![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My praise of the Production
On Friday the 8th of May I went to the Brisbane Powerhouse to attend Gatz. On Saturday the 9th, I left the theatre, having thoroughly enjoyed the 6 hour performance.
Gatz is a production by Elevator Repair Service. From their website:
"One morning in the low-rent office of a mysterious small business, one employee finds a ragged old copy of The Great Gatsby in the clutter of his desk and starts to read it out loud. And doesn't stop.
At first his coworkers hardly seem to notice, but then weird coincidences start happening in the office, one after another, until it's no longer clear whether he's reading the book or the book is doing something to him. . . .
6 hours long and with a cast of 13, Gatz is by far ERS's most ambitious endeavor yet — not a stage adaptation of Fitzgerald's novel but a verbatim reading of the entire book, accomplished by the staff of a small office in the midst of their increasingly bewildering business operations."
The main point I want to highlight from the excerpt is that this is not a theatre production of The Great Gatsby. Although the entire book is read and re-enacted, there are many liberties taken. For example, there is a part in the novel where a list of names of the guests of Gatsby's parties are read out and described. It is a dreadfully boring part of the book to read, and it would send you to sleep to have to listen to it. So in Gatz, the actors instead come on stage and begin to clean up the set in a humorous pantomime and prepare it for the next scene all while that portion of the book is narrated. The result of the deviations from the book is that Gatz is a significantly different text from The Great Gatsby.
To be clear, Gatz and The Great Gatsby share the same story and characters. Except for playing a song during the show, all the dialogue in the two texts is identical. But the actors manage to bring life and humour to parts of the book that had none. When an actor reluctantly or enthusiastically follows the action that they are narrated, it adds subtlety to the character or the story and invites you to consider a reading different from the one you might have if you only read the book.
The performance was energetic, fun and I got a very playful impression from the actors. They broke the fourth wall with regularity and without ceremony. As a result I never forgot that I was in the audience, but by the proficiency of the actors I often forgot that they were in an office. Also, the effect of the continuous narration was almost hypnotic. It was odd to feel the story progress and develop at the same speed whether there was movement on the stage or not.
Sometimes Gatz would even betray the book. At points when the book was trying to effect sadness, the actors would use humour. Just seconds before the narrator describes Daisy crying, another actor carrying a spray-bottle of water walks on from off-stage and gives two squirts under Daisy's eyes, then walks away. It felt liberating to see the text interpreted without reverence, since I don't hold the book in high regard.
Before I begin my criticism of The Great Gatsby, I want to recommend Gatz again. If you're inBrisbane , you've missed it, if you're in Sydney
My criticism of the book
The Great Gatsby is the story of Nick Carraway, and his feelings and interpretation of the actions of Jay Gatsby. The message I got from the book was that when Gatsby was dreamimg and striving to be with Daisy, he was really striving for what he imagined he had in the past. I don't know if this is the accepted reading and I'm not too bothered if I'm wrong, because the book was pretty bad.
The book is narrated from the point of view of Nick, who is a bond salesman. He is not poor, but neither wealthy. When he speaks about his bourgeoisie neighbours he gives the impression of idolising them for their great wealth, while at the same time half-heartedly pointing out their extravagant excesses. Nick's off-handed remarks about over-worked butlers and the silliness of the rich show a sort of anti-materialism that is not consistent with his adoration and praise for Gatsby, his fantastically wealthy neighbour. Nick is a reader of the text, as well as the writer, as he thoughtfully interrupts his own narration to bore us with his interpretation of events.
Jay Gatsby is a 'self-made' millionaire. This of course means he is a criminal. His empire seems to be a chain of drug stores that sell alcohol over the counter, breaking the prohibition laws of the time. He desires Daisy Buchanan, a woman whom he knew before world war one, who is now married to Tom Buchanan. He represents the corrupt upper-class and the chauvinistic and brutal patriarchy. For all these flaws Nick presents him as the poor martyr who was simply trying to live the American dream.
Tom Buchanan is another rich man, who made his wealth playing polo. Nick doesn't like him as much as Gatsby because he isn't a gangster, but rather a racist and a woman basher. The reason these sins are unforgivable but Gatsby's are endearing is because Tom's flaws are poor people flaws. Remember, what Gatsby does is criminal, but that's ok, he's rich and upper class. What Tom does is stupid, brutal and chauvinistic and he talks like a poor man, so he's bad.
Daisy Buchanan is an object. Both Jay Gatsby and Tom Buchanan desire to own her and this leads to the primary conflict. She has no meaningful feelings or thoughts of her own, as demonstrated when Tom and Jay argue in the hotel room about who she loves more. She's right there in the room, but no one thinks to ask her. Instead she simpers and cries like a well-behaved plot contrivance, keeping out of the way of the men, who are the focus of interest.
All women in The Great Gatsby are objects, who have no significance on their own. They only matter when they affect a man. MyrtleWilson
Jordan Baker almost seems like an empowered woman, making her own way in the world as an athlete, but in the end the only real purpose she seems to have in the book is to distract the reader from the suspicious status of Nick's sexuality. She has more lines than the other two women, who are nearly entirely silenced, but nothing she says is very important. She only plays an important role in the story once, when she tells Nick about Gatsby's designs on Daisy, and even then, she does it because Gatsby told her to, not by her own choice.
No characters recognise how women in the text are silenced. The text doesn't even seem to recognise it. This book could have been re-written with all the women removed and it would retained all the tension and conflict, provided you made Tom, Nick and Gatsby gay.
I've heard that the Great Gatsby is about the American dream, and I must admit it seems that way. The rich are heroic, unless they're stupid, and the women are objects. That about sums it up.
If you think otherwise, please comment.
On Friday the 8th of May I went to the Brisbane Powerhouse to attend Gatz. On Saturday the 9th, I left the theatre, having thoroughly enjoyed the 6 hour performance.
Gatz is a production by Elevator Repair Service. From their website:
"One morning in the low-rent office of a mysterious small business, one employee finds a ragged old copy of The Great Gatsby in the clutter of his desk and starts to read it out loud. And doesn't stop.
At first his coworkers hardly seem to notice, but then weird coincidences start happening in the office, one after another, until it's no longer clear whether he's reading the book or the book is doing something to him. . . .
6 hours long and with a cast of 13, Gatz is by far ERS's most ambitious endeavor yet — not a stage adaptation of Fitzgerald's novel but a verbatim reading of the entire book, accomplished by the staff of a small office in the midst of their increasingly bewildering business operations."
The main point I want to highlight from the excerpt is that this is not a theatre production of The Great Gatsby. Although the entire book is read and re-enacted, there are many liberties taken. For example, there is a part in the novel where a list of names of the guests of Gatsby's parties are read out and described. It is a dreadfully boring part of the book to read, and it would send you to sleep to have to listen to it. So in Gatz, the actors instead come on stage and begin to clean up the set in a humorous pantomime and prepare it for the next scene all while that portion of the book is narrated. The result of the deviations from the book is that Gatz is a significantly different text from The Great Gatsby.
To be clear, Gatz and The Great Gatsby share the same story and characters. Except for playing a song during the show, all the dialogue in the two texts is identical. But the actors manage to bring life and humour to parts of the book that had none. When an actor reluctantly or enthusiastically follows the action that they are narrated, it adds subtlety to the character or the story and invites you to consider a reading different from the one you might have if you only read the book.
The performance was energetic, fun and I got a very playful impression from the actors. They broke the fourth wall with regularity and without ceremony. As a result I never forgot that I was in the audience, but by the proficiency of the actors I often forgot that they were in an office. Also, the effect of the continuous narration was almost hypnotic. It was odd to feel the story progress and develop at the same speed whether there was movement on the stage or not.
Sometimes Gatz would even betray the book. At points when the book was trying to effect sadness, the actors would use humour. Just seconds before the narrator describes Daisy crying, another actor carrying a spray-bottle of water walks on from off-stage and gives two squirts under Daisy's eyes, then walks away. It felt liberating to see the text interpreted without reverence, since I don't hold the book in high regard.
Before I begin my criticism of The Great Gatsby, I want to recommend Gatz again. If you're in
My criticism of the book
The Great Gatsby is the story of Nick Carraway, and his feelings and interpretation of the actions of Jay Gatsby. The message I got from the book was that when Gatsby was dreamimg and striving to be with Daisy, he was really striving for what he imagined he had in the past. I don't know if this is the accepted reading and I'm not too bothered if I'm wrong, because the book was pretty bad.
The book is narrated from the point of view of Nick, who is a bond salesman. He is not poor, but neither wealthy. When he speaks about his bourgeoisie neighbours he gives the impression of idolising them for their great wealth, while at the same time half-heartedly pointing out their extravagant excesses. Nick's off-handed remarks about over-worked butlers and the silliness of the rich show a sort of anti-materialism that is not consistent with his adoration and praise for Gatsby, his fantastically wealthy neighbour. Nick is a reader of the text, as well as the writer, as he thoughtfully interrupts his own narration to bore us with his interpretation of events.
Jay Gatsby is a 'self-made' millionaire. This of course means he is a criminal. His empire seems to be a chain of drug stores that sell alcohol over the counter, breaking the prohibition laws of the time. He desires Daisy Buchanan, a woman whom he knew before world war one, who is now married to Tom Buchanan. He represents the corrupt upper-class and the chauvinistic and brutal patriarchy. For all these flaws Nick presents him as the poor martyr who was simply trying to live the American dream.
Tom Buchanan is another rich man, who made his wealth playing polo. Nick doesn't like him as much as Gatsby because he isn't a gangster, but rather a racist and a woman basher. The reason these sins are unforgivable but Gatsby's are endearing is because Tom's flaws are poor people flaws. Remember, what Gatsby does is criminal, but that's ok, he's rich and upper class. What Tom does is stupid, brutal and chauvinistic and he talks like a poor man, so he's bad.
Daisy Buchanan is an object. Both Jay Gatsby and Tom Buchanan desire to own her and this leads to the primary conflict. She has no meaningful feelings or thoughts of her own, as demonstrated when Tom and Jay argue in the hotel room about who she loves more. She's right there in the room, but no one thinks to ask her. Instead she simpers and cries like a well-behaved plot contrivance, keeping out of the way of the men, who are the focus of interest.
All women in The Great Gatsby are objects, who have no significance on their own. They only matter when they affect a man. Myrtle
Jordan Baker almost seems like an empowered woman, making her own way in the world as an athlete, but in the end the only real purpose she seems to have in the book is to distract the reader from the suspicious status of Nick's sexuality. She has more lines than the other two women, who are nearly entirely silenced, but nothing she says is very important. She only plays an important role in the story once, when she tells Nick about Gatsby's designs on Daisy, and even then, she does it because Gatsby told her to, not by her own choice.
No characters recognise how women in the text are silenced. The text doesn't even seem to recognise it. This book could have been re-written with all the women removed and it would retained all the tension and conflict, provided you made Tom, Nick and Gatsby gay.
I've heard that the Great Gatsby is about the American dream, and I must admit it seems that way. The rich are heroic, unless they're stupid, and the women are objects. That about sums it up.
If you think otherwise, please comment.
