Jay Gatsby v. Charles Foster Kane
Most of us read The Great Gatsby in our sophomore Humanities 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? Do they tell us anything about the American Dream?
In The Great Gatsby and Citizen Kane, we see the story of these men told through an outside medium. In Gatsby, it is Nick, and in Citizen Kane, it is through the lens of the media questioning those closest to Kane. Telling Kane’s story post-mortem through the media is fitting for a man who made a name for himself as a master of print media, while Nick is used as a primary source to tell the story of the end of Gatsby’s life after he dies. Overall, both of these works are meant to provide a more intimate understanding of both men. In The Great Gatsby, Jay Gatsby is seen as an elusive and mysterious figure that everyone wants to figure out, and in his death he is seen as a villain who killed George Wilson’s wife. As a narrator, Nick becomes close to Gatsby and tells the story of Gatsby and Daisy, as well as comes to understand his humble upbringings from Gatsby’s father, effectively humanizing Gatsby to the reader. In Citizen Kane, the interviews with those close to Kane tell the story of his upbringing, his rebellion against his caretaker’s money, his rise as a newspaperman and political candidate, as well as the deterioration of his marriages. Specifically, the scene where Kane loses the election is meant to spark empathy in the viewer, as you see Kane trying to defeat corrupt boss Jim Gettys, but is bested by the political system as Gettys blackmails Kane for his affair with the singer. While this is the battle of two evils committed by both Kane and Gettys, it is symbolic of Kane’s personal struggles throughout the rest of his life as all of his relationships deteriorate. To the spectator, Kane and Gatsby appear to be extremely successful but with complicated, and at times distasteful, personal lives. While this is true, both works also attempt to demonstrate both characters rise to adulthood and their successes, and also portray them as well-meaning characters (most of the time) and work to humanize both characters despite their wrongdoings.
ReplyDeleteBecause Jay Gatsby and Charles Kane are fictional characters, I will not make the claim that the films criticize them; rather, they criticize the money-hungry turn for the worse America was taking at the time of the production of the films. In both films, the men are incredibly wealthy and have anything material they could wish for, but both characters lack what could be considered the most important thing in life, love. That is not just love for another person; Gatsby and Kane both lack the general love for life. Both Charles Kane and Jay Gatsby are the epitome of wealthy American men; they earned their fortune and both flaunt it. From the empty halls and rooms of the Xanadu palace to the packed parties in Gatsby’s mansion, both characters feel empty and alone, and that is because both characters worked so hard for their money and only their money. They never really focused on love over money. This is the authors’ ways of telling their audiences that the American mentality at each moment was a flawed one because it focused so much on wealth that people were not finding the proper love everyone needs to enjoy life. An example of this mentality is seen in one of the beginning scenes in Citizen Kane when Charles Kane’s mother signs him away to the banker for essentially a yearly payment and for Charles to grow up to be a successful businessman. Welles uses the scene of the mother signing little Charlie’s childhood away to the bank while he plays in the background, innocent and careless as ever, to show the horrible effects of that money-hungry American mentality. This mentality leads to Kane’s lonely downfall when he loses both wives out of his own greed. He never grew up to cherish his childhood and learn what it meant to love, so the only thing he was ever capable of truly loving was his fortune. However, Gatsby had a different struggle with love. Gatsby tried using his love as a way to find love. He did not focus solely on fortune over love; he only saw love achievable through boasting his fortune. This too was mostly unsuccessful because of how lonely he felt in his mansion and the great efforts he had to go to try and woo Daisy. Overall, both Gatsby and Kane show different sides of the same message; the money-hungry mentality in America at the time of each work was a serious concern for Welles and Fitzgerald.
ReplyDeleteIn Citizen Kane and The Great Gatsby, two men are portrayed as extremely wealthy and tremendously powerful. In Citizen Kane, it is Charles Kane who owns the fifth-biggest estate in the world and his actions prove it. He splurges his money on items and things that are not necessary. In The Great Gatsby, it is Gatsby who will host parties just for the clout and recognition. These men are extremely alike and are attention thieves. They will do anything to get the notice of others. Each of these men are the epitome of success and show that through their spending without limits. In each of these films, there is some sort of critique about either Kane or Gatsby. For Gatsby, it is spending to make others feel happy and doing some illegal work. For Kane, it is being obnoxious to people that are close to him and feeling like he is on top of the world. The main difference between the two is that Gatsby made his money by himself, although it was illegal. Kane made his money by inheriting a large fortune. Kane had been living for about 8 years as a poor child and then his life turned around and received more money than anyone could ask for. In the Great Gatsby, Gatsby usually had to be the one to go after a woman, but in Citizen Kane, Charles could get anyone or anything he desired. In each film, each man is seen as an extremely rich figure that does not care about others but only cares about themselves. These films are critiques of how a large sum of money can impact someone’s life for the worse. These films tell us as an audience that the American Dream is not about being rich but it is about being able to have friends and family to support you. In both of these films, these men never had anyone to turn to for help, resulting in the later parts of their life being miserable and non-enjoyable.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these stories tell the audience of what it’s like to be at the top of society. Both of these men are shown to have an extreme amount of wealth as they flaunt it in the films. Gatsby hosts extravagant parties while Kane buys whatever he think will be fun and collectible. Another similarity between these men is that they are both lacking something very important to their lives. They’re missing different things from their lives but both a effected greatly in the way that they end up losing purpose because without love or compassion they turn into a husk of their former selves. One difference is that Gatsby is lacking a lover in his life and it takes a toll on him in the form of an extremely skewed view on love that if he just buys them everything they want, they have to love him. Kane on the other hand, isn’t lacking lovers as he had two of them during his life. He is missing a parental figure that he respects. Without a parental figure Kane lacks compassion and empathy as he forced his second wife to keep singing even though she hated it like his parents forced him to go with Thatcher. Both movies try to say that the American dream is one that is full of wealth and success, but the underlying theme for both films is that the American dream goes much farther than just wealth. In the end it wasn’t money that lead to true happiness. Citizen Kane told the audience through the burning of Kane’s childhood sled that a person should enjoy their youth. In The Great Gatsby the theme is to achieve happiness you must appreciate the person for who they are not how much money they have.
ReplyDelete