The Great Gatsby
discussion
Jay Gatsby Vs Hud: How Charisma Masks Corruption
date
newest »
newest »
Loved Paul Newman- good actor, good husband, humble and nice guy.
Within the context of your statement about charisma, there could be a parallel with another Paul Newman character: Butch Cassidy
Riley wrote: "Within the context of your statement about charisma, there could be a parallel with another Paul Newman character: Butch Cassidy"Exactly.
I felt very conflicted about that film.
Monty J wrote: "Riley wrote: "Within the context of your statement about charisma, there could be a parallel with another Paul Newman character: Butch Cassidy"Exactly.
I felt very conflicted about that film."
It is the quintessential use of the antihero. Throughout the film, both Butch and Sundance are pegged as likable characters, characters that seem to have redeemable qualities. Right up until the final still frame fades to sepia tone, we root for them and we are saddened by their implied demise.
But why? They lie, cheat, steal, kill, and do so repeatedly. Butch and Sundance live in a supposed dream world that we are brought into, one where they are the heroes. This feeling, for them, is attacked by the pursuit of Joe Lefors and Lord Baltimore. For me, the truest moment in the film is when Butch and Sundance go to Sheriff Bledsoe in an attempt to be rid of Lefors' posse. He reminds us that they are still just "two-bit outlaws on the dodge." This scene has a harsh cruelty to it, because it is the truth.
However, we still end up wishing Butch and Sundance could pull off a miraculous escape in the end. That is the beauty of the film's writing.
Interestingly, I do not think anyone has mentioned that Robert Redford played both Jay Gatsby and Sundance, then Paul Newman's sidekick gangster in The Sting. Society loves a charming bad guy. Seriously. Remember Bonnie and Clyde played by Faye Donaway and Warren Beatty?
We love lawbreakers because they do what we really want to do, and cannot. Cops love chasing and capturing crooks for the same reason; rather than for any ideals about 'law' or 'order'.I'm pleased to read that Wikiquote about 'Hud' as I'm very familiar with the film but never read any trivia about it. All the other flicks too, are well known to me. Christine, certainly we all saw that the same actor portrayed both; it just wasn't worth mentioning (I reckon).
With regard to 'Butch' its only a technical parallel with Hud. 'Butch & Sundance' are actually pretty caring guys. They're certainly not without morals.
But 'Hud' is definitely a rotter. It's astounding people didn't see that better at the time.
Gatsby, on the other hand. Monty, I knew this was your thread even before opening it. Bravo. But here's where your simile--which is mostly valid from the outset--fails. Gatsby is not nearly as corrupt as a person, as Hud. Though you can (and have, in the past) pointed out that JG *must* be covered with spritual warts due to his ostensible profession.
Well. That theory might convince someone who had never read the story (or seen the movie), but not afterwards. You can see Gatsby is a sensitive and caring person; in the way he responds to certain situations. He's not just a ruthless thug or simplistic robber-baron. He's simply obsessed with --and willing to sublimate everything to--the idea of his romantic destiny.
You can insist that any bootlegger or anyone who hung around with underworld types had to 'have it rub off on him' --and it sounds good based on what we know of the world today--but its just not necessarily so in every possible case. Gatsby maintained some obvious fastidiousness about the state of his soul. Really, FSF wouldn't have bothered to write about a boring, irredeemable crook. Gatsby sees the ugliness in the world but he's got no patience with trying to correct it--he's on a mission.
Feliks wrote: "FSF wouldn't have bothered to write about a boring, irredeemable crook."Agreed. Nor would he write a boring simplistic romance.
The Roaring Twenties (a.k.a "Jazz Age") were a time of post-WWI chaos, the era of the Lost Generation. Things were complicated and going downhill fast, and Fitzgerald was a keen observer who was alarmed by what he saw among the small glittering sector of society--the 1%--that drew him like a doomed moth.
He made Gatsby a criminal for a reason and had him consort with the likes of Wolfshiem (who consorted with men who had gunfights in the streets) and drive a yellow death car (I insist it wasn't Daisy at the wheel and will, when I'm ready, post the proof) among the foul dust of the Valley of Ashes (a metaphor for corruption and moral decay if ever there was one) and suffer a just punishment for his crimes at the hand of a member of the working class he betrayed and exploited after being spurned by the woman of his dreams who came to her senses and, like Wolfsheim, shunned him even in death.
Gatsby is a complex character who reflects complex times, but filmmakers, academics and literary critics (except for a few) have chosen to dumb-down the story and emphasize the romantic side because: a) it sells better or b) they didn't understand the bond scam or c) they weren't courageous enough to embrace the complexity of the novel's social critique, opting instead for the low-hanging fruit of the familiar and simple.
Maybe someone needs to connect the dots for them.
But the novel is not about corruption; it's about a dreamer whose corruption destroyed his dream. No one is more responsible for the consequences of Gatsby's corruption than him. Not Tom. Not Daisy. And certainly not his executioner George Wilson. Gatsby's not a victim, as portrayed by so many, including Nick; he's the perpetrator!
If Gatsby weren't corrupt, he wouldn't have ended up in the Valley of Ashes behind the wheel of the car that killed the woman whose husband came looking for the guy who owned the car. If Gatsby weren't corrupt--even if Daisy were driving--he'd have insisted on stopping to render aid and be held accountable. He was corrupt. He didn't stop. And he died because of it. He lost Daisy, his dream, not because of some defect on her part but because Tom's investigation unveiled his corruption to her fairy-dusted eyes.
RE: "spiritual warts...", the corruption-decay motif runs throughout the book: "...it's what preyed on gatsby, the foul dust [corruption] that floated in the wake of his dreams." (p.1); the Valley of Ashes (Biblical Valley of the Shadow of Death), where Myrtle (symbol of Tom's corruption) lives and dies (mentioned at least eight times); at Wilson's garage, where "A white ashen dust veiled his dark suit and his pale hair as it veiled everything in the vicinity" (p.26); the corrupt motorcycle cop; Gatsby's party debris where he "began to walk up and down a desolate path of fruit rinds and discarded favors and crushed flowers" (p.111); rotting post-party garbage "oranges and lemons left his back door in a pyramid of pulpless halves"; at Gatsby's after Myrtle's death "There was an inexplicable amount of dust everywhere and the rooms were musty." (p.147); the "dying orchids on the floor" beside Daisy's bed (p.151); the "shining dust" on the dance floor at Daisy's.; and Tom told Nick that Gatsby "threw dust in your eyes just like he did in Daisy's."
Scott Fitzgerald wanted his name up there with Eliot, Joyce and D.H. Lawrence, an impossible task with a 180-page romance novel, no matter how pretty the prose. You have to expand, not contract. Push the envelope, like Joyce did with Ulysses and Lawerence did with The Rainbow, both of which were banned and the subject of obscenity trials. The Mckee-Carraway elevator-to-bedroom segment was a gutsy stab (no pun intended) in this direction for Fitzgerald, but it was too vague for all but a few readers.
No, Jay Gatsby is no Hud, but they both speak to corruption in their own way. Where Gatsby is urban, elegant and metaphorical, Hud delivers a direct, simple, unequivocal, unwavering, social critique set in rural America.
It's a shame the title role wasn't played by Marlon Brando instead of Newman, who was too pretty even in black-and-white. Brando would have insisted on clarity in the script and nailed the coffin shut, as he did in One-Eyed Jacks, another tale of corruption. Or Apocalypse Now. Or The Godfather.
In film you can't be too subtle too often because it demands too much of the average viewer, and movies are so expensive to make. Larry McMurtry's novel, Horseman, Pass By, was scavenged to make Hud.
But what Hud had, that Gatsby didn't, was to show a trans-generational decline, with the elder Homer Bannon representing the high values and individualism that built this country. Hud represented the post-World War II slippage, the decline in those values. Gatsby offered only a slice of one post-World War I generation, with a vague reflection at the end on the original spirit of promise that brought people over from Europe.
Either way, it's good versus evil. Isn't it always?
Karen wrote: "Loved Paul Newman- good actor, good husband, humble and nice guy."Agreed. So how can anyone so solid in real life be taken seriously as an antihero or villain? Newman did a brilliant job in Hud, but we know/knew him too well as a good guy.
A true anecdote about PN and an admirer.Paul is alone in an ice cream parlor in Saybrook Connecticut not far from his home and a woman enters. She notices him but decides to play it cool. Saunters to the counter, orders her cone, and leaves. As she steps out of the building she realizes she doesn´t have her cone in her hand and reenters the store. Paul is grinning ear to ear and addresses her directly.
¨You put it in your pocket book¨
Geoffrey wrote: "¨You put it in your pocket book¨"I heard this too, and it's supposed to be true.
Addendum: Oops, apparently Snopes.com tracked it down and says it isn't. Great story though.
http://www.snopes.com/embarrass/celeb...
"The Great Gatsby"--F. Scott Fitzgerald.There is a controversy about the character, Gatsby. I respect him for his loyalty to his love, Daisy. On the other hand, I do not think he is a smart person. I think before people decide to devote themselves to loving someone, they should consider if that person is worth being loved. I understand that most people, especially young people just love someone based on good feelings. Also people often say it does not need a reason or excuse to love someone. However, in this case, when Gatsby meets Daisy again five years later, he should be mature enough to read Daisy. The fact is Daisy has married to Tom which shows she gives up waiting for Gatsby, even though she was not sure if Gatsby would come back. Therefore, Gatsby should figure out if Daisy’s love has changed already. Obviously, Daisy is not worth being loved by Gatsby. For example, when Gatsby pushes Daisy to tell Tom that she never loved Tom, Daisy says,” you wants too much”(Fitzgerald 132). At this moment, Gatsby should know Daisy does not love him so much as he expected, but he still tries his best to protect Daisy after the car accident because he tends to tell the police he killed Myrtle. Overall, I fell sorry for Gatsby and I wish this kind of story won’t happen in our real lives.
Geoffrey wrote: "A true anecdote about PN and an admirer.Paul is alone in an ice cream parlor in Saybrook Connecticut not far from his home and a woman enters. She notices him but decides to play it cool. Saunter..."
Oh, I would have done that too.
And I would have done that too with any number of Hollywood beauties.
Geoffrey wrote: "And I would have done that too with any number of Hollywood beauties."Sophia Loren. Yvette Mimimieux. Ann Margaret. Ursula Andress. Don't get me started.
This guy who works where I work
Angeline Jolie, Meryl Streep, Belluci,Hayek,you got me going Monty.
Geoffrey wrote: "Angeline Jolie, Meryl Streep, Belluci,Hayek,you got me going Monty."Penelope Cruz.
I don't like any of the latest crop of Hollywood babes. They haven't got the same 'grand style' for one thing. Sophia Loren has a thousand facets to her character compared to zero-personality drip like say..eh, 'Scarlett Johansen' (or whatever her real name is). And then also I don't like the 'work' that these new babes clearly 'get done' on themselves. Face work, body work. They all look very plastic and 'over-engineered' to my eye.
In general, as the representatives of screen glamour began to turn from classic-era to modern/trashy...the last ones which caught my eye were Greta Scacchi and Roseanne Arquette. That's the last two I can remember enjoying, both for their looks and for their acting.
But think all the way back to studio-era babes like Jane Russell or Debbie Reynolds. Not saying that they were the hottest...but they were comediennes, they could sing, they could dance, ride horses, do everything.
As for Paul Newman, I agree that his natural affability shines through in almost everything. He can play a jerk in a random scene here-or-there ..when he has to, but never carry a whole movie as a baddie.He was convincing as a taciturn, hardcore-badass in 'Hombre' and as a snarky young opportunist in 'Long Hot Summr'. He did well in 'The Hustler' as a callow young man who needs to grow some morals. Credible boxer in 'Somebody Up There Likes Me'. Yeah..I suppose the only role where he really nailed villainy was as the love interest in 'The Helen Morgan Story'.
Feliks wrote: "I don't like any of the latest crop of Hollywood babes. They haven't got the same 'grand style' for one thing. Sophia Loren has a thousand facets to her character compared to zero-personality drip ..."Audrey Hepburn
Feliks wrote: "As for Paul Newman, I agree that his natural affability shines through in almost everything. He can play a jerk in a random scene here-or-there ..when he has to, but never carry a whole movie as a ..."He was hot- humble and a nice man too.
Geoffrey wrote: "KarenDitto."
Audrey or Paul? They both had class- I'd also like to mention Marylyn Monroe. She was exploited by the media obviously, but she was a great comedic actress. Some Like It Hot. And she was smart but a product of her time.
Paul.But yes, Audrey too.
Karen wrote: I'd also like to mention Marylyn Monroe. She was exploited by the media obviously, but she was a great comedic actress. Some Li..."Karen, I agree. I think Marilyn was a lot smarter, and a lot deeper than the media portrayed her.
Christine wrote: "Karen wrote: I'd also like to mention Marylyn Monroe. She was exploited by the media obviously, but she was a great comedic actress. Some Li..."Karen, I agree. I think Marilyn was a lot smarter, ..."
Yes, maybe she would still be alive if people helped her and if she was given more credit.
Christine wrote: "I think Marilyn was a lot smarter, and a lot deeper than the media portrayed her."I agree.
I want to read JC Oates' novel based on her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blonde_...
I have studied Marilyn in some detail, and intend to do much more. I feel a brotherly affinity toward Marilyn because of our similar backgrounds in terms of childhood deprivation. Steve McQueen is another; his mother was a mess and he never met his father. James Dean's mother died when he was nine and his father dumped him off on his grandparents, with minimal contact thereafter. There's a pattern here of heightened sensitivity, perhaps rooted in childhood deprivation.
It is funny that those three so resonated with American culture -- Marilyn, Steve and JD.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
In Wikipedia, Pamela Wojcik* (her citations underlined below) brings out these similarities. I see a resemblance between Newman's Hud and Jay Gatsby; men and women alike are so mesmerized by their charm that they fail to hold them accountable for their corruption.
Charisma acts like an invisible shield; if a crook is charming enough, American society lets them off the hook. Ronald Reagan earned the nickname "Teflon Ronny" with the public's refusal to hold him accountable for his deception and failures--Iran-Contra and the Beirut embassy bombing that killed 200 Americans. The list of such true-life characters is endless--Bernard Madoff, etc.
*Wojcik, Pamela (2012). New Constellations: Movie Stars of the 1960s. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-5229-3.