Beauty vs Beast: Daisy Daisy Give Me Your Answer Do
Monday, April 10, 2017 at 3:00PM 
Jason from MNPP here with this week's "Beauty vs Beast" contest - the older I get the more amateurish and obvious it feels to call F. Scott Fitzgerald's book The Great Gatsby, which was published on this day in 1925, my favorite book... but then I go read the book again and it lifts me up and swirls me around wildly for 180 brief pages and drops me off along those boats beating against the current, and I'm reconvinced it remains the Great American Novel. So I take comfort in knowing I'm not alone - alongside me stand whole swaths of movie-makers who keep trying to turn it into The Great American Movie, time and time again, to wildly varying degrees of success.
So today let's focus in on the two highest profile adaptations - Jack Clayton's 1974 version with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, and Baz Luhrmann's 2013 jazzy flick with Leonardo DiCaprio and Carey Mulligan. And because we're all good and proper actressexuals here at The Film Experience let's head down to the end of the dock and stare at the green light across the bay to dream of the ladies alone. (Since they're both playing the same character I'm going to skip the PROS & CONS this time around since we're judging them by their performances.)
PREVIOUSLY Last week we sent a letter to daddy telling him how much we love What Ever Happened To Baby Jane, and specifically Baby Jane herself, since y'all gave Bette Davis' performance a full 75% of your votes. (But don't worry about Joan Crawford - she just showed up at my house to accept the award in Bette's honor.) Said Jones:
"Bette as Baby Jane is a master act with continuous high-wire moments that never feel absurd or over the top. Her acting shines masterfully when she reveals the broken soul within through tender shifts in her facial expression or voice intonation. The last few minutes are particularly heart-breaking and makes you feel for her. Joan is amazing, but I'm team Baby Jane unflinchingly."
Reader Comments (22)
Curiously, though Daisy is blonde in both these adaptations (she is called a "golden girl" in the novel), she actually has dark hair. It's only mentioned twice, but it's there.
Also, one thing I don't think either of these performances nail is Daisy's "voice full of money." To be fair, how do you make your voice sound "full of money." Nevertheless, Fitzgerald had a different idea than either of these actors. Both go for a high breathiness, but Fitzgerald wrote that Daisy's voice was "contralto." Try to imagine these performances without the bubbly breathiness and instead with the voice of Kathleen Turner or Patricia Clarkson. For my money, that low pitch is closer to a "voice full of money."
It's interesting how Daisy Buchanan has solidified in the public imagination as a blonde ingenue; in the novel her look and voice are closer to a femme fatale or Elizabeth Debicki's Jordan Baker.
Farrow is quite terrible in Gatsby. Well, everyone is...
The Daisy of the book is near impossible to play. And Amory Blaine (nice choice of name) is quite right that Mulligan isn't the Daisy of the book, but given the liberties the adaptation takes with the book, I think Mulligan's actually quite good at doing what she's supposed to/needs to do. I'm decidedly mixed on the movie, but I'd argue she and Debicki are the standouts in the cast.
I was too captivated by Elizabeth Debicki to pay any attention to the rest of the film, sorry.
The only person that I felt got the character in that awful 2013 version was Joel Edgerton. Flashy, but so hollow. I feel like Baz just wanted to make an unofficial sequel to Moulin Rouge! (it made a shit ton of money, so perhaps he just gave the people what they wanted). Edgerton seems like the only person that actually read the book. He gets the moneyed bully that Tom Buchanan is, and easily walks away with the movie. The Redford version plays like Cliff Notes, but I think you do get a sense of dread that's supposed to be there underneath the pretty facades.
As for Daisy, while I think both performances are severely lacking, I voted for Farrow. I did get the sense that Farrow recognized that Daisy is kind of awful, and there's an aloofness there that helps create some mystique. Mulligan isn't all horrible, but she's stuck in this bad romantic drama and plays it straight. She's just kind of boring, which is a greater offense.
I actually didn't mind the 2013 version, and loved DiCaprio's Gatsby in particular. Very underrated performance.
Forgot to say, I liked Mulligan too. Although I agree Debicki was the scene stealer of the film. Haven't watched the 1974 version.
I'm sorry, but I simply couldn't enjoy the latest remake. With the exception of the valley of ashes, I saw nothing in this new version that focused on the story and the poetry of the book. I must say Joel Edgerton wasn't bad as Tom and the young lady who played Jordan Baker almost had it, but this film did the novel no favors at all!
The 1974 was filled with visual poetry, from the light at the end of Daisy's dock, to the eyes of God watching outside Wilson's Shop. The Rolls Royce was yellow! Not beige as it is in the remake. Gatsby is alone when he's murdered, there's no servant there! So many wrongheaded ideas.
The only problem I have with the 1974 version is Lois Chiles as Jordan. Ali McGraw would have nailed the role. Furthermore, a lot of people don't realize that Mia Farrow was pregnant during filming. Mulligan's Daisy had no energy, while Farrow beautifully captured what a shallow woman Daisy Buchanan is. Did anyone notice when the Gatsby trailer came out, the name Ziegfeld was spelled wrong? The clothes were unattractive, the beautiful shirts scene was too big, Luhrmann made a ghastly mess of it.
The Great Gatsby is one of my all-time favorite books, and I was so hoping the film would be good, but I prefer Mia Farrow and Robert Redford!
It's not clear to me (and maybe others, based on the comments above) why we are focusing on the actresses who play Daisy instead of the actresses who play Jordan. Or, if you really want to get into it, step away from the actresses and do Redford vs. Dern vs. DiCaprio vs. Edgerton.
Daisy is blah, in the movies and as written. She is Katie Holmes without the tabloid curiosity.
Some great comments on this thread - it is as if the Fitzgerald classic brings out the best in everyone!
I love the book and have read it a few times, but have never seen a film version of Gatsby. Not sure why. Just haven't found myself in front of them, and haven't sought them out eagerly enough. But will do so one day. Though they don't sound very good!
Jason -- i echo your comments above. Also my favorite book of all time and also one i kind of feel guilty about loving that much until i'm rereading it and then I'm like "yup!"
i think it's one of those unfilmable novels, though, as much people have tried.
I've seen both these version as well as the Alan Ladd version from the 40's, he's the best Gatsby of the three, but neither Carey, Mia nor Betty Field in the Ladd version got Daisy right.
It's a complex part but they all miss first and foremost on the voice and without that it's hard to make the rest of her an identifiable woman. It's one of the most mentioned characteristics of Daisy and yet they never cast an actress with the proper vocal pitch. When I was watching the 40's version I kept thinking why didn't they cast Alexis Smith who would have been ideal, there was a woman with a creamy voice full of money. She's who I envisioned when I read the novel as well.
Call me crazy, but I thought Carey Mulligan nailed the vocal pitch of Daisy. She was sinewy, a bit aloof, yet girlish and sexy. I thought she reeked of money, as described in the book. It's an incredibly difficult part to nail, since so much of Daisy (in the book) exists through Gatsby's ideals and dreams. I think it's ok if the actress playing her comes off a little empty, cause I think that's the reality of Daisy herself.
There were a lot of things that didn't work in Luhrmann's version, but I thought the casting was solid for the most part (other than Tobey Maguire, whom I'm allergic to in everything). Edgerton and Debicki were especially good in the film as well.
LOOKING FOR MR GATSBY
Lmao Faye had better see this
I'm going to need a third option for this - like a passive aggressive "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
Wait, here's something nice: I think Jack Clayton is an interesting and underrated director.
Brevity -- I picked Daisy over Jordan because of how flawed I think both performances are; nobody's gotten Daisy right, and so I thought this might be an interesting contest, and as already noted the comments in here are making it all worthwhile. :)
I actually think Debicki walks away with the remake and is probably, to me, my favorite performance in any of the films, except maybe Shelley Winters as Myrtle in the 40s version (although I might be biased as to that by my adoration of the AWESOMELY RIDICULOUS special effects when she gets hit by the car in that one).
Definitely in my top 3 novels of all time, and well into the "too good to translate to film" category. I think the recent remake is not bad considering. I remember what Nick says at the end about Daisy being so careless as to be beneath contempt, and I think Carey almost gets their with her Daisy. Mia's Daisy is just kind of there, as is that whole film.
I'll vote for Mia since she allows her Daisy to be human and have glaring faults. Daisy realizies this but glosses over them, not needing to be bothered by them. By contrast, Carey's Daisy (and this is partly the director fault as well) is played as a tragic victim of fate, a purely good woman who simply chose the wrong man. All her faults are paved away and it makes her rejection of Gatsby so unbelievable in the movie.
Rooney Mara is an enigmatic brunette whose voice (although not deep) sounds like nothing if not money, and with good reason. There's your contemporary Daisy. Her sister Kate wouldn't have been a bad choice either.
Daisy is supposed to be Gatsby's ideal woman, whom he moons over a decade for, becoming rich to win her back. And Hollywood casts Betty Field, Mia Farrow, Mira Sorvino, and Carey Mulligan as dreamy Daisy?
To me, Sam Waterston in the 1974 version gives the best performance in any of the films. He's believable as a vet and an observer to the action who, though young, had acquired some wisdom through life's experiences. His performance stands in real contrast with Tobey Maguire's, which is just awful in the 2013 version.
Mia gets a bad rap for this. She does a pretty good Daisy--she gets the character. Mulligan is horribly miscast and has no charisma in the part.