The Great Gatsby (1974) February 26, 2014

The Great Gatsby

February 26, 2014

           

          Daisy Buchanan and Jay Gatsby are two gluttons of punishment who deserved nothing because of their stupidity towards each other. Jay Gatsby is a hopeless romantic who clings to the pass and doesn't live in the moment. What is past cannot and should not be relived. Gatsby is like the old drunk in the bar that cries in his beer over the girl that got away, guess what Jay. That girl that got away is a narcissistic, materialistic heiress who complains a lot about the heat and the lack of windows. If Jay Gatsby was really thinking, would he really want that or did his longing for the past keep him forever blinded and enthralled with his “love” for Daisy? Daisy Buchanan even says that, “Rich girls don’t marry poor boys”. Daisy said it best, women like her need money to be happy. Fitzgerald hit the mark even today.  Jay Gatsby is equally of guilty of being stupid. When Nick and Jay are talking Jay says of Daisy, “[Daisy’s] voice is full of money”. Okay her voice is full of money, anything else, how about her voice sounds like spring, or like a fresh picked rose, or something equally as cheesy. Why money? If Jay Gatsby subconsciously knew that Daisy was all about the money and is a witchy woman, why go after her?  Jay is clinging onto the past, hoping past glories will suffice in his wooing of Daisy. Guess what Jay. Daisy is not the southern belle you once remembered her as.

 One of the major themes of The Great Gatsby is human longing for the past. What if the past is all sugar and no substance. Can a long lasting, gag me with a spoon, love really endure through the years? Growing old with someone is not pretty. Daisy Buchanan is living in a fantasy world, as seen in the movie, when she forces Jay Gatsby to put on his old officer uniform. Jay is hesitant and doesn't want to do this at first but succumbs to her feminine wears and puts on the outfit for the sake of good old times. What does this say of Jay? Doesn't he realize that Daisy is in love with the past and not him? Jay is a sucker of the sentimental past. When Nick and Jay are talking Nick tells Jay that one cannot relieve the past, to which Jay replies, “Of course you can”. Jay is equally as dumb as Daisy in the fact that he can’t face reality. The love he once might have felt for Daisy was fleeting and not real. Daisy does not love Jay. She let Jay take the rap for the death of Myrtle and when she had a chance to go with Jay, she stayed with Tom. Jay Gatsby instead of breaking down the door to the house, stayed outside in the rain and watch Daisy's house, like Lloyd Dobler holding a boom box for Diane Court in Say Anything.  Jay and Daisy are no Lloyd and Diane. Jay and Daisy are two spoiled children who cling to the glory days of high school, instead of facing facts and life. 

Jane Smiley's take on King Lear, A Thousand Acres

 I love Shakespeare’s King Lear, I prefer his tragedies and histories over his comedies. I read Jane Smiley’s  A Thousand Acres when I was in high school and loved the book and film version.  I saw this youtube clip of Jane Smiley talking about King Lear and her novel and the similarities between the two. I thought it would be a nice video to put up since we just saw the movie Adaptation. If you have not read the book, I would recommend it. The book is better than the movie but the movie good too. Jessica Lange was nominated for a Golden Globe for her performance as Ginny aka Goneril. The movie and play speaks of themes still relevant today.  

Adaptation February 12, 2014

Jessica Lange and Michelle Pfeiffer in  A Thousand Acres, adapted from Jane Smiley's Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name. A Thousand Acres was adapted from Shakespeare's King Lear.

Adaptation

February 12, 2014

            Adaptation is a strange, really strange, movie about how a work of literature can be adapted for the movies, and the work that goes into producing both an original work and an adaptation of that original work. Meryl Streep plays Susan Orlean, writer of The Orchid Thief, whose book is about to be adapted into a movie. Orlean, close to the end of the movie, shouts out to Charlie Kauffman “I wana be a baby again, I wanna be new”. This concept of being new again can be applied to an original work of fiction or non-fiction. Hollywood has turned out many movies that have been adapted from works of literature that have been great such as: The Godfather, Gone With the Wind, To Kill a Mockingbird, Jaws, Psycho, A Thousand Acres. But for every Godfather, there is an Atlas Shrugged, movies that just suck. Orlean’s idea of wanting to be new again is a concept that many writers, whose work has been adapted badly, probably only know so well. When a writer signs their baby away, they can't say what happens to it. A newborn baby is a blank slate that can be molded and made to fit into a certain family and way of life; the whole nurture versus nature argument.  Writers give birth to a baby that they bring into the world hoping goodness can come from it. When the baby is corrupted by pressure and mistreatment, an author can become an ugly creature full of hatred and resentment; like Stephen King with Stanly Kubrick’s version of The Shinning. The screen writer for the Orchid Thief is having a hard time adapting the book and stalks Orlean, to dire consequences. Orlean, with the help of John Laroche, metaphorically kills off Charlie Kauffman’s alter ego that wants to succumb to Hollywood pressure. Orlean does Kauffman the biggest gift she can give him, metaphorical death. Kauffman finishes the script and all is well in the movie world again.  When Orlean gives her grandiose “I wana be new again”,  she is yelling a statement that many writers have often thought. Writers often regret giving their baby up for adoption, but a writer can’t smother there baby or death will occur. A writer gives life and cannot be selfish. Writers should let the work morph. Life springs from life.  If a child turns out to be a huge disappointment at least as a parent you can say you tried. 

Stranger than Fiction, February 12, 2014

The Three Fates

     Stranger Than Fiction

February 12, 2014 

Stranger Than Fiction is about a man, Harold Crick, played by Will Ferrell, and his journey to change and understand his mundane life. Harold learns that he is a character in a novel and that he will die. Along Harold consults a literature professor who tells him that he cannot change fate. What if somebody could change fate, would they? Changing fate is a concept not new to audiences. Way back in 1985 Marty McFly, in Back to the Future, tried to change his fate and learned that if he tried it would cause ripple effects and he would cease to exist. Harold’s fate lies in the hand of the writer/narrator of the film. A writer holds the fate of people in his/her own hands.  Writers give life and take life; they are in a sense, a god. Only a god knows how our lives will turn out. Writers are like a god in the fact that they have in mind the life, back-story, and fate of a character or characters. With a slide of a finger a whole course of life or years for a character could be deleted. What if the author of our lives could and would do that.  Ancient Greeks believed in fate and accepted that they will die. Harold is far from a noble Greek. Harold spastic realization that he is a puppet for this writer causes him to lose his own identity, for the better, so the audience sees. The Calvinist approach is that we are pre-destined to go to Heaven or Hell, no matter how much we grovel, we can’t change fate. Harold does not accept his fate and grovels to go find his maker and plead with her not to kill him off. Harold can’t accept his own mortality. Harold knows that he has wasted his life on numbers and had no fun. He is like a man who sits in a bar and talks about the one that got away. Harold’s groveling to the writer only goes to show the audience that one should not squander life on tedious repetitious work; go play a Ferris Bueller and take a day off from societal expectations. As the cliche goes, we have only one life to live, enjoy your life don’t worry about fate. Getting hit by a bus and saving a kid might be the best thing to happen to you. Point blank, life can and often does suck, but its what we do that makes it fun. Harold Crick’s fate was written and re-written because he wasted his life and his maker wanted to give him a second chance.   We do not know our fate and if we did, would we really want to?