[An interesting take here, though I disagree to an extent. I’d say that as the narrator of his own story, Nick understandably might have truths about himself he would like to hide from his audience; I very much like how the movie had him cross out “once” and change it to “twice”, implying the ambiguity some already see in the line (such as myself). As for Nick not being one to turn to alcohol, that could be a stretch for the movie, but book Nick and movie Nick feel so different, they may as well be separate interpretations. In the movie (as well as the book), for someone so cool about alcohol, he certainly gets roaring drunk pretty quickly under peer pressure at Catherine’s house, however. [Being an alcoholic might also have been the writers’ way to get Nick into a sanitorium and thereby set up a framing device to make the movie more first-person, as in the novel.]
I do take some issue with Nick ‘worshipping’ Daisy. The most glamorous view he has of her are physical traits such as her appearance and her voice, and they feel more like simple details than genuine admiration personally. If anything, he paints a more neutral/slightly-negative picture of her from the get-go. He very well could have regarded his cousin in such high esteem at some point, but the problem with the narrative is that it is not Nick explaining what is happening as it happens to him, but what has happened to him, all filtered through the views he came away with by the end of that summer. And as Nick is a writer, he likely has an understanding of how to build a story, so it would be important to introduce these negative aspects of Daisy from the beginning if he wants it all to add up to the idea that Daisy is “careless”. Without these messages, the judgements, and his beautiful descriptions, the story wouldn’t be much of a story really, at least one that requires Nick as a tenant character; in fact, these judgements are incredibly important not for the characters he’s judging but for his own, for without this internal dialogue revealing his outlooks, Nick would barely be a character at all.
I would also disagree with the idea that Nick doesn’t care much about the Buchanan’s affairs; simply because he didn’t act doesn’t mean he didn’t have any judgements. He’s more passive than accepting if anything. It recalls to mind how he muses about his ability to draw in people by being so “non-judgemental” as he gives an anecdote about an eccentric man talking his ear off while he tries to feign sleep. Internally, he’s passionate about his views on people; externally, he barely says a word.
Finally, for Nick being one to follow the rules strictly, his ethics are questionable. To start, he helps Gatsby meet Daisy again knowing that he loves her and that Daisy is a married woman; he’s essentially helping to create an affair, especially since he keeps a tight lip on all of this from Tom until the man figures it out on his own. Maybe this is because he believes that Daisy and Gatsby being together is for the greater good and that he is morally right in his actions. But then later, he won’t commit entirely to what he set up, telling Gatsby “you can’t repeat the past” when things start to head downhill between them. It feels unclear to me what Nick’s motivations were in helping Gatsby if he felt this way all along, but this again might be the narrative problem, whereby Nick sets Daisy up in a un-favourable light, but then helps Gatsby get back together with her. Again, it comes back to the ambiguity of the situation and Nick’s character altogether. What can be trusted from Nick’s point-of-view is highly suspect. Plus, prohibition era but drinking despite it being against the law also makes his rule-abiding nature questionable legally.]
Sure there might be some ambiguity that they were trying to keep from audience, but I still don't think that that constitutes this change in character. Like I understand that they wanted to use the sanitarium, but it felt forced given the material that Nick presents in the actual text. I do however agree that Book Nick and Movie Nick are very much different, but for myself it did not feel like a smooth transition. There would have be other ways that would have been believable yet get the same feel. EX: Christian in Moulin Rouge with the Typewriter. I just don’t agree with the way that they chose to address that specific medium.
Perhaps worshipping is the wrong word but from the way I view Daisy and Nick’s relationship it seemed to me that his compliments of her physical appearance and voice were indicative of personal admiration. Daisy is not built upon much, she is all fluff and little substance, so in my mind admiring her fluff is the same as admiring the little substance she has. The language I don’t think is indicative of a neutral point of view either, I think as the book goes on he definitely gets more critical of her choices, but in the beginning it does not seem sinister at all. Which is why the transition toward the ending I think is really quite melancholy, because you saw that Daisy and Nick at least had a somewhat good relationship the crumbled as the harsher aspects of her character is revealed.
What I was trying to get at was that Nick was pretty much the middle opinion of everyone in the book. He does not go to the extremes that everyone else does and keep to himself. Sure, he does facilitate the meeting between Gatsby and Daisy, but he also goes along with Tom’s whole Myrtle scheme for quite some time without saying at all. I do not think he’s necessarily fixated on these events, but more so is just allowing them to happen. I was not judging how moral he was based on everyone else’s version of morality, but more so in relation to the rest of the people in the book. I also did not take the line “Don’t repeat the past” as a him not committing to his actions. If anything I thing he was merely trying to point out what I think is simply TRUE in most instances. You can’t recreate the past. That’s not just the case for Daisy and Gatsby, but it’s the case for everything. It’s what helps make life so intangible and previous in the moment. Gatsby is so wrapped up in his ideals of the past that he isn’t even fully enjoying the present, and that’s what I think Nick was trying to highlight with that line.
I just think that the 2013 film watered down Nick’s judgement of her treatment of Gatsby through this alcoholic induced stated. What was most unique about Nick was that he does not seem to be directly affected by their actions. He’s merely an observer of the ruination that they cause. So I think allowing him to be affected by their choice not only makes him less reliable as a narrator ( which is something I never really questioned in the book ) but also makes less of an impact with his opinion. Something about the way that they went about it made me very uneasy because the book just doesn’t throw around alcohol too lightly between the main characters. So the make that a main component of the 2013 movie seemed like an unnecessary choice that did not add to the movie but may have even detracted from it.
snowghoul
gummygunk
yousharknotpass
dededos
tangentwithtanner
origamiaround
2087
