).
It's certainly a lot more interesting proposition than that, but will probably prove very divisive considering the seemingly eternal appeal of the book itself.
Comments
Oh come on, Tak. Meyer Wolfsheim? Who talks of Gatsby as an 'Ogsford' man? Who was based on the Jewish-American gangster Arnold Rothstein. It's pretty obvious - he's a Kike, a Hebe, a Hooknose, a Red Sea pedestrian - he's Jewish
I'm really struggling with that. Carey Mulligan is pretty enough but Daisy has to have a compelling beauty and exude Southern breeding and that sense of 'otherness' about the rich that so fascinated Scott Fitzgerald. Carey Mulligan would be fine as Daisy's maid..:D
Indeed. You can't infer too much about the whole film from a trailer - they tend to choose the flashiest and most spectacular bits to grab people's attention.
I do hope there isn't too much of that ghastly auto-tuned R&B in it but, as you say, if you're trying to convey shallowness and style over content, musically, you can't get much better than that stuff.:D
But Gatsby isn't Jewish, though. He's from Minnesota, home to German, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish immigrants.
I had an impression that Gatsby and Wolfsheim met through Gatsby's mentor's connections. Millionaire Dan Cody introduced Gatsby to the rich society and its shadows while they travelled the world on his boat with Gatsby as a skipper or something like it. After he died and after the war, Gatsby reconnected with Cody's connections and met Wolfsheim along the way. I may wrong, though, of course.
I hadn't heard that he was modelled after Rothstein, though. I'd love to read up on it. Any suggestions, please?
I have to agree with that.
Yes, I think that is the sequence of events. It's how Gatz gets his first sight of the glittering world of the rich. As Jews were establishment outsiders (no matter how rich) at the time Scott Fitzgerald was writing, I'd always assumed that the name Gatz suggested Yiddish origins, linking Wolfsheim's outsider status to that of Gatsby, both being Jewish. Of course, one of the key features of the novel is how non-specific much of the narrative is. Look at the number of times Nick uses verbs suggesting vagueness.
The Great Gatsby is one of my favourite novels and I re-read it every couple of years. Some of the editions out now have comprehensive introductions that flesh out quite a lot of the background of the novel, so I tend to read those rather than specific texts about the book. So, sorry, no specific suggestions. I picked up the bit about Rothstein from one of those intros but I see it's mentioned on wikipedia, together with suggestions for some of the other characters as well. Wiki's as good a place as any to start.
I'm looking forward to, and nervous about, the forthcoming film in equal measure. It's bitch of a book to film but Luhrman has shown a remarkable talent for re-inventing old stories without losing their essence. I loved Romeo & Juliet, even though Shakespeare never sounds quite right to me in an American accent. Heck, what's the worst that can happen? If nothing else, it'll increase interest in the quintessential American novel and that can't be a bad thing.
Fair enough. I took it for granted that his family roots were non-Jewish German. Mostly because his first name was John or James, and I already knew Gatz was essentially German as I had a school friend (of non-Jewish German ancestry) with that surname.
I also felt the name change was due to Gatsby's anxiety that 'Gatz' seemed associated with 'immigrant' albeit 'poor'. You know he never liked his family's economic status, which made him embarrassed and resentful. This became a dominant issue when Daisy got married. It had him believing that his lack of pedigree and wealth were a barrier between them. Especially when comparing himself with Tom, who's from Nick and Daisy's world. Hence, his social climbing ambitions.
I was already aware that there were Jewish people in 'aristocratic' families like the Rothschilds, the Belmonts and other members of the elite 400 during the gilded era. So it didn't occur to me that it'd be an issue, let alone realising that Gatsby was Jewish.
So yeah, a massive assumption on my part.
Edited: I want to address your comment: "Look at the number of times Nick uses verbs suggesting vagueness."
I actually associated it with Gatsby's own vagueness. He was usually vague with facts about his family, past and achievements, and Nick responded to that. He never seemed sure whether Gatsby had told him the truth. Now I'm wondering if I got it wrong all along. Time to re-read the book, eh? Might as well.
I agree, and that's what I'm hoping for with this version. Should be fun either way.
BIB: sorry, I didn't make it clear, I have also assumed that Gatsby was Jewish - I haven't seen it confirmed anywhere.:o
Re the vagueness thing. Tony Tanner's superb introduction to the Penguin Classic of 2000 estimates that about 4% of the book is in Gatsby's own words and that this was considerably reduced by Scott Fitzgerald from the initial draft. So we get far more of Nick's 'hypothesising, speculating, imagining - and, perhaps suppressing, recasting, fantasising. His account is constantly marked by such words and phrases as the following: I suppose, I suspect, I think; possibly, probably, perhaps; I've heard it said, he seemed to say, there must have been, I have an idea that, I always had the impression. As though and as if (used over 60 times) constantly introduce his own transforming similes and metamorphosing metaphors into the account.'
So it's not just Gatsby's own vagueness about his origins and earlier life but also Nick's interpretation of events and conversations - a whole other level of uncertainty. Nick kind of hero-worships Gatsby and that makes him an unreliable witness. Heck, I've rambled on for long enough.:o Go and read it again and ask yourself whether Tobey Maguire has the acting chops to pull off a character like Nick Carraway who tells us:
I liked to walk up Fifth Avenue and pick out romantic women from the crowd and imagine in a few minutes I was going to enter into their lives, and no one would ever know or disapprove. Sometimes, in my mind, I followed them to their apartments on the corners of hidden streets, and they turned and smiled back at me before they faded through a door into warm darkness. At the enchanted metropolitan twilight I felt a haunting loneliness sometimes, and felt it in others - poor young clerks who loitered in front of windows waiting until it was time for a solitary restaurant dinner - young clerks in the dusk, wasting the most poignant moments of night and life.
From the book (chapter four):
Still, I do agree with you that Gatsby probably wasn't Jewish, or at least that was not necessary to the story as such. His family were farmers (obviously, this also depends on whether you believe the backstory about Gatsby), and although there were some Jewish farmers in the US at the time (I'm talking about the 1890s to the 1910s, the period when Gatsby would have been growing up), they were relatively rare. Still, I could be wrong about the rarity, although a Google search seems to suggest that I'm not that far off (seems that in the 1920s that the number shoots up, but then that's way after Gatsby leaves home).
As for the film, I'm actually dreading its arrival. I've not cared for any of Baz Luhrmann's films, particularly despising his crass attempt at Romeo and Juliet. Hopefully my fears will be proved wrong... but I doubt it.
Thanks for the quotation (I had forgotten about the nose hair!), but I knew he was Jewish. I was referring to his race.
There have been Jewish people of different ethnicities/races including Indian, Japanese, Chinese, African and so on; just like there are Catholic, Christian and Muslim people of those ethnicities. Sculptor Anish Kapoor and author Esther David, for instance, are Jewish. In Gatsby's time, there were Hollywood actress Ruby Myers, Abraham Barak Salem and Sir Horace Kadoorie.
Yes, Fitzgerald most likely meant exactly what his text implies: a white Jew, but the fact he didn't specifically confirm this allows filmmakers to get away with it. They can thank the fact that he was one of the white-as-default subscribers. By this, I mean authors don't mention white characters' ethnicity while they do for everyone else who isn't white.
For instance, when a character is white, authors rarely mention or describe the character's actual ethnicity. It's usually everything but ethnicity itself. When a character isn't white or 'one of us', the author will either describe skin colour, use common descriptors or stereotypical traits to make it clear that the character isn't white, e.g. "A blond glanced at his Indian friend." or "A tall, lanky man with the skin of coffee jumped onto a platform while a red-haired man watched out for a security guard."
Readers including myself are guilty of this charge. When a character's race isn't mentioned in a traditional literary sense, we assume the character is white. You should pick up any novel and see if you could compare how its author describe characters of various ethnicities.
I'm willing to bet that you won't find a mention of ethnicity for white characters. I mean, there is an assumption that only white people can be blonde or red-haired, which isn't true. There have always been a number of non-white blondes or redheads. Malcolm X was a redhead, wasn't he? We all have seen a blue- or green-eyed South Asian at least once in our lives, so why the assumption that only white people can be blue-eyed? Likewise, why the assumption that only brown people can be Muslim when there are white, black and Chinese Muslims?
Of course, it's all down to being exposed to what's around us. We now accept the idea of having white people as Buddhists (thanks to famous Buddhists like actor Richard Gere) and people of any ethnicity as curryhouse chefs (thanks to our adoption of curry as a national dish). We've learnt that anyone can speak any language, so when we overhear someone speaking Japanese, we don't assume that that person is ethnically Japanese. We wait until we could see that person before deciding. Same thing with literature. We trust authors to do the job in describing characters as much as they can. When a crucial piece of information is missing, we make an assumption to fill that gap. Knowing this, authors take advantage of our conditioned assumptions to get away with using basic literary codes.
However, the 'white as default' habit can be advantageous for some filmmakers. When an author failed to note their characters' ethnicity in text, filmmakers can give these roles to actors of any ethnicity. Hence, my 'whatever rocks your boat, sir' reaction to Luhrmann's casting of Bachchan for the Meyer Wolfsheim role.
That's the basis I operated on when I read the book too many years ago.
I think it'll be a flawed gem, which is surely better than a complete failure. Then again, I didn't like earlier versions so I'm rather desperate for a better version. Hence, my high exceptations. Which isn't probably wise.
Oh, I know. I meant I'd completely failed to consider that angle you suggested.
I will buy that edition. Thanks so much for that awesome insight, too. Hah, I didn't like the casting of Maguire at all. Nick is essentially a social chameleon, which is something I can't imagine Maguire pulling off. He's too neurotic and gormless for my taste.
Who knew you were such a romantic? I'm willing to bet my collection that you like Jack Vettriano's works.
Yes, good points; you're right. Mind you, I don't object to the use of an Asian for this role, whether as a Jew or not. My only issue would be the playing of the WASP characters, as that's definitely stated in the book and has real relevance to the story.
Well, I hope you're right and will give my final judgement once I've actually seen it. This story deserves a better film than what it's got over the years. The Redford version is a bit so-and-so, but the book deserved better.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/i555186-9/the-great-gatsby-character-posters-leonardo-dicaprio-as-jay-gatsby.html#a472795
I have to say that Leonardo di Caprio is growing on me as Gatsby but it surely must be clear to everyone by now that Carey Mulligan is woefully miscast as Daisy.
It surely must be clear to everyone to wait and actually see the movie and give her a chance before making such a sweeping statement :rolleyes:
Not when the miscasting is due to her appearance.
Oh and :rolleyes:
As said, let's wait and see.
And what, exactly, is wrong with her appearance? Fitzgerald gives no detailed description whatsoever about Daisy's appearance, so I can't understand why you're using that as your reason for writing Carey Mulligan off before she's even spoken a word. There are no rules about what Daisy should look like.
The character has been blonde in every other film adaptation regardless of whether Fitzgerald actually intended her to be or not (and that's open to debate). The only difference I can see from previous adaptations is Mulligan's cropped hair rather than curls (and Fitzgerald isn't even specific about her hair anyway). She has the bright eyes and she's pretty, so what is the problem? If you're going to write her off without foundation, at least explain why rather than just make a sweeping statement about her appearance...
I'm interested to see how the soundtrack will work. Lana Del Rey's song sounds goo because it captures the languidness as well as the hopelessness of the book. Not sure about some of the other inclusions. I certainly hope there is at least some period music - jazz and swing is a must for the parties.
As you know, Scott Fitzgerald is famously sparse on the physical description of the characters in The Great Gatsby. He doesn't actually say that they aren't all black but only someone who knew nothing about the US in the early 20th Century would argue that Jamie Foxx would make an ideal Gatsby. Carey Mulligan is pretty enough in a vaguely Celtic way but she has far from the Southern breeding and WASPish elegance that Scott Fitzgerald hints that Daisy has. I mean, of course, Daisy might have been a right munter but for Gatsby to be so infatuated with her, I'm guessing she's closer to Audrey Hepburn than Wee Jimmy Krankie; we men are a bit shallow like that.
As for the actress only having to get the voice right, how on earth are we going to know whether she does or not? Scott Fitzgerald's famous line that 'her voice was full of money' is deliberately vague, like so much else in the novel. Even if we did know exactly what that voice sounds like, does that mean that Kathy Bates would make a convincing Daisy if she could pull off the accent?
Look, I suspect Luhrman's trying to subvert the stereotypes of the novel or something by casting Mulligan but there are a lot of better choices out there.
And, even if she is, Mulligan hasn't got the acting chops to pull it off?
If you read my last paragraph, I do indeed mention that Luhrman's vision may be quite different to the novel. However, not having seen the film yet (have you?) the book's all I've got to go on. The fact that Luhrman seems to using a heck of a lot from Scott Fitzgerald's book suggests he wants it to bear at least some resemblance to the novel.
However, given Lurhmann's record, and in the way it's being handled by its studio, this looks like a production where a lot of very forthright decisions have been made. I imagine it's going to be a film that works on its own terms rather than as a doleful, respectful, visual tracing over the book's plot points (which anyone could do, when you think about it).
It's certainly a lot more interesting proposition than that, but will probably prove very divisive considering the seemingly eternal appeal of the book itself.