Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
Sun May 19, 2013, 08:14 AM May 2013

Class and 'The Great Gatsby'

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174402/class-and-great-gatsby



There is one thing that Baz Luhrmann gets right about The Great Gatsby, and I think it’s unintentional. It has to do with the way that, turned at a certain angle, lit in a certain way, Leonardo DiCaprio again looks like the boy everyone I knew (I’m that age) grew up loving. The rest of the time, well, he’s still handsome, but he’s aged in such a way that it makes the features of his youthful beauty look a little ridiculous, in retrospect. The worry lines and stubble seem to be telling us that the beauty of that face was only a temporary, fleeting thing. I guess you could say he looks like a ruin of a movie star—a gorgeous ruin, but a ruin nonetheless. And ruin, I always thought, was what Gatsby was all about. Everything in the book is ruined: the old mansion he lives in, the love he has for his perfect woman, the business he runs, Tom Buchanan’s mistress and, more broadly, in the way your tenth grade English teacher taught it to you, the American Dream.

Luhrmann clearly disagrees that rot has any place in the story; he sparkles and spangles his Gatsby to the hilt. But then his interpretation seems to be the dominant one. Kathryn Schulz, in a well-argued piece in New York, pointed out that Scott Fitzgerald was always a bit of a hypocrite about class. In spite of himself, he sort of liked the rich, and she argued that Gatsby suffers from that. “As readers, we revel in the glamorous dissipation of the rich, and then we revel in the cheap satisfaction of seeing them fall,” she wrote. “At no point are we made to feel uncomfortable about either pleasure, let alone their conjunction.”

For this heresy, Schulz received some entertaining blowback: A.O. Scott, in The New York Times, called her a “showboating critical contrarian,” and Joyce Carol Oates tweeted, in apparent reaction, that “Hating ‘The Great Gatsby’ [the novel] is like spitting into the Grand Canyon. It will not be going away anytime soon, but you will be.” But in fact Schulz’s position has been around as long as Gatsby has. Here in The Nation, in a review of a 1926 stage adaptation of the novel, a critic began with a rant about Fitzgerald’s worldview,

Though granted just enough detachment to make him undertake the task of description, he is by temperament too much a part of the things described to view them with any penetratingly critical eye and he sees flappers, male and female, much as they see themselves. Sharing to a very considerable extent in their psychological processes, he romanticizes their puerilities in much the same fashion as they do…



Read more: http://www.thenation.com/blog/174402/class-and-great-gatsby#ixzz2TjwpXOaG
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
1. A 3-D Great Gatsby, what could go wrong?
Sun May 19, 2013, 09:17 AM
May 2013

Just kidding. Thanks xchrom this looks like a good review. Haven't seen it yet but the ads and trailers are promising and it got some respect at Cannes. The NYT review also seems reasonably positive:

Is the tale of Daisy and Gatsby a credible love story? Fitzgerald himself was not sure, but Mr. Luhrmann, Mr. DiCaprio and Ms. Mulligan make it an effective one. At a crucial, climactic moment — a scene in a suite at the Plaza Hotel — the director mutes his irrepressible, circus ringmaster showmanship and plunges into undiluted melodrama. . . .

That scene stands out in a movie that is otherwise gaudily and grossly inauthentic. Jay Gatsby is too, of course. He is self-invented and also self-deluded, spinning out fantasies for himself and others as easily as he gives parties. As a character in Nick’s ruminations, in Fitzgerald’s sentences and in our national mythology, he is a complete mess. This movie is worthy of him.


One thing this version apparently does better than the last one is spend money on the sets. The Robert Redford-Mia Farrow 70s version looks like it was made for TV and makes the story seem even more washed-out and dated than most students already think it is. I guess it's a choice of boring and cheap vs. lively and cheesy. Here's an interesting reader review from the NYT:

I don’t remember an unspoken homoerotic relationship between Nick and Gatsby, but this is the big love story of the movie. In this version, the fireworks literally explode when Nick finally lays eyes on Gatsby. Luhrman uses 3D in a self-conscious theatrical way that despite its pretentiousness does heighten the emotions and adds a political layer. It’s not just a visual gimmick. I advise audiences to sit as far away from the screen as possible. I had been warned and was seated on the last row.

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/457425/The-Great-Gatsby/overview


Trailer with music by Jay-Z:

#!

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
2. from the atlantic -- The Great Gatsby Movie Needed to Be More Gay
Sun May 19, 2013, 09:20 AM
May 2013
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/05/-i-the-great-gatsby-i-movie-needed-to-be-more-gay/275768/



Come to lunch someday," [Mr. McKee] suggested, as we groaned down in the elevator.
"Where?"
"Anywhere."
"Keep your hands off the lever," snapped the elevator boy.
"I beg your pardon," said Mr. McKee with dignity, "I didn't know I was touching it."
"All right," I agreed, "I'll be glad to."

. . . I was standing beside his bed and he was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear, with a great portfolio in his hands.

F, Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby is usually thought of as the story of... well, the great Jay Gatsby, poor boy made nouveau riche, and his efforts to win the aristocratic Daisy Buchanan away from her boorish aristocratic husband Tom. But the quote above is about Daisy's cousin, the narrator Nick Carraway. In the passage, as you can see, Fitzgerald makes a flamboyant phallic pun ("Keep your hands off the lever" indeed), and then shows us McKee and Nick virtually in bed together. Many people skim over that scene—as I did more than once. But once it's been pointed out, it's difficult to see it as anything but post-coital.

Baz Luhrman's recently film version of Gatsby makes a nod to this incident: Mr. McKee, a photographer, is very interested to learn that writer Nick is also an artist. But while McKee may still be gay, film-Nick (Toby Maguire) is adamantly not. In the book, Nick meets Mr. McKee at a party and goes home with him. In the film, he still goes to the party, but ends up canoodling and maybe probably having sex not with a man, but with a woman. Film Nick is first attracted to Gatsby's parties by a glimpse of a lovely flapper flitting through the bushes. He seems visibly affected by the sensuality of Myrtle Wilson, Tom's mistress. In the book, he recognizes her appeal, but seems unmoved or even disgusted by it. In one telling passage while at the party, he notes that he "was simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of life." In the next sentence, he says Myrtle pulls her chair over and "her warm breath poured over me." A couple paragraphs later he's sneering at her "artificial laughter."

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
3. Interesting.
Sun May 19, 2013, 09:26 AM
May 2013

Nick Carraway as I recall also embarks on a more or less serious relationship with a female tennis player and then rudely dumps her at the end of the novel.... hmmm....

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
6. Here's why I don't entirely agree with this take
Sun May 19, 2013, 09:49 AM
May 2013

The Atlantic piece is fascinating (Jordan Baker is a pro-golfer, oops) and Nick may well be hiding his sexuality, but the reason I don't think the Nick-Gatsby relationship is homoerotic is that to me they're both Fitzgerald alter-egos: Nick is the earnest Ivy Leaguer from St. Paul, and Gatsby is the bon vivant he became after selling his first novel, This Side of Paradise, which was apparently a big hit. So, narcissistic maybe, but homoerotic, I dunno.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
8. Nah, I think it's pretty easy to read homoeroticism into it, honestly
Sun May 19, 2013, 09:58 AM
May 2013

one only has to look at the nature of Fitzgerald's relationships and, particularly, his relationship with Ernest Hemingway to see a hint of that; re Hemingway, Fitzgerald said something along the lines of "when I see a man I admire I want to become him, to take on his essential qualities while remaining somehow myself"...which is all a bit reminiscent of Patricia Highsmith's Tom Ripley, if you ask me.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
11. Good point.
Sun May 19, 2013, 10:14 AM
May 2013

Hemingway is another story and that relationship does have erotic overtones but when I read Great Gatsby I get the impression that Nick understands Gatsby a little too well to be sexually interested. He always seems to be disgusted and admiring at the same time. To me Nick seems more interested in vicariously participating in Gatsby's tryst with Daisy than in Nick himself.

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
5. i'm conflicted.
Sun May 19, 2013, 09:31 AM
May 2013

it's one of my fav books -- but this treatment doesn't sound very interesting to me.

txwhitedove

(3,928 posts)
7. As one who did see this movie, and marveled at that change in Leo/Gatsby's face..., I thought
Sun May 19, 2013, 09:58 AM
May 2013

it was very effective. In fact, loved the movie, the cinemetography was incredible, the music terrific, and the story ended the way it was supposed to. I knew the story, saw the bland Redford/Farrow version and did not feel 1/10th what I felt at the end of the new Gatsby. True, I love Baz's movies, the visuals, the twist on music, the over-the-top sometimes caricatures, but even before this movie ended, when I suddenly remembered how it would end, I thought oh no!....



6000eliot

(5,643 posts)
9. I think she misses the point (of the novel at least).
Sun May 19, 2013, 10:00 AM
May 2013

We aren't supposed to relate to Gatsby, who the narrative clearly shows to be ridiculous. We are supposed to relate to Nick Carraway, who supposedly has more sense, relating to Gatsby. The fact that someone can be seduced by Gatsby's dangerous illusion even though he knows it to be a dangerous illusion is a much more interesting commentary on class than Michele Dean gives Fitzgerald credit for.

Guy Whitey Corngood

(26,501 posts)
14. When I heard they were remaking one of my favorite books. I was
Sun May 19, 2013, 11:03 AM
May 2013

excited. When I watched the previews. I thought they turned the Great Gatsby into a huge douche fest.

ananda

(28,859 posts)
15. TGG is a romantic tragedy.
Sun May 19, 2013, 11:09 AM
May 2013

It's one of wanting to relive or recreate a past that no longer exists.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
16. absolutely- or a past that never existed. As well, part of the greatness of the the novel lies
Sun May 19, 2013, 11:21 AM
May 2013

om the tension between Carraway's, and by extension, Fitzgeralds conflicted view of the rich. I don't see that as hypocrisy.

 

The Second Stone

(2,900 posts)
17. Interesting views
Sun May 19, 2013, 12:08 PM
May 2013

My take on it all is that it is all a fantasy by Nick. Nick is in love with his cousin. Nick moves into a house where he can see his cousin's house and Gatsby is a figment of his imagination. There are too many coincidences for any of Gatsby's actions to be those of a real person. Nick just happens to move next door to a secretive wealthy uber-mensch who also loves his unattainable cousin? Nick just happens to also be friends with his cousin's husband who takes him on a tryst with his mistress? Who does that? The mistress is killed by the cousin coincidentally?

A fabulously wealthy bootlegger? Sorry, they were not that rich.

It's all a daydream.

Obviously I didn't get to read this in high school (I did as an adult) and write essays on it.

The movie was visually spectacular. They should have obscured the years and just said "during Prohibition". The amazing Duesenberg and Auburn were a decade away from actually existing. As a car buff, I couldn't help but notice this constantly. But they were perfect cars for the gaudy the director was going for. I also didn't care for the casting of the Indian fellow as Wolfsheim.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
18. That's insightful.
Sun Jun 2, 2013, 10:31 AM
Jun 2013

It is all a daydream, in the Freudian sense of fiction being a projection of the writer's unconsciousness wishes and fears, and Fitzgerald himself did rent a modest West Egg dwelling nestled amongst nouveau-riche mansions to write it as I recall, so you get an A.

p.s. I saw it in 3D last weekend and I completely agree with you: it is visually spectacular and the 3D photography is worth the price of admission. Highly recommended. I also thought the casting and acting were better than in the Redford version whose characters didn't come close to the novel. Redford would have made a good Tom Buchanan but he wasn't much of a Gatsby and Sam Waterson makes a much better cop-lawyer than Nick Carraway.

Anyway if anyone has any interest in blowing a few bucks at the Cineplex I'd catch it in 3D before it goes away.




Elizabeth Debiecki as Jordan Baker, pro golfer and Nick Carraway love interest

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Class and 'The Great Gats...