Everything about this movie is a little bit off-kilter...except the lead role. Alan Ladd knew all about Gatsby, on a gut level and from the inside out - because he'd been there. He himself had been raised dirt-poor, struggled for years, and then suddenly and unexpectedly found himself showered with riches and fame that he didn't feel he deserved.

Ladd was a much better actor than he's generally given credit for, and where Redford made heavy going of showing two levels of the character (wealthy, mysterious Jay Gatsby and hardscrabble Jimmy Gatz), Ladd shifted effortlessly through *four* levels. There's Gatsby, the elegant man of mystery; Gatz, the tough-as-nails racketeer (a screenplay development based on mere hints in the book); Jay, the young man bedazzled by his apparently-limitless wealth; and Jimmy, the little poor boy who never dreamed he could have or deserve so much. And you can always tell which of them is looking through the character's eyes at any given moment.

He didn't get the support he deserved - not from the studio, not from the casting department, and not from the director. Paramount "knew" that any Ladd film was a surefire moneymaker, so they cut every corner they could find. (The film did indeed make money...but not as much as they expected.) The director didn't particularly want to make this film, and his too-casual approach really hurts it. Several key roles are significantly "off" (Betty Field as Daisy, Barry Sullivan as Tom - who is far too suave for the character as written by Fitzgerald, even Macdonald Carey as Nick Carraway, though he tries hard). Several supporting roles were reshaped to align them with the studio's attempt to cash in on a new cycle of gangster films - Lupus (i.e., Wolfsheim) and Klipspringer become Jimmy Gatz's henchmen instead of independent operators. (Klipspringer is played by Elisha Cook, Jr., and allowed to know Gatsby better than anyone else and to comment on him both verbally and musically. He steals every scene that he is in that he doesn't share with Ladd.)

One cameo role from the book was extensively built-up for this version (and completely excised from the 1974 remake): Dan Cody, played by Henry Hull, who is given a Mephistophelean makeup and archly pointed lines like "Old Dan is a devil - but old Dan is always right". He does, in fact, act as a kind of Mephistopheles to Jimmy Gatz's Faust, giving him a warped sense of values that ultimately leads to catastrophe.

Shelley Winters absolutely nailed Myrtle (it already verged on typecasting), and Howard Da Silva could hardly be bettered as her squelched husband George, the proverbial "worm that turns".

In one respect, though, the stingy budget allowed for greater authenticity. Daisy and Jordan really do arrive at Nick's place in a pouring rain, as in the book, and Gatsby really does step out under a rain-spout to create the impression that he too had just arrived (instead of waiting inside for hours, as he had been). In 1974 nobody wanted to damage the actors' elaborate confections, so the weather was pushed aside.

This version is overall less faithful to the book than the 1974 version...but captures its spirit much more accurately.

This is the second film version of the novel. I have not viewed the 1926 version, but since it is a silent film, and the novel is so chatty, I can hardly think it captures Fitzgerald's vision. The 1974 (3rd) version suffers from two or three problems that overwhelm the lovely props and costumes - an abysmal score, the debatable effect of Redford's grin, and casting mousy Mia Farrow as money-voiced Daisy - a role she cannot fill. Sam Waterson and Bruce Dern are well cast but then mostly have to stand around rather than play off their contrasting physical types. Karen Black perfectly embodies the excess vitality that motivates Tom's adultery. The 2000 A&E/Granada (4th) version comes closer with a more believable Daisy (Mira Sorvino) and an equally everyman Nick (Paul Rudd), but not a better Jay, and then focuses too much on the furniture of Gatsby's criminal activities. It boasts a real Owl Eyes, too. The 1949 version is not perfect either; we can only hope the 2012-oops!-2013 version finally nails it. The '49 version casts Nick as a bit of a dull boy, and fails most by insisting on "squaring" everything, losing in the process the essential melancholy, unfulfilled longing, and insulted morality of the novel. Perhaps it's an artifact of the period, America embracing a sanitized Freudian relativism, putting the Second WW behind it like the First, but this time too sober to try anything like the Roaring 20s. Betty Field is a convincing Daisy, though she falls pretty far from a Louisville débutante. Jordan is not nearly arch enough, Tom not nearly imposing enough. And Dr. TJ Eckleburg...well Gatsby's henchman can't resist explicating a symbol the audience should be allowed to figure out for itself. After an unsteady start, the pace of the film proceeds very well through most of the scenes of the novel, sadly failing to give Shelley Winters the screen time to better develop her Myrtle Wilson. And here's Howard da Silva suitably muted as Wilson, Ed Begley too muted as "Lupus"(Wolfsheim), and Elisha Cook, Jr in an expanded Klipspringer role. In fact, it's almost as if the film makers wanted to write Nick out and replace him with Klipsringer, but didn't dare. They should have, because Cook brings more to the screen than Macdonald Carey. All in all, a very workmanlike adaptation, making use of much of the novel's narration by transforming it into passable dialog, and though the shot composition is a bit straight-on, the camera-work is strong and the editing spot on.

The public's response to the recent remake of The Great Gatsby was unexpectedly strong—and for several weeks it led at the box office. Now this does not mean that it was a huge financial success—but it was a success. Although it made well over $140,000,000 in the US, it cost $100,000,000 to make—but it was well-attended and the critical reviews were mostly positive. However, I did some research and found that there are at least three prior theatrical versions—and they all met different levels of success. There was a 1922 version that is considered lost— and no one has seen this film in decades. There also is the famous 1974 Robert Redford and Mia Farrow film that earned four times its cost to make (wow!). However, there is one other version—one that was thought to be lost up until 2012 and I have had this near the top of my must-see list for years. In 1949, Alan Ladd made the first talking version of the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel—and I had the fortune to see this film over the weekend at the TCM Film Festival. And, I assume that it will soon be available on DVD or will be shown on TCM (so far, it has not). So keep an eye out for it.

This 1949 film does have one strike against it from the outset. The Production Code was still strictly being enforced by the Hays Office. Because of that, some elements of the novel needed to be altered slightly to get it past censors. However, I was thrilled that for the most part the story does follow the book rather closely. It's not perfect in this regard, but is much closer than I'd ever expected.

The story is about a man who suddenly bursts onto the social scene on Long Island during the 1920s. Who he is exactly is unknown to most of his new 'friends', but they know that he sure throws great parties at his enormous mansion. But the viewer is left wondering why…why would Gatsby go to so much trouble and expense to buy this old mansion and redecorate it from top to bottom and then use it to throw lavish parties? Who was he trying to impress and how, exactly, did he come by so much money? Through the course of the film you learn the answers to all these things. And, what I appreciated it that although the man is very flawed and in some ways a villain, he is also a tragic character— one you cannot help but like and feel sorry for by the end of the picture.

The direction was quite competent as was the acting. However, the star was clearly the Fitzgerald novel—and it's hard imagining ANY version of the story being anything other than excellent. It really is a nice story and offers a lot of great twists. Plus, most importantly, it is so unique. I was also surprised at what a nice job Ladd did in the film —especially since he generally showed limited range in his films. He tended to be very stoic and non-emotional and generally played the same sort of tough guys in nearly all his films. Here, however, he shows more range and vulnerability than a typical Ladd film. So why did Alan Ladd make such a film? Was he forced to do it by the studio? Well, the truth is quite different. According to Ladd's son, David (who talked about the film before this special screening on Sunday night), it was a project Ladd forced his studio, Paramount, to make. They LOVED having him play gangsters, cowboys and the like but Ladd himself was impressed by the story and insisted he get a chance to do it. Sadly, the film did NOT do very well at the box office and was soon lost—and Ladd returned to making the sorts of films he'd been making--- enjoyable, yes, but also limited in style. It makes you wonder what might have happened to his career had the film been a success.

Overall, this film was a real treat. It's an intelligent film for folks who are looking for something with great depth of feeling and human frailty.