I've finished Nicky Greenberg's adaption of The Great Gatsby and was thoroughly impressed. It is a beautiful book, and it is incredibly apparent how much love and care went into its creation. I haven't read the original, nor seen the movie Redford movie - quite honestly I only knew the book by title and little else so i can't compare it with the source material. But it is quite the mesmerizing read, and i did almost get teary at the end.
I'd recommend it to anyone, comic fan or not.
One nigglying aspect that I can't answer without reading the source material is how does this differ to the book. In regards to the hypertextuality what is the point of the 'graphic novel' adaption. It is obviously a work of love, the creator spending many years working on the art (5-7 years apparently) and creators should be able to create what they like (and not be dictated to by dickheads like myself) but i ask myself, what does this add to the 'great gatsby' mythos?
When Van Sant redid Pyscho, it added a little to the story (wanking Norman) and it also showed that good movies and film techniques don't date. The ending Fincher's adaption of Fight Club differs to Palahniuk's book but provides a different subtext.
Its possible I think too much and i should just accept a great book for what it is and stop looking for bigger pictures.
anyway, highly recommended
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Great Gatsby was Great
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
i should reveal that i have trouble reading books published before 1950?
can i start slowly and just watch the movie first and then go to wikipedia?
Maggie is right.
Also try of mice and men. It's only short.
When we were discussing this on Saturday I forgot to get around to actually making the point I was leading up to, which was: in answer to your question of how this differs from the book, in the original book all the characters are human and not weird creatures. Surely that counts as a hypertextual addition?
Post a Comment