Film Talk
Public Group active 4 years, 11 months agoWe talk film. Creative Commons-licensed avatar courtesy of Mr. Wabu .
Jay Gatsby as an Anti-Hero
- This topic has 4 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by Joey.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 4, 2014 at 10:00 pm #421Marlene ManeyParticipant
I have to admit, when I found out the film for this week would be the most recent rendition of The Great Gatsby, I was slightly concerned about my review/comment being somewhat biased – particularly because I wrote my formal paper about the state of the hero in several Gatsby adaptations. In the paper, I concluded that while both Nick Carraway and Jay Gatsby displayed qualities worthy of Joseph Campbell’s hero in all of the films (1949, 1974, 2000, 2013), there was a distinct possibility that neither man was the “true” hero of the tale. Rather, it would be up to the audience to make that determination
However, upon watching the Baz Luhrmann-directed film for a third time, I started to see Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) not so much as a hero, but as a clearly defined anti-hero. After all, it is clear from the moment Carraway (Tobey Maguire) speaks about Gatsby in the past during the opening scenes of the film, that the mysterious and ambiguous figure of a man is doomed to an unfortunate fate. He is not going to get the happy ending that Campbell prescribes. Instead, his faults as a character – hope, and an unwavering desire to reclaim the past – lead Gatsby to his death. Moreover, in order to achieve his goals, he resorts to bootlegging and the forging of bonds – illegal crimes in the United States of the 1920s. Yet, despite all of this, Gatsby is still renowned for his parties and overall sense of mystique that allows the people of Long Island and New York to make up wildly obscure and fantastical stories about the man’s origin. Furthermore, the audience witnessing this spectacle of illusion is still left rooting for Gatsby and hoping – hoping that for once the final phone call beside the pool will not be Carraway, that for once he will not be shot for the murder that Daisy committed, for once he will get the girl. But, of course that never happens. Gatsby dies and Daisy’s true character is revealed to be just as sinister and twisted as her husband’s, while Nick is left to pick up the damaged pieces of what remains.
Outside of the view of Gatsby as an anit-hero, I have to admit that I appreciated the more multicultural casting that Luhrmann employed for the film. Despite the stereotypes with which this change was presented, it still made the film more realistic and completely different from its earlier counterparts. In all of the earlier Gatsby films, most, if not all of the characters were portrayed by white actors and actresses, and it was very hard to make note of any multicultural elements. I also felt that the actors did a decent job portraying the roles. DiCaprio was appropriately full of hope, mystery, and vulnerability all at once, while Carey Mulligan made the character of Daisy seem much more affable than seen in other films – particularly when compared to Farrah Fawcett performance in 1974. The only performance I had any true issue with was the one done by Tobey Maguire as Nick Carray. Most of the time, his expressions were rather stoic and his actions often lacked any sort of personality. The only time I truly saw him open up was when he was in scenes with DiCaprio, and to be honest, I attributed his improvement to the fact that DiCaprio is both a superior actor and already had an established friendship with Maguire off set.
May 5, 2014 at 10:49 am #422Megan MeadowsParticipantWhile it can be argued that Gatsby is an anti-hero, I seem him more of a tragic hero. He fits very well into the characteristics of Aristotle’s hero. He gains his greatness early on, with lavish parties and a sense of fame. Everyone ‘knows’ Gatsby, even if they have never even met him. In my opinion, his major flaw is loving Daisy Buchanan. She is a careless person who doesn’t seem to take others feelings into consideration in her actions. In my essay on the subject, I argued that Luhrmann did a disservice to her character and changed the story into more of a love story when he omitted the section with her daughter, when she picks her up for a brief second before putting her back in the care of a helper. Gatsby loving a woman like this does no good for him. His downfall is due to his own choice, because he could have told others that Daisy was the one driving, although his misfortune is disproportionate to his fault because dying is an extreme punishment for simply taking the blame for the one you love.
While it can be easily said that his death was a ‘total loss’, I believe that he gained insight on loving Daisy. The phone did ring right before his death, making it seem that it was Daisy, and he died happily as opposed to with nothing. Lastly, at least in my own opinion, I did not leave depressed. I had an overwhelming sense of pity for Gatsby and his tragic love that led to his downfall.
As for the film as a whole, I absolutely love it. I think that while it is over the top and extravagant, it fits very well with today’s time period. A ‘party at Gatsby’s’ was supposed to be a wonderful experience and I think that if it had been a simply dinner party the vision would be much different. To be honest I sometimes find dinner parties rather boring, but I would never turn down a party like the one in the film.
While in my essay I argued that Luhrmann did a disservice to F. Scott Fitzgerald because he changed the tone of the story as well as many of the characters, I believe that the film on its own is so wonderful. As we discussed in class, it is so hard, if not impossible, to have a perfect adaption to a film because there are too many variables such as cast, music, dialogue, etc. to create a perfect film version of a novel, but I think that Luhrmann was able to achieve a fantastic movie with a great cast.
May 5, 2014 at 12:28 pm #424Dorothea KuntzeParticipantI am torn with the argument that Gatsby was a tragic hero and that he was an anti-hero. At times it does appear that Gatsby’s greatest weakness is his love for Daisy. That being said, Gatsby does not obtain his wealth through honorable means. After one of his parties a man is beaten by his servants (to which we assume are Gatsby’s orders). He is also selfishly willing to break up a family to satisfy his need for Daisy. His selfishness is apparent when he rejects Daisy’s proposal to simply runaway. Daisy has become a symbol of his success and all that he has become. To simply runaway would diminish his power and the act of winning Daisy from her husband (who symbolizes the wealth and power Gatsby was previously denied).
- This reply was modified 9 years, 11 months ago by Dorothea Kuntze.
May 5, 2014 at 2:45 pm #427Liesel ZimmermanParticipantAfter our class discussion last week on anti-heroes, this was the first time I had viewed Gatsby in this light. I agree with Megan and Dorothea in that I had originally considered him to be a tragic hero, guilty only of maintaining his idealized dream for the future. Instead of instantly seeing Gatsby as a hero, I instead took note of his more sinister traits.
Especially when compared to the 1974 version of The Great Gatsby, Luhrmann’s film makes a point of emphasizing Gatsby’s pride in his underhanded business dealings. In Clayton’s 1974 version, Gatsby is somewhat more reserved and secretive when discussing his financial affairs. He hesitantly offers Nick a business connection when he agrees to host tea with Daisy, and Nick politely declines. In the 2013 film, when Gatsby tells Nick he can have a part in his side business, Gatsby almost seems hurt that Nick refuses his offer and insists it’s just a favor.
Gatsby also shows more emotion in the Luhrmann film when he is informed of phone calls from his associates. He becomes noticeably agitated when he shouts into the phone that “Well he’s no use to us if Detroit is his idea of a small town…” Also, he snarls at his butler when he tells him that he has a phone call when he is entertaining Daisy, Tom and Nick at the party. The Gatsby in the Clayton film was more subdued in his expression of his displeasure.
Gatsby is also shown to be an anti-hero in the way that he abandoned his family simply because they were poor people. He even had the gall to claim that he didn’t even consider them to be his real parents. In the book and in the 1974 film, Gatsby’s father comes to his son’s funeral to mourn the loss of his child. In both cases he tells Nick that he doesn’t blame Jay for leaving, because he understands that he had his whole life ahead of him. He also says that Jay was good to him once he had made his fortune. Luhrmann’s film lacks this redemptive scene, lessening Gatsby’s appearance as a tragic hero and augmenting his portrayal as an anti-hero. Even as the anti-hero, I agree with Marlene that I was still left wanting him to somehow win Daisy and avoid being murdered by Wilson.
May 6, 2014 at 3:00 am #432JoeyParticipantAs I sat watching the film this past Thursday, I was running through each of the 6 points on “the anti-hero” that we had made in class. After looking at Megan’s point-by-point comparison between Gatsby and Aristotle’s Anti-hero, we undoubtedly see Gatsby as the anti-hero. I just wanted to make a few side notes to elaborate this position. The second “criteria” for being the anti-hero :Great but flawed. As Megan already stated, Gatsby’s flaw is loving Daisy Buchanan. A few other people commenting and posting in this weeks blog cited Gatsby’s illegal actions. Could these illegal actions be used to fill the “flaw requirement” when comparing Gatsby to Aristotle’s anti-hero? Sure, why not? Illegal actions are indeed considered flaws aren’t they? Why is it that Megan chose Gatsby’s love as his flaw? During class, we discussed the idea of greatness with flaws as an important criteria for the anti-hero. The reason for this is that it allows the viewer/ reader to identify with the hero. While the idea of flawed personality is relatable, many audiences cannot relate personally with illegal actions. The specific flaw involving love and passion brings about a stronger connection between the reader and the character as it is something that is more relatable and personal to the larger audience thereby evoking a stronger emotional response at the end. So I agree with Megan’s opinion that Gatsby’s main flaw is loving Daisy. Furthermore, since loving Daisy is part of the focused plot, the flaw can be instilled into the other criteria we had made in class and allow for a very fluid comparison between Gatsby and Aristotle’s anti-hero.
1) Greatness – Gatsby purchased his home, pushed himself to the top of the ladder to win daisy back
2) Great But flawed – already discussed
3) downfall results from choice- Gatsby’s love for daisy forced him to cover up her husbands mistress’ murder which ultimately leads to Gatsby’s death.
4) disproportion- died because he lied for his lover.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.