Wednesday, March 6, 2013
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)
Besides having an abundance of wealth, Jay Gatsby and Charles Kane are very similar individuals. While both of these men are successful in their business lives, Kane and Gatsby both live seemingly unfilled lives. The two men long for a missing part of their hearts; Gatsby yearns for Daisy’s affection and Kane wishes to fill the missing void of a parent’s love in his life. Gatsby and Kane both put up a front of security and power, while in truth they are vulnerable and insecure. Kane, like Gatsby, must always feel in charge and in control, even when things do not go as he plans. For example, even after Kane loses the election, he still views himself and wishes to come off as if he is on top. This is evidenced by the extreme low angle that looks up to him and makes him appear big and tall.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, a main difference between the two men is that Gatsby recognizes that Daisy is what fuels his actions, while Kane is not as obvious or clear about his intentions. Gatsby knows that everything he does, buys, wears, and says is planned to try to attract Daisy. I believe that Kane subconsciously acts the way he does in his search for affection. However, he does not outwardly recognize his desire to be loved, at the risk of appearing weak or less powerful. Similarly, it is not until Susan points out in a fight that he is insecure and wants to be loved, that Kane hears for the first time about his issues.
Through these two characters, I believe these works are trying to express that everything is not always as it seems. Both Kane and Gatsby from the outside appear strong, confident, and secure, however internally, this is not the case. The two men have their respective issues, both of which involve some sort of desire to be loved. Furthermore, I feel that the works also demonstrate that money does not buy happiness. Both men are extremely wealthy, however as the works show, they are miserable in their own ways. What they long for money cannot buy. This unfortunate fact results in fatal consequences in both Kane and Gatsby’s lives.
I agree with what Annie has stated and would like to offer some other similarities between the character's and the nature of their stories. I think the biggest similarity between Jay Gatsby and Charles Foster Kane is the way in which the narrative details their lives through the perspective of others, onlookers, who enter into their lives at later stages of development of the characters. In the great Gatsby, the entire story is told through the supposedly un-opinionated perspective of a young New York newcomer, Nick Caraway. As the story develops, Gatsby turns from an mysterious wealthy neighbor hosting countless high class parties into a miserable middle aged man with a lonely and desperate social life and a shady business life. Because Nick is entering the bizarre and encapsulating world of Gatsby, at such a late stage in his life, the story plays on the contrast between who Gatsby appears to be and who Gatsby truly is. At the beginning of the story, Gatsby is seen as a highly respected and untouchable mystery man. Towards the middle of the story, as we dive deeper into his business life and his inexplicable love for Daisy Buchanan, Gatsby remains an enigma, but a negative light is cast over his magnificent aura. By the time Gatsby dies laying listlessly in his pool, Gatsby's personality has been stripped away to a place where we can see how miserable and pathetic his life had become. In Citizen Kane, we find a similar narrative structure with onlookers as narrators and thus we find a similar story telling methodology. At the beginning, the reporter's news real and Bernstein's idealized narrative of Gatsby's younger days as a newspaper mogul cast a positive light over the character of Charles Foster Kane. He is seen as a magnificent high class personality figure with untouchable wealth and an enigmatic personal life. As the story progresses, we come to the eras of Kane's life that are narrated by Jebediah Leland, Susan Alexander, and Remand which expose the sad realities of his relationships and personal life. As with the narrative structure in Gatsby, we begin at the positive and enigmatic and descend to the negative and pathetic. Both stories dwell on the concept of nostalgia as each story are told after the deaths of their titular characters. In Gatsby, there is a double layer of nostalgia, as Nick relays and narrates what Gatsby and others have said about Gatsby's past life and his long rooted relationship with Daisy. When Nick tells of how Gatsby described that fateful day he and Daisy walked down the softly lit sidewalk by her wealthy home, we feel as though we are reading an ancient diary. In Citizen Kane, the reporter seeking Kane's story actually does read a diary, albeit from the perspective of Thatcher, Kane's guardian. With this layer of irretrievable time and nostalgic narrators, the picture we get of each character is never truly complete and can never be truly complete. We merely get fragments of a story that has already passed away.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect that adds to the equivocal nature of these complex characters is the title of each work. The epithets in the titles of the works add to the aura of speculation about the characters rather than the truth about the characters. Gatsby is considered "the great" due to his wealth, eminence and mysteriousness but from Nick's enlightened perspective on Gatsby at the end of the film, "great" becomes more of a hollow or ironic description of what Gatsby appeared to be. We see that Gatsby has no real friends that come to his funeral and the only man who respects him as anything more than a fallen star is his poor father, who symbolically represents the life of lower class anonymity that Gatsby sought to escape when he sailed off with the wealthy entrepreneur Dan Cody and changed his name from James Gatz to Jay Gatsby. In Citizen Kane, our first impression of Kane, even before we watch the film, is that he is an example of a significant or noteworthy citizen. The title makes us wonder what he has done for society and adds a layer of excited anticipation. In the news real at the beginning of the film, we get countless examples of Kane's impact on 20th century American society which support the implications of the title. As the film progresses, however, we see that the narrative is not about Kane's role as a citizen and more about his personal troubles as a wealthy businessman, political candidate, husband, and friend. By the conclusion of the film, Kane is so removed from society that the title becomes, like in Gatsby, an ironic and misleading message.
DeleteWhile both Jay Gatsby and Charles Foster Kane may both appear to be the epitome of success on the surface this is the farthest thing from the truth. That being said, both characters are initially presented as so. Gatsby was presented as a self-made millionaire who was at the top of the businessman world. Kane was presented as a man so important and successful that his last words must have the most profound meaning imaginable. Both men had supposedly conquered the American dream. However, there is a caveat in both of their stories that does not leave them as esteemed as they originally seemed. Jay Gatsby turns out to be entirely insecure and everything he does revolves around gaining back the love of his long lost girlfriend. The audience’s view of Kane deteriorates from one of worship to one of sympathy as the true meaning of the word ‘rosebud’ is revealed before them. As a result, both of these movies serve neither as celebrations nor critiques of these men, but rather critiques of the societies and upper class they are involved in. Both of these movies tells the story of a man who is putting on a front of being truly happy as a result of his wealth and success, but in the end merely fame was not enough to keep them happy. I believe that both of these movies are using a similar archetype to make a comment on the great downfall of the upper class.
ReplyDeleteThe Great Gatsby and Citizen Kane are both stories with similar plots and characters. Gatsby and Kane share a flawed human character, tremendous wealth, and the longing for human compassion and love but have completely different reservations. While Gatsby is more of a reserved socialite, Kane’s private life could not be more public. Gatsby is a man hiding from his own identity much the same was Kane is. Both believe money can buy happiness and love, and both find out the hard way that it cannot. While their wealth allows them to create a temporary solution to each problem they face, ultimately it is not enough to give them the life they are striving for. Unlimited wealth cannot fulfill the longing and need for love each man desires fatally causing each of their downfalls. These two pieces of work are both looked at as celebrations and critiques of Kane and Gatsby. They are celebrated through their examples of the poor man reaching success and conquering anything that got in his way, but at the same time this is a critique of the corporate world we live in today. In essence, Gatsby and Kane’s understanding of the wealth they possess only allows them to live life shallowly and never understand how to acquire anything without money, such as love and affection meaning you cannot buy everything. This concept of wealth illuminates the shallow living that theses two men have. In comparison this affair makes fun of them as well the tranquil live they desire can never be truly reached, and it is always a circular road they travel never being able to go off the path.
ReplyDeleteThere are many similarities between Jay Gatsby and Charles Kane. Both men are extremely wealthy and ambitious. They seize opportunities with ease and quickness to gain more money. Gatsby takes advantage of prohibition by selling bootleg liquor while Kane’s success comes from his newspaper. Both spend their money excessively and lavishly. Kane buy’s expensive statues, paintings, and furniture while Gatsby throws extravagant parties. Also they both come from very humble backgrounds being born into poverty and working hard to earn money.
ReplyDeleteHowever the two men’s greatest similarity to one another is their desire for something that is impossible to gain. Both men are obsessed with creating a perfect world. These men are so obsessed with this idea that they lose sight of what is possible and what is impossible. In Gatsby’s perfect world Daisy always loved him. Daisy only left him for tom because she was forced to. However he doesn’t see that Daisy only loves his money and still wants to stay with Tom. In Kane’s world he is beloved by all. They respect, adore, and honor him. However Kane mistakes this for love when it is really only admiration. He also does not know how to love as he treats his friends and family terribly. This isn’t surprising though since he was never loved properly.
Both of these men’s tragic downfalls are their misunderstanding of what love is. They see it as a prize that can be bought or won. However they don’t see the true meaning behind love. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. What they are chasing after is admiration and no one gains happiness from that.
I agree with much of what’s been said. The book and the movie both serve as a critique of the general societal view of happiness. Both men are very wealthy, have built an extravagant house, throw large parties in it, and are admired for this. Kane fits this even more than Gatsby; he is even more extreme and has a massive business empire. Yet for all this, everything people believe is necessary for happiness, they are miserable. Kane, Gatsby, and Tom Buchanan as well, longs for the past. Kane wants the easy happiness of a childhood and family he never had; Gatsby wants to return to a time when he and Daisy were together, before the Great War and before his wealth; lastly, Tom Buchanan longs for the days when he was the star of the football team. Kane and Gatsby both were happy before becoming wealthy and have since lost that happiness and are attempting to buy it. Gatsby only throws the parties in hopes of attracting Daisy while Kane has his parties in order to feel loved and admired. The vast palace of Xanadu is a symbol of Kane’s life: it is vast and filled with material things but it is overall cold, cavernous and above all empty. Kane has his sled, and Gatsby his green light in the distance of daisy’s house; both are symbolic of a lost time that the character does everything in his estimable power to return to. The last line of The Great Gatsby is perhaps the most telling of this trend: “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past” (Fitzgerald).
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of being completely redundant and beating a dead horse, I will continue on and share my views on this subject too. I notice a number of similarities, most of which already having been mentioned like wealth, longing for love, false fronts and truly a depressing life that both end in tragedy. I will focus specifically on one topic, that money not only can't buy you happiness but in the hands of certain people can change you and prevent you from achieving happiness. This is a really depressing outlook but one that holds true in both of these stories.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that money cannot buy true happiness, only superficial objects and material things. It can never buy love nor can it buy a peace of mind. In the time period where both these stories were produced, (1922-1941), there seemed to be the idea that if you threw big parties and were able to be rich and merry throughout the depression while others worked in low quality factory jobs, you would be happy. These stories disprove this claim by showing that money can't buy you happiness, something that is commonly known now but may not have been so understood back in the twenties.
My second point, that money changes people and prevents them from ever finding happiness is less developed but more important. In Citizen Kane, Kane is shown to have changed immensely over time, and the only real things that changed in his life were his wealth and power. Once his paper started becoming popular, you could see a shift in his personality and outlook. He started to buy material objects like statues and busts while mistreating his closest friends and becoming more and more selfish. While a young Mr. Kane may have cared about his friends, a rich Mr. Kane ignored them and treated them like any other worker. In the Great Gatsby, Jay is loved by Daisy when he is just a young and honest guy trying to make it in the world, yet when he becomes rich, it is harder for them to be together. Again, the only thing that changed about him were his funds and power. I think that the point that both of these stories are trying to show is that money changes people and almost puts a wall around whoever is earning it. Once rich, they are unable to care about others as much because they feel entitled to everything because of how they are treated by most people. It is interesting and unfortunate that money seems to be the root of all evils in both of these stories and without it, both Kane and Jay would be allowed to be happy and genuine people.
I would agree with absolutely everything previously said comparing Jay Gatsby’s rich and materialistic lifestyle with Charles Kane’s similar grasp on the “American Dream.” In order to not sound like a broken record, I’d venture to look specifically at what the symbolism of Xanadu compared to that of the Gatsby estate represents in this context of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the name “Xanadu” represents an earthly, materialistic paradise that very well relates to Gatsby’s ivy-coated estate. At the beginning of the film, the narrator quotes from Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem Kubla Khan (in which the main character builds another paradisiacal estate also named Xanadu) by describing Xanadu as a “stately pleasure dome.” Gatsby’s house, as well, is another symbol of the successful “self-made” American. IT is a direct result of his newer wealth, just like Kane. However, the difference is that Gatsby has an ulterior motive; to win the love of Daisy with the means of money. The question then becomes-- what is the motivation of Kane for continuing his wealth and the building of the grand fortress of Xanadu? I believe that, like Gatsby, Kane’s desire to physically represent his wealth in the form of a gluttonous mansion does not come from a comparable love interest like Gatsby but from a slower-onset misconception of success caused by his being raised by Thatcher. The only form of success that Kane is taught to learn is of material success and because of this, Kane struggles in his personal life and professional life. Not only does the size of their estates represent their corruptness, but also the nature of the house’s design reflects the need for both characters to overcompensate for their lack of variety in life—their inability to meaningfully connect with people around them (and the rest of the world). Both Gatsby and Kane have mansions with a wide variety of cultures represented in the designs and the contents. This is definitely showing off wealth, but it also is a sort of validation of a narrow-mindedness that Gatsby adopts for himself (once he starts to think that it’s the best way to get Daisy) and that Charles Kane is raised to feel.
The parallels between Jay Gatsby and Charles Foster Kane are unbelievable. They both come from humble beginnings and then receive their wealth from the generosity of another and then are seen as being mysterious. Also they both have huge homes filled with expensive collectables such as statues and jewelry in order to make them feel better about themselves. Additionally they never get their true loves in life, as well as seeming unsettled with the way their lives have gone. The two are both unpredictable and this adds to the mystery behind the two men. The both at time also seem vulnerable because there are times when both Gatsby and Kane let their emotions take advantage of them which leaves them open to be ridiculed by their peers. For Gatsby this is the whole situation with his love for Daisy and for Kane it is the situation with the election scandal and how his expressing love for another left him vulnerable. They do also have some differences, one being how Gatsby seems to want Daisy the love of his life and Kane seems to want his old life back. Also Gatsby had more of a choice in the course his life took, whereas Kane’s life was signed away by his mother. I feel that main take away when analyzing the similarities and differences between these two memorable characters is the way they both teach the life lesson that money does not buy happiness, as both of them seem to be putting on a front to make everyone around them think they are happy when in reality they are not.
ReplyDeleteJay Gatsby and Kane are two men who could have dominated in today's world, if only they were real. Putting that thought aside, Jay Gatsby and Kane do in fact represent the American male (in this case) with tons of success in life. This success brings big houses, beautiful women and parties with "friends." The importance of "friends" is no one really knows if they are true friends or not (relating to Gatsby) and in Kane, no one else except Kane knows what rosebud was, so the true friendships he may have developed weren't deep enough to know his true love in life and the thing he longed for the most. Jay Gatsby held immaculate parties for dozens of people that would come drink at his house and have a jolly time, but never did he have a real friend at his house. Always new people rolling to the parties and never truly thanking him for putting on such a wonderful night, they saw his actions as his role in life, like he had to do it all the time. Like Gatsby, Kane never developed true friends. You could say Mr. Bernstein was one of Kane's closest friends but that would take a long argument to draw out and prove a point. His lack of friendship is seen by his longing for rosebud. No one ever knew what rosebud was, and no one ever cared to find out what he wanted back the most. Both of these men lived their lives with an interesting ending, one filled with loneliness. This could pertain to the lack of friends they gained over the years of their life. So in a sense of success, these men are the epitome of success, but in happiness throughout life and love throughout life, these men could use a couple of first hand lessons, from say, i don't know Ryan.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion there are definitely similarities between Charles Foster Kane and Jay Gatsby. Both are men who have great wealth and resources, but are really only concerned in pursuing some kind of a dream. For Jay Gatsby, the dream was to be with the woman he loved, Daisy Buchanan. To pursue this dream, he acquired great wealth and went to great lengths to impress her. Kane is in a similar situation because he also has a vast amount of resources that he acquires in pursuit of a goal. In Mr. Kane’s case his goal is not as clear as Gatsby’s, although Mr. Leland says that Kane wanted everybody to love him but that he really did not love anything. I think that this is what makes Kane a unique character, even from Gatsby, with whom he shares many similarities. The two characters both pursue fame and fortune, but not for the sake of fame; they do it merely as an effort to achieve a greater goal. Gatsby had a very clear goal, which was resolved when he failed to win over Daisy, and then tragically died the next day. For Kane, there is no defining moment when he fails in achieving his goal, although it seems safe to say he did not succeed either, considering his condition when he died. It would seem that he achieved happiness when he successfully ran the Inquirer and was married to his first wife, with a son. But this situation ends with his unfaithfulness to his wife, the breakup of his family, and the end of his political campaign. From there, he searches for happiness again, including a 2nd marriage, and a huge estate, but doesn’t really seem to succeed. It seems like there are two explanations for the characters unfulfilled life; he either never really found his true passion in life; or that he merely wanted everybody to love him but was unwilling to give love, as Leland said. If this is the case, then Kane can be considered an extremely self-absorbed character, perhaps with a personality disorder that prevented him from caring about others or loving a wife and family as a man should.
ReplyDelete