Has anyone seen "the Great Gatsby" yet?

[icn...@gmail.com]

What did you think of it? I just watched the 1974 version again which featured Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, and it was a fairly well done, underrated movie, Imo... I'll try to keep an open mind when I watch the latest version, even though it's opened to mixed reviews...

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 11, 12:29 am, icn...@gmail.com wrote:
>    What did you think of it? I just watched the 1974 version again which featured Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, and it was a fairly well done, underrated movie, Imo... I'll try to keep an open mind when I watch the latest version, even though it's opened to mixed reviews...

Damn! I was thinking about posting about this earlier tonight but
figured it would be too off-topic for the newsgroup.

I've never seen any film on The Great Gatsby because I like to re-read
that book once every couple of years. I don't want Robert Redford's
or, now, Leonardo DiCaprio's interpretation of that film to interfere
with what I imagine as I read it.

Huckleberry Finn is another book I'm that way about.

But, this new film is supposed to be using a soundtrack that is
supposed to pull a **younger** generation in. I think that says
something that the filmmakers don't have enough confidence in the
story that it would pull in an audience on it's own merits.

So, I'm really curious as what music they used and how it affected the
film. But, I don't personally want to watch any Great Gatsby movie.

[RichL]

"Bernie Woodham" <birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:a8b34c74-ea91-4a4e...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

Based on a few reviews I've heard and read, it's not worth seeing (from my
perspective) unless you're into atmospherics rather than story line.

Generally, I've been disappointed by movies based on good literature.
Granted, it's difficult to cram all the contents of a good book into a
two-hours-or-so film. In cases where I've read the book first, I'm
inevitably disappointed. When I've seen the film first and come away
thinking it was good, then read the book later, I'm amazed at the amount of
nuance and characterization that the film left out.

The only exception to the above that I can think of is "To Kill A
Mockingbird". I saw the film first then read the book, and I wasn't
disappointed in either.

[icn...@gmail.com]

Funny you should say that Rich, I feel exactly the same way... "To Kill a mockingbird" and "the Godfather" and possibly "Gone with the wind" are one of the few examples that I can think of of the movie being equal to or better than the book... "Rebecca" was an excellent movie, but the ending spoils it somewhat do to censhorship, so the book is a slightly better, Imo....

[Just Kidding]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:10:39 -0700 (PDT), icn...@gmail.com wrote:

> Funny you should say that Rich, I feel exactly the same way... "To Kill a mockingbird" and "the Godfather" and possibly "Gone with the wind" are one of the few examples that I can think of of the movie being equal to or better than the book... "Rebecca" was an excellent movie, but the ending spoils it somewhat do to censhorship, so the book is a slightly better, Imo....

A number of Charles Dickens novels have been translated successfully
to film, among them:

-- A Christmas Carol (the 1951 Alistair Sim version in particular,
although others have been well done)
-- Great Expectations (David Lean's 1946 version)
-- Nicholas Nickleby (2002)
-- Oliver Twist (again David Lean; Polanski's version is also good)

[really real]

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is often thought of as a better movie
than novel

[Will Dockery]

I'm feeling kind of the same way about Kerouac and On The Road... after so many years aof bad Kerouac based films, I'm still wary...

[Just Walkin']

Funny you should say that but I feel the same way about a lot of
books. As for The Great Gatsby, we saw the stage production over at
the Guthrie a few years ago and would prefer to let those worthy
characterizations linger, uncontaminated by the very culture of excess
that pushes this stuff as product to begin with.

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 11, 11:10 am, icn...@gmail.com wrote:
>     Funny you should say that Rich, I feel exactly the same way... "To Kill a mockingbird" and "the Godfather" and possibly "Gone with the wind" are one of the few examples that I can think of of the movie being equal to or better than the book... "Rebecca" was an excellent movie, but the ending spoils it somewhat do to censhorship, so the book is a slightly better, Imo....

Silence of the Lambs. The film doesn't stick to the book completely,
but both are great.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 12:29:27 AM UTC-4, icn...@gmail.com wrote:
> What did you think of it? I just watched the 1974 version again which featured Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, and it was a fairly well done, underrated movie, Imo... I'll try to keep an open mind when I watch the latest version, even though it's opened to mixed reviews...

All this Gatsby discussion mostly makes me think of the great "New Dylan" of 1973, Elliot Murphy and his references to that milleu:

"Waiting on some dream lover Like a Great Gatsby, then I look into the mirror and it's only me..."

http://youtu.be/5QS9GbCoz5s

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 11, 2:32 pm, "Just Walkin'" <kensh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Funny you should say that but I feel the same way about a lot of
> books. As for The Great Gatsby, we saw the stage production over at
> the Guthrie a few years ago and would prefer to let those worthy
> characterizations linger, uncontaminated by the very culture of excess
> that pushes this stuff as product to begin with.

RR mentioned The Cuckoos Nest. I remember seeing a stage production
of that at Illinois Wesleyan in Bloomington, Il. It was just a
college performance, but really enjoyable seeing live.

[RichL]

"Bernie Woodham" <birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote in message

news:778f93f9-61a3-49ce...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

OK, I'll agree that was a great movie. I never read the book, though, so I
can't compare them.

[Just Kidding]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 10:19:30 -0700, really real <reall...@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is often thought of as a better movie
>than novel

Great movie, but it was virtually impossible to translate Kesey's
narrative technique to the film.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On May 11, 4:25 pm, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 10:19:30 -0700, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca>

> wrote:
>
> >One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is often thought of as a better movie
> >than novel
>
> Great movie, but it was virtually impossible to translate Kesey's
> narrative technique to the film.

This thread is illustrative of the difference between Dylan fans, and
people who care about lyrics and poetry, and the music crowd that I'm
part of. I have no interest in reading ANY fiction, and neither do any
of my close music associates. We prefer black music, harmony, rhythm,
etc.....and have no interest in lyrics.

[icn...@gmail.com]

Why does everything have to be so black and white, either/or with you, BB? What happened to duality and nonduality? Isn't there room in this world for plurlism? For music AND lyrics? For heart AND mind AND body AND soul whether in terms of music or literature? Or life? There can be cerebral AND emotional AND sensual etc...

[RichL]

"The Bloomfield Buddy" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:666ba803-f9a0-4b0c...@j20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> This thread is illustrative of the difference between Dylan fans, and
> people who care about lyrics and poetry, and the music crowd that I'm
> part of. I have no interest in reading ANY fiction, and neither do any
> of my close music associates. We prefer black music, harmony, rhythm,
> etc.....and have no interest in lyrics.

So why do you bother posting here?

[gemjack]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 10:41:21 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>The only exception to the above that I can think of is "To Kill A
>Mockingbird". I saw the film first then read the book, and I wasn't
>disappointed in either.

I thought Grapes of Wrath with a young Mr Fonda was well done.
-gj

[gemjack]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 20:27:28 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Cuz that's what loser trolls do.
-gj

[gemjack]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 10:19:30 -0700, really real <reall...@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is often thought of as a better movie
>than novel

I'm clearly in the minority here, we watched this several months back
having never seen it before. Maybe it was the 'dated' 70's style,
slightly campy attitude of Jack, but something about it just made it
not as good as I expected.
-gj

[really real]

>
> This thread is illustrative of the difference between Dylan fans, and
> people who care about lyrics and poetry, and the music crowd that I'm
> part of. I have no interest in reading ANY fiction, and neither do any
> of my close music associates. We prefer black music, harmony, rhythm,
> etc.....and have no interest in lyrics.
>

As a retired high school English teacher, I'd like to point out that
people who read no fiction are missing out on a huge amount of knowledge
about the way the world works.

[RichL]

"gemjack" <geminij...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2l1vo8hd3snm2pb65...@4ax.com...

Yes, it's well done, but it leaves out large portions of the book (by
necessity imposed by time constraints).

[Just Kidding]

I didn't have too much of a problem with Nicholson's approach to the
role, but I don't think he was the ideal choice from a physical
standpoint. Someone like Kesey himself, or Kirk Douglas, who played
the part in the Broadway play, makes more sense to me. Based on the
portrayal in the book, I see McMurphy as a big, rough and tough kind
of guy, and that's definitely not Jack.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On May 12, 5:45 pm, poisoned rose <pros...@poissonedrose.com> wrote:

> The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I have no interest in reading ANY fiction
>

> I can't remotely imagine feeling PROUD of such a shameful confession.

Shameful my fucking ass. I'm interested in reality, not in some
schmuck's fantasies.

[icn...@gmail.com]

Ironically and paraodoxically, what 'really real' said is quite true-one can learn quite a lot about reality(and anything and everything else) from fiction... not only does reading instruct and inform and entertain, but it can stir memories, emotions, insights... it can open up other worlds for us, both external and internal worlds... It can make us think and feel things on much broader, deeper levels... It is quite sad that people as a rule are reading less...

[gemjack]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 14:45:52 -0700, poisoned rose
<pro...@poissonedrose.com> wrote:

>I did get a goofy kick out of
>Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge, though.

I didn't realize he did both. This actually raises my expectations.
-gj

[Bernie Woodham]

Have you ever read Proust? I've thought a lot about reading that but
I understand it is quite an undertaking. If I do take it up it will
be probably a year away. But, everyone who has read it says it will
alter your life.

[really real]

>> As a retired high school English teacher, I'd like to point out that
>> people who read no fiction are missing out on a huge amount of knowledge
>> about the way the world works.
>
> Have you ever read Proust? I've thought a lot about reading that but
> I understand it is quite an undertaking. If I do take it up it will
> be probably a year away. But, everyone who has read it says it will
> alter your life.
>

Interestingly, a philosophic friend recently asked me if I were reading
the classics. I said no, and asked him if he were currently reading any
fiction. He replied, no, he was reading the Greek philosophers.

I told him about the last two fiction books I had read, Billy Lynn's
Long Half Time Walk, about American soldier heroes home from Iraq, and a
book about the wife of an American oilman in Saudi Arabia. I explained
how for me, I learn a lot about what is going on in the world from
contemporary fiction. I did read Silas Marner, once when I ran out of
books traveling, and it was good, but no, I don't have the time or
inclination these days to read Proust or other classics.

[rwalker]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:16:57 -0400, gemjack
<geminij...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I'm in the "the book is better" camp here. The movie is good, but I
think Nicholson was a little over the top compared to the character in
the book.

[M. Rick]

>What did you think of it? I just watched the 1974 version again which featured Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, and it was a fairly well done, underrated movie, Imo... I'll try to keep an open mind when I watch the latest version, even though it's opened to mixed reviews...

It looks like Django to me. Somewhere along the line people lost
interest in cinema and developed an interest in explosives.

[M. Rick]

> Shameful my fucking ass. I'm interested in reality, not in some schmuck's fantasies.

The reality is that you're an idiotic packrat in the company of other
idiotic packrats. I'm not saying that to be insulting but to further
your interest in reality.

[icn...@gmail.com]

there was a 24 hours in a row reading of "Rememberence of days past" at a NYC book store recently... I considered attending for an hour or so of it, but decided not to...

[Just Kidding]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 14:45:42 -0700, poisoned rose
<pro...@poissonedrose.com> wrote:

>The Bloomfield Buddy <Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no interest in reading ANY fiction
>
>I can't remotely imagine feeling PROUD of such a shameful confession.

>Maybe you'd be even more pleased with yourself if you couldn't read at
>all.
>
Personally, I'd be more pleased if he couldn't write at all.

[RichL]

"Just Kidding" <JustK...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nvk0p8djsklmujncu...@4ax.com...

^ What he said ^

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 11, 12:29 am, icn...@gmail.com wrote:
>    What did you think of it? I just watched the 1974 version again which featured Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, and it was a fairly well done, underrated movie, Imo... I'll try to keep an open mind when I watch the latest version, even though it's opened to mixed reviews...

Just an interesting factoid: What F. Scott Fitzgerald made from the
film rights to The Great Gatsby:

http://au.businessinsider.com/f-scott-fitzgerald-movie-earnings-2013-5

[icn...@gmail.com]

well, one thing is for certain: He's not Mr Jones.

[RichL]

<icn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5767b7cc-6064-474d...@googlegroups.com...

Although something IS happening here and he DOESN'T know what it is!

[Jordy Chase]

This recent version was pretty awful... the 1974 version with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow was much better, though Redford was miscast, Imo... Of Course, neither movie can compete with the superb novel...

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 12:29:27 AM UTC-4, Jordy Chase wrote:
> What did you think of it? I just watched the 1974 version again which featured Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, and it was a fairly well done, underrated movie, Imo... I'll try to keep an open mind when I watch the latest version, even though it's opened to mixed reviews...

Haven't seen it yet but I did catch Star Trek Into Darkness and Man Of Steel at the "dollar theatre" recently...

[Jordy Chase]

The 1974 version was *much* better than the glitzy, over the top recent version, Imo... perhaps in the end, Gatsby is not a novel that should be filmed, however... a lot of depth and subtletly and ambiguity that is in the book gets lost on the big screen...

[khematite]

On Sunday, August 25, 2013 12:55:22 AM UTC-4, Jordy Chase wrote:
> The 1974 version was *much* better than the glitzy, over the top recent version, Imo... perhaps in the end, Gatsby is not a novel that should be filmed, however... a lot of depth and subtletly and ambiguity that is in the book gets lost on the big screen...

So, just imagine what the 1926 silent version must have been like. And then there was the 1949 version with Alan Ladd.

[DianeE]

"Jordy Chase" <icn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:50f59d31-5328-4a57...@googlegroups.com...

>
> This recent version was pretty awful... the 1974 version with Robert
> Redford and Mia Farrow was much better, though Redford was miscast, Imo...
> Of Course, neither movie can compete with the superb novel...

--------------
Okay, I've read this damn book 3 times over the course of my life and I
*still* don't understand it. Maybe you can help me out, since you admire
the book. Maybe the answers are in there somewhere and I'm just obtusely
missing them. Or maybe the answers are *supposed* to be blowing in the
wind? Help!

-What the hell did Gatsby *see* in Daisy anyhow? Other than an incredibly
sexy voice (her "murmur"), what did she have that men so desired?

-Did Myrtle continue her affair with Tom after he broke her nose?

-Did Daisy know who Myrtle was? Did she kill her on purpose?

-Why does Nick make fun of Tom's racism, but then exhibit his own: (a) when
he sees the white chauffeur driving the "stylish Negroes" over the 59th
Street Bridge, and (b) when he meets Meyer Wolfsheim and makes innumerable
derogatory comments about W's nose?

This stuff drives me crazy.

Thanks for any light you can shed.
DianeE

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <qsCdnfhICNJ_DofP...@giganews.com>, DianeE

<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:

> "Jordy Chase" <icn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:50f59d31-5328-4a57...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > This recent version was pretty awful... the 1974 version with Robert
> > Redford and Mia Farrow was much better, though Redford was miscast, Imo...
> > Of Course, neither movie can compete with the superb novel...
> --------------
> Okay, I've read this damn book 3 times over the course of my life and I
> *still* don't understand it. Maybe you can help me out, since you admire
> the book. Maybe the answers are in there somewhere and I'm just obtusely
> missing them. Or maybe the answers are *supposed* to be blowing in the
> wind? Help!

Well, you didn't ask me, but I am something of an expert, I guess. So
here goes, as briefly as possible.

> -What the hell did Gatsby *see* in Daisy anyhow? Other than an incredibly
> sexy voice (her "murmur"), what did she have that men so desired?

Money and the aura that money brings. "Her voice is full of money."

> -Did Myrtle continue her affair with Tom after he broke her nose?

Yes. Why? See above. Myrtle is under the illusion that Tom can save her
from her dreadful life above the gas station.

> -Did Daisy know who Myrtle was? Did she kill her on purpose?

No would be my guess, but the book doesn't make it clear.

> -Why does Nick make fun of Tom's racism, but then exhibit his own: (a) when
> he sees the white chauffeur driving the "stylish Negroes" over the 59th
> Street Bridge, and (b) when he meets Meyer Wolfsheim and makes innumerable
> derogatory comments about W's nose?

Tom's racism suggests his insufferable and destructive sense of
privilege and superiority. Nick's "racism" is just the ordinary stuff
of the era, which Fitzgerald probably shared.

> This stuff drives me crazy.
>

It's a good kind of crazy. I wish my students had all been as attentive.

--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply

[Jordy Chase]

I agree with Mark, he said it all very well, Imo... I think it's pretty clear that Myrtle was accidenlty killed when she rushed out into the street to confront who she assumed to be Tom... Still, Daisy was as horrible and callous a person as her asshole husband, and should have stopped... Daisy is indirectly responsable for Gatsby's death and Myrtle's death..

[DianeE]

"Mark Dintenfass" <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
news:250820131857000561%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com...

> In article <qsCdnfhICNJ_DofP...@giganews.com>, DianeE
> <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay, I've read this damn book 3 times over the course of my life and I
>> *still* don't understand it. Maybe you can help me out, since you admire
>> the book. Maybe the answers are in there somewhere and I'm just obtusely
>> missing them. Or maybe the answers are *supposed* to be blowing in the
>> wind? Help!
>
> Well, you didn't ask me, but I am something of an expert, I guess. So
> here goes, as briefly as possible.
>
>> -What the hell did Gatsby *see* in Daisy anyhow? Other than an
>> incredibly
>> sexy voice (her "murmur"), what did she have that men so desired?
>
> Money and the aura that money brings. "Her voice is full of money."

--------------
As I understood it, though, *she* basically married *Tom* for *his* money.
IOW, she wasn't "old money."
-----------------

>
>> -Did Myrtle continue her affair with Tom after he broke her nose?
>
> Yes. Why? See above. Myrtle is under the illusion that Tom can save her
> from her dreadful life above the gas station.

----------------
WHY???? Because why would you continue an affair with someone who broke
your nose?!?!?!? I just *assumed* that episode ended their affair, but then
I got to thinking, if it was over, she wouldn't have run out into the road.

(I could sort of remotely relate this to the topic of this NG by referring
to the "Beyond Here Lies Nothing" video, I guess, but it's such a disturbing
video that I don't want to think about it.)
-----------------

>
>> -Did Daisy know who Myrtle was? Did she kill her on purpose?
>
> No would be my guess, but the book doesn't make it clear.

----------------
Maddening ambiguity there. Is Daisy just "careless" or outright evil? Or
is FSF saying they amount to the same thing?
------------------

>
>> -Why does Nick make fun of Tom's racism, but then exhibit his own: (a)
>> when
>> he sees the white chauffeur driving the "stylish Negroes" over the 59th
>> Street Bridge, and (b) when he meets Meyer Wolfsheim and makes
>> innumerable
>> derogatory comments about W's nose?
>
> Tom's racism suggests his insufferable and destructive sense of
> privilege and superiority. Nick's "racism" is just the ordinary stuff
> of the era, which Fitzgerald probably shared.
>
>> This stuff drives me crazy.
>>
> It's a good kind of crazy. I wish my students had all been as attentive.

----------------
Thank you! Thank you very much!

DianeE

[DianeE]

"Jordy Chase" <icn...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:d9ab6d0c-27f2-4401...@googlegroups.com...

------------
Yes, she is; I guess the tragedy in the book is Gatsby's obsession with her.
Thanks for the response. I don't know anyone in real life that I can talk
to about stuff like this.

DianeE

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <t9-dnX5X3N3moYbP...@giganews.com>, DianeE

<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:

> "Mark Dintenfass" <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:250820131857000561%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com...
> > In article <qsCdnfhICNJ_DofP...@giganews.com>, DianeE
> > <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, I've read this damn book 3 times over the course of my life and I
> >> *still* don't understand it. Maybe you can help me out, since you admire
> >> the book. Maybe the answers are in there somewhere and I'm just obtusely
> >> missing them. Or maybe the answers are *supposed* to be blowing in the
> >> wind? Help!
> >
> > Well, you didn't ask me, but I am something of an expert, I guess. So
> > here goes, as briefly as possible.
> >
> >> -What the hell did Gatsby *see* in Daisy anyhow? Other than an
> >> incredibly
> >> sexy voice (her "murmur"), what did she have that men so desired?
> >
> > Money and the aura that money brings. "Her voice is full of money."
> --------------
> As I understood it, though, *she* basically married *Tom* for *his* money.
> IOW, she wasn't "old money."

Daisy's family may have had less than Tom's, but she came from plenty
of money, especially from Gatsby's point of view.

> -----------------
> >
> >> -Did Myrtle continue her affair with Tom after he broke her nose?
> >
> > Yes. Why? See above. Myrtle is under the illusion that Tom can save her
> > from her dreadful life above the gas station.
> ----------------
> WHY???? Because why would you continue an affair with someone who broke
> your nose?!?!?!? I just *assumed* that episode ended their affair, but then
> I got to thinking, if it was over, she wouldn't have run out into the road.

First, you have to get past our contemporary attitude about "abuse" and
think about it in 1920s terms. Then you have to see how awful her life
with Wilson would have been from her point of view.

> -----------------
> >
> >> -Did Daisy know who Myrtle was? Did she kill her on purpose?
> >
> > No would be my guess, but the book doesn't make it clear.
> ----------------
> Maddening ambiguity there. Is Daisy just "careless" or outright evil? Or
> is FSF saying they amount to the same thing?

Fitzgerald certainly demonstrated that they amount to the same thing,
but I don't think great writers are "saying" things. Besides, "outright
evil" is a category of melodrama, not realistic fiction. Unless people
are psychopaths, they tend to feel justified and "good" no matter how
much harm they do. Even Tom at the end tries to convince Nick that he
was a victim, not a villain.

> ----------------
> Thank you! Thank you very much!

You're quite welcome.

[Jordy Chase]

I wonder how many people pick up on the fact that Nick is gay... It's clear from the book that he is, but one has to be a very careful reader to know that...

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <6615876b-5520-44dd...@googlegroups.com>,

Are you serious? This notion started as a joke in a 1960s college movie
(title anyone?) and seems to have flowered into a serious, but
wrongheaded, factoid.

[Jordy Chase]

"...I was standing beside his bed and he was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear, with a great portfolio in his hands"
-page 45

That's certainly suggestive, isn't it?

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <7049c685-3100-4df5...@googlegroups.com>,

Yes, the aftermath of the party when Nick drunkenly accompanies the
other guy home can be mined for stuff like that (even the elevator
handle, if you like Freudianisms), but I'll bet Fitzgerald never
expected anyone to see homosexuality there, and no one did, as far as I
know, for almost half a century. More importantly, little else in the
book supports the notion that Nick is gay, much supports the notion
that he isn't, and the the whole idea is as jarring to the overall
sense of the book as Dali's mustache painted on the Mona Lisa.

[khematite]

On Monday, August 26, 2013 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mark Dintenfass wrote:
> In article <6615876b-5520-44dd...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jordy Chase <icn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I wonder how many people pick up on the fact that Nick is gay... It's
> > clear from the book that he is, but one has to be a very careful reader to
> > know that...
>
>
> Are you serious? This notion started as a joke in a 1960s college movie
> (title anyone?) and seems to have flowered into a serious, but
> wrongheaded, factoid.

Richard Rush's Getting Straight (1970):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB2jVKZVeE4

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <1a82c007-f07f-49e4...@googlegroups.com>,

Yes, thank you.

And thanks for the link. I just re-watched it--haven't seen it in forty
years-- and had mis-remembered it. I thought the Nick is gay idea was
Gould's, presented as a put-on, but it turns out it comes from a
professorial and obnoxious authority figure, who (as Gould recognizes)
is acting out his own repressed homosexuality. Ironic that the
Nick-is-gay thesis, presented so satirically in the movie, has now
become gospel in some quarters of the Internet.

I had also forgotten that this was a Richard Rush movie. Rush later
made one of my all-time favorite movies, "The Stunt Man."

[Jordy Chase]

Well, I still believe that both Nick and Jordan Baker were gay, or at least bisexual... not that it matters to a great extent...

[DianeE]

"Jordy Chase" <icn...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a6b70beb-263c-4fa3...@googlegroups.com...

>
> Well, I still believe that both Nick and Jordan Baker were gay, or at
> least bisexual... not that it matters to a great extent...

---------------
I have to say that if you start with the premise that Nick is gay, at least
it explains the strange remoteness, coolness, lack of passion in his
relationship with Jordan.

Or maybe it's because he's from Minnesota?

(Aha! I'm back on topic! Guys from Minnesota!)

DianeE

[Jordy Chase]

We know that Mr Jones read all of F Scott Fitzgerald's books, I wonder if Bob did as well...

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:52:10 PM UTC-4, Jordy Chase wrote:
> We know that Mr Jones read all of F Scott Fitzgerald's books, I wonder if Bob did as well...

We know Mr. Jones had "been through" all of them, but something was probably happening that he didn't understand in them?