The Great Gatsby Trailers

Hi everyone,

For you interest, I have posted the trailers for the Great Gatsby for your enjoyment.  I want you to note the contrasts in tone, mood, and atmosphere as well as the overall focus.  Despite it being the exact same novel and very similar scripts, the two movies could not be further apart.

The Great Gatsby (1974) Trailer

Notice how the focus seems to be more on the love story between Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan.  It almost seems to ignore the message that Fitzgerald was trying to draw out for the reader, not focusing on the shallow aspects of the American Dream, nor the divide between Old Money, New Money, and No Money.  Unsurprisingly, the movie carries an overall approval rating of 37% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Now, compare that to Baz Luhrmann's 2013 version.

The Great Gatsby (2013) Trailer

The differences are striking.  This version almost focuses solely on what Fitzgerald was trying to show the reader when he wrote the book as well as including all of the important symbols and motifs.  Notice how there is mention of a relationship between Gatsby and Daisy, but you can tell by the trailer that there are mixed emotions.  We see the seediness and vanity of the 1920s as well as the excess.  We see the class divide, the glamour and the wealth.  We see the decay.  Also, note the title-cards in the trailer - presented in the very popular Art Deco style - over-the-top to the extreme, but poignant and apt for the age.

Critically, the movie did not fair much better only achieving a 49% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  What makes it even more frustrating is that it is said that the visual aspects of the film take away from the actual message of the original book.  I completely agree, though I do find the movie very entertaining.  But, we will be viewing Baz Luhrmann's version once we have completed the book.  This way, you can be the judge.

As a side note, there is a third version produced by A&E for television, starring Toby Stevens (Die Another Day), Paul Rudd (This is 40, Anchorman) and Mira Sorvino (Mighty Aphrodite).  I have not seen it, but if any of you are feeling ambitious, by all means, check it out.

Feel free to make comments on the blog about both.  We would really like to gauge your opinions.

Today's Questions

1.   We see all the action of The Great Gatsby from the perspective of one character whose narration seems to be shaped by his own values and temperament. What is Nick Carraway like, what does he value, and how do his character and his values matter to our understanding of the action of the novel?

2.   Early in the novel, Nick says of Gatsby that he “turned out all right at the end” Later, however, after he tells Gatsby “You’re worth the whole damn bunch put together” he abruptly calls this “the only compliment I ever gave him because I disapproved of him from beginning to end.” What does this curiously ambivalent admiration for Gatsby tell us about Nick, and especially about his relation to Gatsby’s “incorruptible dream?”

3.   From his first appearance, Tom Buchanan is a mouthpiece of racism. For instance, he sees himself as one of the “Nordics” who “make civilization;” and who must prevent “these other races” from having “control of things”. Elsewhere, he complains of the lack of “self-control” of people who “begin by sneering at family life and family institutions,” and threaten to “throw everything overboard and have intermarriage between black and white”. How does Tom’s expression of such attitudes illuminate his character, his relations with Daisy, and his sense of his place in the world?

4. The introduction of Myrtle and George Wilson underscores the importance of social class in the novel. How does their presence sharpen Fitzgerald’s characterization of the rich, and what might the resulting contrasts suggest about the role of class in shaping social experience in The Great Gatsby?

5. How is Wolfsheim, along with the anti-Semitism informing his characterization, important to shaping the conflicts of the novel?

6. At the end of Chapter Five, Nick makes much of the power of Daisy’s voice over Gatsby: “I think that voice held him most, with its fluctuating, feverish warmth, because it couldn’t be overdreamed—that voice was a deathless song” (p.96). Later on, Gatsby observes that “Her voice is full of money,” and Nick develops the point: “That was it, I’d never understood before. It was full of money—that was the inexhaustible charm that rose and fell in it, the jingle of it, the cymbals’ song of it.” Is it possible for characters in Gatsby’s world to disentangle different kinds of value: In particular, do the social conventions and self-understandings of the main characters allow them to disentangle the material value associated with economic wealth, the value attributed to a human object of desire, the aesthetic value of a beautiful object, and the moral values by which one assesses a person’s character? Why, if it all, does this matter?

7. An intriguing exchange between Nick and Gatsby takes place near the end of Chapter Six: “I wouldn’t ask too much of her,” Nick says “You can’t repeat the past.” “Can’t repeat the past?”  Gatsby cries out. “Why of course you can!” (p. 110). How does the past impinge upon the present in the lives of both Nick and Gatsby? Should we see Gatsby as eccentric in his view that one can not merely repeat, but change, the past by starting over?

8. "There must have been moments even that afternoon when Daisy tumbled short of his dreams--not through her own fault but because of the colossal vitality of his illusion."  What does Nick mean by this?

9. Is Fitzgerald writing a love story that embraces American ideals, or a satire that comments on American ideals? Have students refer to passages and quotes to build a thesis.

Turnitin.com

Hi folks,

So, this is a double test for everyone in the class - I am testing people to see how often they come to the blog, but also, whether or not they listen to me.

So, in preparation of handing in your essays on Thursday, I am having all of you register for Turnitin.com.

Go to www.turnitin.com and create a profile.  Once it asks you to give a class ID, you will give it this number: 7880546

You will then need to give a password - here is the test to see if you have been listening - the password is the city in which my favourite sports team plays - all lower case.  I can't wait to see how many of you are actually able to join the class.

I will help anybody else on Tuesday, but for now, good luck.

"The Mousetrap" - Aspects of the Play-within-a-Play

It is a Failure!
It is obvious that through the staging of "The Mousetrap" Hamlet wishes to discover whether Claudius, in fact, did murder his father.  The result, however, can only be classified as a failure.  It can be said that Claudius rose from his chair and thus revealing his guilt, but, come on, seriously?  Can we really condemn a guy for simply rising in his chair?

So, is it a success?  No.  All that we learn from this play-within-a-play is that Hamlet is, for lack of a better term, a disrespectful jerk.  He does not stop making a spectacle of himself during the entire scene.  He yells things at the stage.  He says lots of rather inappropriate things to Ophelia.  He is malicious and disparaging to his own mother, and basically, rather than letting the play unfold, he hints to Claudius what is actually going on.  The original plan was to catch the King's conscience through the play.  Instead, the focus becomes Hamlet's behaviour.  And what does this result in?  The people of Denmark are concerned about Hamlet, NOT the king.

Art Contrasting with Life
It is no coincidence that Hamlet chose The Murder of Gonzago to be the play that is shown at court.  A king with an apparently devoted wife who is murdered, while asleep in his garden, by a relative who pours poison in his ears, and wins the love of the queen by giving her gifts.  However, Hamlet does not see it simply this way.  Not only does he want to use it to catch Claudius (see above), but he also seemingly uses it to insult his mother.  There is no denying that Gertrude did marry quite quickly after her husband had died...and to her brother (legally, not biologically).  What we mustn't forget, however, is the fact that she is a woman, and her choices would be limited.  It was not uncommon back in those days for a new king to "dispose" of any potential nuisances.  So Gertrude, ultimately, is playing it safe.  Which brings us to the Player Queen, who shows her devotion to her husband with many quotes of affection like

"Oh confound the rest!
Such love must be treason in my breast.
In second husband let me accursed!
None wed the second but who killed the first."  (3.2.365-368)

Bold words, and for Hamlet, they are harsh.  Poor Gertrude, as we can safely assume that she had nothing to do with Old Hamlet's death, yet is being placed in the same column as Claudius.  Her opinion of the play, when challenged by Hamlet, is met with more curses and derision from her son.  But, ultimately, despite us feeling bad for Gertrude in some respect, the words spoken between the Player King and the Player Queen are "wormwood" as they are very much the opposite of what Gertrude and Old Hamlet are.  But, as said earlier, who's fault is that?

The Play-within-a-Play changes the Play
A bit of a mouthful, but, here is the question?  Why?  Why would Shakespeare do this?  Starting at the end of Act II, with the arrival of the players, the next couple of scenes are literally a sideshow.  The Players do not further the plot, nor is there any plot whatsoever.  It is metatheatre, and whether Shakespeare was getting paid by the word for this one, it is a widely entertaining but utterly unnecessary section of the play.  Basically, with the players, Shakespeare is presenting his opinion towards theatre and how actors should act.  Good info for a drama class, but do not forget the audience he was writing this for.  It, in many ways, is just out of place.

Life is a Stage
But, at the same time, it can be seen as some philosophical thought from Shakespeare.  Shakespeare was likely a subscriber to the idea "Life is all a stage, and we are actors on this stage."  Similar to the Walt Whitman and now iPad line "That you are here - that life exists and identity, that the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse."  So, with Shakespeare exploring these ideas, he combines drama with life, leading us to look at our own life as that of an actor.  In what ways is life like a stage?  What verse will you contribute?

Test Format

As a reminder, here is the format of the test for tomorrow:

Part A - 6 Multiple Choice Questions

Part B - 3 Short Answer Analytical Questions

Part C - Passage Analysis

With Part C, there will be four aspects you will need to look at when analyzing the passage - Plot, Character Development, Language, and Theme.

Good Luck!  Keep Checking the Blog

Hamlet Review - Post 2

Continuing on with our review, this post will look at the character Fortinbras.

Fortinbras, the nephew of the King of Norway, a prince, "delicate and tender," but spirited and ambitious, forms a contrast to both Hamlet and Horatio. He is a man of action, and is never happy unless engaged in "some enterprise that hath a stomach in it." Being, as Horatio says, "Of unimproved metal hot and full," he engages in martial enterprises merely for the sake of fighting. He furnishes Hamlet an example which he is quick to admire, but powerless to follow. "Examples gross as earth, exhort me," says Hamlet,

Witness this army, of such mass and charge,
Led by a delicate and tender prince;
Whose spirit, with divine ambition puff'd,
Makes mouths at the invisible event;
Exposing what is mortal, and unsure,
To all that fortune, death, and danger dare,
Even for an egg-shell. -- IV. iv. 46.

Like every other young man in this play, Fortinbras has a serious case of daddy issues. His dad Old Fortinbras, former King of Norway, made a bet with Old Hamlet and wound up losing his life and some important Norwegian territory in the process. Naturally, young Fortinbras now has to reclaim the land his father lost.

Sound familiar? Of course. But while Hamlet sits around contemplating life and death, Fortinbras takes immediate action by raising an army to reclaim Norway's lost territories. Though his uncle (the current king of Norway) at first convinces Fortinbras not to attack Denmark, in the end, prince Fortinbras helps himself to the Danish throne.

Behind the stories of both Fortinbras and Hamlet is the question of why their uncles are wearing the crowns that should, in the normal pattern of who-gets-to-be-king, go to them (the sons). Fortinbras deals by going out and conquering other countries; Hamlet, in contrast, only mentions the fact that Claudius has "popped in between the election and [his] hopes" (in other words, his hopes of becoming the King of Denmark). He distracts himself with thinking, not with conquering.

Our prince compares himself explicitly to Fortinbras when he passes Fortinbras's armies in the fields and he sees Fortinbras as a model for how he should behave. "To be great / is not to stir without great argument / but greatly to find quarrel in a straw / when honor's at the stake" (4.4.52-55). In other words, Hamlet realizes that Fortinbras doesn't have very good reasons for leading an army against Poland —but reasons don't really matter. Great men don't need a reason to preserve their family's honor. Fortinbras, like Laertes, is an example of action with little thought —precisely the opposite of Hamlet.

Our question: why is Fortinbras successful while Laertes isn't? (Maybe because he's not in love with his sister? Just saying.

Adapted from shakespeare-online.com & shmoop.com

Hamlet Review - Post 1

Hi folks,

With the Hamlet test coming on Thursday the 27th, it is important that you are prepared.  Today, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, there will be a few posts to help you focus your studies towards the actual test.  The following are some of things you should be reviewing.

1.) The "Rotten State" of Denmark

Denmark was not always rotten, as Prince Hamlet makes it clear that his father was a god-like figure when he was king.  Under the "satyr" like king, Claudius, Denmark has fallen into a state of corruption.  The second scene of the play makes it clear that it is the weak and corrupt condition of Denmark under Claudius that affords occasion for the warlike activities of Fortinbras. From the beginning of the play Hamlet has had suspicions, which are gradually confirmed as the plot develops, that Claudius has exerted a very evil influence upon the country.  From buying off Norway, rather than fight them, to allowing characters like Osiric to sit at the royal table, to performing the ancient and forgotten custom of drinking glass after glass of wine to sounds of drums and trumpets, Denmark has become a debauched place.  Consider these ideas, should a question come up on the test.

2.) Yorick

Alas, poor Yorick...he is dead.  Judging by Hamlet's reaction to the remains of the former jester, he clearly wasn't always doom and gloom like he is for the vast majority of the play.  Yorick brought great happiness to Hamlet in his childhood, and his fonder memories spring up while gazing upon the jester's chapless skull.  It helps Hamlet to realize that whether you are the highest king or the lowliest of servant, everyone ends up in the same spot - in the ground, eventually turning into dust.  To a lesser extent, there is a bit of dark comedy here.  You have a focus on the deceased court jester, the gravediggers  are clowns, and there is a whole amusing discussion as to the nature of suicide and accidental death.  The whole scene gives us a comical reminder that death can be amusing because we fear it so much, yet we do not understand it.

More to come later