F. Scott Fitzgerald's writing is beautiful, very lyrical but his character's words are not to be taken at face value. His description is vivid though he does not use fancy - or too many - words. He has a clear point of view or opinion about the people he writes about. But if his writing appears matter-of-fact, fly-on-the-wall, etc. it is anything but that. In THE LAST TYCOON he wants to tell us about his problems with alcohol and women, the effect of communists unionizing Hollywood writers, and - like always - the unique agonies of the very wealthy class. Like his other fiction, dialog is a minor inconvenience serving to support the overall description of what's happening - better conveyed by mood, atmosphere and pretense. Not in spite of but as a result of FSF's talent, his writing can simply put blunt description in his characters mouth and allow it to melt with his narration. His ability to convey mood is that compelling.
Translating such to film creates a problem. The scenes in TLT are comically bad. Irony is given new definition when Stahr rejects a scene on the basis that 'People don't talk that way". People don't talk like the characters in TLT. Allow me to suggest that a successful adaptation of an FSF story would contain limited dialog, even to the extent such requires omitting what dialog the novel or short story contains. Sometimes a literal interpretation is not necessarily faithful.
Translating such to film creates a problem. The scenes in TLT are comically bad. Irony is given new definition when Stahr rejects a scene on the basis that 'People don't talk that way". People don't talk like the characters in TLT. Allow me to suggest that a successful adaptation of an FSF story would contain limited dialog, even to the extent such requires omitting what dialog the novel or short story contains. Sometimes a literal interpretation is not necessarily faithful.