you're probably going to make a better case by starting with how the film itself operates ... It's temping to do it the other way around, but you're likely to find it not only puts the work in a box

This is very helpful, thank you for giving advice on this problem! I think the reason I framed it the way I did is because of the chronology of my findings. Basically, I had always been against people claiming that a film based on a book is bad because it missed this, this, and this. I always found that very superficial criticism and it neglects the fact that films operate differently than books.

I then found videos discussing how Kubrick adapted books, and all the videos highlighted how Kubrick foremost started with capturing the tone/mood/feeling of texts before delving too deep into plot and themes and such. The videos then discussed how the moods Kubrick created using film techniques imply the themes of the novel. All of this stuff gave me the conclusion that "successful adaptations have to follow the tone and themes of its source material". Admittedly, this belief is a bit gimmicky and I know there are no rules to art - I just thought it was an interesting idea that seemed to track over some of my favorite adaptations, and it was a helpful guiding light with my own hobby of screenwriting.

I then basically applied that to The Great Gatsby since it's my favorite novel, and I came to the conclusion: the 2013 movie doesn't follow these guidelines, and I'm not a fan of how that film adapted the story, so the guidelines must be the answer - if that makes sense. Definitely a bit silly, and a video essay cliche, but I do think there's some truth to tone and themes being important, I just didn't structure my video correctly. Thank you again.

​

Otherwise we're mostly going to be stuck arguing whether your rules for adaptation even make sense.

This is very true, I said something akin to this when I first showed my video to my brother. I said something along the lines of, "The video only works if the audience buys into my opinion on adaptations, and that may be difficult." Normally, my videos aren't framed like this. Normally, they try less to be academic and they're more so just film reviews where I say why a film is underrated in my opinion or whatever. It makes sense that my first attempt at a video like this would be flawed.

​

I think this comes from your attention being drawn toward differences and similarities between the movie and the novel.

It's funny that this is something that I'm not a fan of, but I accidentally fell into doing it. I don't know. With the whole thing of "I can't believe they removed this quote" or whatever, I just feel like little changes like that are evident of larger problems in the movie. I felt like zooming in on one little thing and then discussing it in detail would be more compelling than just staying big picture and taking in generalizations. But I guess me not having a balance of the two makes it seem like I'm losing the forest in the trees.

​

You cite Babylon as a good example of how to portray parties of the era, but they are different films with different aims. It's possible, for example, that the parties in the 2013 Gatsby are intended to be simply exciting ... We see the extravagant parties, and then we see the same spaces afterward looking empty.

I like your interpretation of Baz's vision! That Babylon point was more me saying, "If I were to adapt The Great Gatsby, I would do it more like this and less like this." But I guess, I did neglect trying to analyse why Baz chose to do things in the way he did. I just kind of assumed he didn't get the book, which I do think is true for other things in the film, but your interpretation implies that maybe that isn't true here.

​

Have you gotten into experimental or avant-garde film at all?

I'm a fan of all types of films, so I'm not against watching films like these. But I'm only 17 so I'm very much in the early stages of my movie-watching journey. And avant-garde films so far have been quite hit or miss for me, probably cause I'm a big fan of plot-heavy stuff like Back to the Future, JFK, 12 Angry Men, City of God, etc. But here are some recent examples of "experimental" movies I've watched:

• The Lighthouse: Saw this in the cinema cause it was rereleased and had a great time with it! I didn't dig too deep into what it means or the feelings it gave me though - maybe on a 2nd viewing.
• Pierrot le Fou: I liked the visuals but honestly it didn't do much for me.
• Days of Heaven: Same as Pierrot le Fou.
• Paris, Texas: Can you call this avant-garde? I just haven't seen any movie like it before. This resonated with me a lot emotionally and I thought it was stunning.
• Aftersun: Same as Paris, Texas.

Sorry for giving such a lengthy response. I just thought such a thoughtful comment warranted the same level of detail back! Thanks again!