Sunday, February 26, 2012
Jay Gatsby v. Charles Foster Kane
Most of us read The Great Gatsby in our junior English class. Both Gatsby and Citizen Kane, produced about twenty years apart, focus on a man who some might say is the epitome of success. What similarities and differences do you see? Are these works celebrations or critiques of these men, or somewhere in between? Or something else?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After recently completing The Great Gatsby in my English class I notice many parallels between the Charles Kane and Jay Gatsby. Both men inherit a large fortune as they live in large estates and living large, extravagant lives. Some people argue both men live out the American dream and have great success in life but I would argue that both men live empty and unfulfilled lives that tell viewers and readers that money cannot buy happiness and one needs family to help them get the most out of life. The most we learn of Gatsby is his former life as James Gatz, a man who served in the army and Charley Kane gets taken away from his parents as they tell him he is better off living away from home in New York. They inform Charlie he will inherit a large fortune and become one of the richest men in the country. Rich in dollars, yes, but rich in relationships and friendship, no. What Charley's parents fail to realize is that the dollars Charlie will be receiving cannot purchase friendship and family moments that last a lifetime. Although Kane marries twice and Gatsby lives his entire life without a spouse, it can be argued that Kane never does find true love. Both marriages end poorly for Kane as his second wife even tries to commit suicide to remove herself from the situation Charlie has put her in as an opera singer. Both men rely on their fortune to make them happy and in both cases, their money fails them. Both stories are a critique on the "American dream" as both characters enjoy the wealth that comes with being and American but miss out on the family life and personal relationships people can build through friendship and having an everyday routine.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that while Kane and Gatsby are equally naïve and equally destructive, Gatsby comes across as a better human being. I love the point someone made in class about Kane never actually having grown up. He’s a perpetual toddler who can’t see beyond his own limited perspective. When he wants influence, he indulges in yellow journalism; when he wants attention, he builds his wife an opera house; and when he wants that wife to stay with him, all he can think about is what a divorce would do to him, not her. Gatsby matches this incredible naïveté in the single-mindedness of his quest to recapture Daisy. He goes out of his way to build a huge house, decorate it with ivy, and fill it with businessmen and celebrities he cares nothing for, all to seem impressive. What’s more, he constructs this house in a place where he can spend nights watching the green light on Daisy’s dock. It’s insane, and it ultimately leads to disaster. Gatsby’s obsession with Daisy results in the death of Myrtle and the peak of her husband’s insanity, which in turn leads to Gatsby’s own death. Likewise, Kane’s ruthless attempts to control and dominate every aspect of his life hurt his wives (as Alec noted) and destroy and chance he has at happiness. So, how could either of these men be celebrated by their creators (Fitzgerald and Welles, that is)? Through his performance, Welles gives Kane moments of sweetness and nostalgia that remind us of his humanity. Ultimately, though, I prefer Fitzgerald’s technique: he gives Gatsby a goal that everyone can relate to. It’s not a quest for power, like Kane’s, which many people would frown upon if they took the time to give it thought; it’s a search for love, an attempt to recapture the past. That is something everyone dreams about, and it’s what makes Gatsby more noble than Kane.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Alec and Aden on this one. When comparing Jay Gatsby to Charles Kane, Gatsby strikes me as the man who has a greater conscience and a good, kind heart. I would say the same for Kane, but there were too many instances throughout the film where he let greed and power take control of his words and actions. However, I also believe that Kane should not have to take the blame for the way he went about his life, as he was unwillingly taken away from his parents and home at such an early age. And it's because he was taken away from his parents to live with a millionaire that he was raised to believe that wealth and power are the keys to living a successful and happy life. Either way, he did drive away both of his wives because of his greedy and controlling nature, and he became arrogant because of his wealth and success. Gatsby also had his fall-outs, such as his obsession with Daisy (as Aden mentioned above), his inability to take the feelings of others into consideration at times, and some questionable decisions that he made as well. Yet, he was definitely more down-to-earth than Kane was, he wasn't full of himself despite his extreme wealth and popularity, and he was also quite a generous gentleman. In terms of how they were presented in the novel (Gatsby) and the film (Kane), it came across to me as though Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" was celebrating Gatsby's life in a way, but was also using him as an example to portray a message about life's uncertainties. As for "Citizen Kane," I truly think that the main focus was to critique Kane and show viewers why it is unwise to revolve your life around wealth and power.
ReplyDelete