I am no film maven, but I know that the Academy Award winning film simply does not hold up to the book. Film has come a long way since 1974, when the film first appeared--Today, it is slicker, faster, shinier. Perhaps that is why the film Gatsby ages so poorly. The performance by Redford is stilted and simply does not capture the imagination of the students. At the same time, they are enthralled by the book.

As I said, the language is the same language Fitzgerald originally set down, and it remains some of the most efficient, lyrical prose any novel proffers. The medium of language usually does not hold the attention of students the way film does, but in this case, oddly, the reverse is true. What for many in a visual-oriented generation would typically be absorbing is dull, slow-paced and, well, somewhat, silly. Mia Farrow overdoes Daisy making her simply ludicrous. The students do not take the film seriously in the way they take the book, which, again, ironically, seems much more fast-paced compared to the film.

The other factor is the artist. Fitzgerald is, after all, original as a stylist. This begs the question: Can one transform one piece of art into another? Again and again, we find ourselves disappointed by movies that fail the books they are supposed to bring to life. Perhaps as film becomes more sophisticated, its chances for translating literature into a visual experience may improve. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings stands as a good example of what might be considered a success. Perhaps it's time for someone to try to make a new Gatsby, though I dare not wish for that--a recent version was enormously bad.

Clearly, the book cannot be replaced as a medium entirely for it alone allows access to certain characters and certain stories. Literature lives because of the language that it is, the characters it creates, and the unique artists that create it. Perhaps the only way to know Gatsby, then--and this is what I feel to be true--is to read the book.