The Great Gatsby Soundtrack

The Great Gatsby is a classic tale of romance, tragedy, lust, greed, cheats, etc all intertwined in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel depicting the roaring 1920’s. The recent movie does a great job in interpreting these themes with a modern touch. Something that really brings the film to life however is the music. It is a unique mix of the jazzy tones of the 1920’s and modern day hip-hop featuring the voices of talents such as Fergie, Beyonce, and Jay-Z. What makes this soundtrack special is that is was created specifically for this film. The music helps enhance each scene. One of the most prominent examples is Fergie's song, “A Little Party Never Killed Nobody (All We Got)”, which is played at the peak of one of Gatsby’s wild parties. It is upbeat, loud, and something that makes someone want to dance. The song also creates a sense of tension and loss of control. It fits with the scene because the guests keep getting rowdy and drunk.

Other songs bring in the cool, laid back, almost sleazy sense of the prohibition and jazz era. The song “$100 Bill” by Jay-Z starts to play when Nick and Gatsby enter the jazz club. It is a very rich and expensive sounding song, yet it has a certain racy quality to it. This racy quality fits into the 1920’s. Jazz music wasn't popular and looked up too. In a sense it was dangerous. This specific song as well as others help to make viewers of the film see that although the 1920’s was full of wild parties and glamour, there is also a darker side, one that is underground, one that involves gangsters, mobs, and bootleggers. Gatsby just being there and being so familiar with the people there shows he was up to trouble. The music simply helps create this mood, this emotion.

“Young and Beautiful” by Lana Del Rey is a powerful song that is played throughout the film. It symbolize the relationship of Daisy and Gatsby. The lyrics behind the song are powerful and help the viewers realize the history behind this couple. It is romantic and chilling at the same time, which is just like Daisy and Gatsby. The main theme “Will you still love me when I’m no longer beautiful” has a lot of depth and passion. It hooks the listener and shows them that Gatsby and Daisy are no longer the young lovers in Louisville and their relationship is complicated and prone to failure.

The lyrics are unique to this specific movie, which makes sense because the soundtrack was made specifically for The Great Gatsby. When listening closer to the words, the songs talk about the economy booming, the fixing of the World Series, and the prohibition. It is cool how the writers were able to incorporate the 20’s into modern rhythms and melodies. Other lyrics are specific to events in the movie. They depict the emotions of the characters and key points in the plot. Some examples include “Love is the Drug” (in the song “Love is the Drug” by Sia) which is talking about Gatsby and Daisy and their toxic affair as well as the words from “Back to Back” by Beyonce, “We only said goodbye with words I died a hundred times, You go back to her, And I go back to” which could be talking about Gatsby’s longing for Daisy. "Love is Blindness" by Jack White plays when Myrtle is killed. The lyrics really fit because she is blinded by her love for tome and thinking that he will save her, when in reality she gets hit by Daisy, Tom's wife. It is a little ironic and the song helps point this out. Important symbolism, such as the green light and the girls in the yellow dresses are also mentioned in the sound track. This helps the film because it connects the plot and the novel to it directly. It gives those key themes meaning and life and pushes them into the viewer/listener’s face.

It is clear that the soundtrack works well for the film The Great Gatsby. It pushes forward key themes as well as present the emotions of each character and scene. The style also is connected to Fitzgerald and the 1920’s jazz era, while mixing it with a more modern and contemporary twist as well. It is one of the best soundtracks out there and really puts the movie and the story first, which is what a good soundtrack should do.

Map Analysis

map 2 http://www.loc.gov/resource/g4410.ct001000/

• The map was created by Spanish speaking people seeing as it is written in spanish
• The creators seem to think that California is an island, separated from the rest of the United States
• There are illustrations of the explorers teaching the Native Americans methods of farming and how they are grateful to the new growing crops
• The rivers seem very important, especially those that connect with Mexico
• There are many provinces illustrated along the rivers which means that in the dry climate, land along the water was essential
• There is an illustration of people rowing a canoe in the ocean so this could be the explorers but most likely the Native Americans

There are many assumptions that this specific map makes. One of the most clear is the fact that the Native Americans wanted and were willing to learn knowledge from the explorers. It is assumed that the white explorers are viewed by the Native Americans as “...hapless martyrs” (pg. 70). The image the map creates is that the explorers are Gods in the eyes of the simple minded natives. Another assumption made is the fact that there is an “...inevitability to English control of the North American Continent…” (pg. 56). The people currently living in the California area don’t seem to put up a fight, but rather welcome the white people with open arms. This particular map centers around the American identity at the time that white people are better than any other race or culture. It is clear that the explorers came in and claimed California as their own. They had all the answers on survival and coexistence. They couldn't have shown any hostility and the natives were pleasant and simple people who were willing to give up their land. This identity is biased based on the creators of the map. It shines a bright light on the white race who shoved all their problems and animosity under the rug so that no one could know the whole truth. It also shows that the white race was not as smart as they thought they were since California obviously is not an island. I do think however that another identity is the American Dream. California was an area of opportunity. It had fertile land that could produce a nice profit after hard work. It is also a shining example that the spirit of exploration can take you to the ends of the earth, or at least the United States.

American Dream

                The American Dream. In a way it defines America and American identities, the idea being that if a person works hard, that hard work will eventually pay off in the end. Unfortunately, the American Dream is just that, a dream. The reality of the world has much more complexities than the black and white results of the American Dream. Factors surrounding things that we can and can’t control keep us from climbing the social ladder as high as we wish. It comes from the family we are born into and the fruits that stem from that circumstance as well as the opportunities granted to some and not others.

            Education is the building block to success in the 21^st century. Without going to a decent college and getting that degree or doctorate or whatever it may be, the chance to move up the social ladder is slim to none. The interesting aspect about education is that even though it is so important for those in the lower class to improve their circumstances, they are less likely to succeed in an academic environment than those from a higher social class. According to Sean F. Reardon in his article “No Rich Child Left Behind”, “…children of the rich perform better in school, on average, than from the middle-class or poor families.” (Source A). So social class is a clear predictor of performance academically. Unfortunately the “…differences in educational success between high- and-lower- income students have grown substantially” (Source A). This growing gap has a direct link to the social class system in America. How is possible for these people to fulfill the American Dream if they are left struggling in the education system, a system that is so vital for someone’s future? The article, “Social Mobility in America: Repairing the Rungs” states that “…most OECD countries spend more on education of poor children than rich ones, in America the opposite is true” (Source B). Our country does nothing to help those struggling to climb the social ranks, yet we still state that anything is possible under the “American Dream”. Sure, there are a few that break the norms, but can we really base the existence of the American Dream on a few sporadic outside cases? It is clear that America is focused more on the rich, those who statistically are shown to succeed. But if this is true, where is there room for the American Dream?

            We are all born into families, each having different circumstances economically. These circumstance present us with a different number of opportunities. Those in the higher class have more opportunities than those in the lower class. This is plain and simple. It may not be what people want to hear, but the truth is harsh. In a report commissioned by the Pew Charitable Trusts in 2012, figure 3 shows that American in the upper and lower ranks will likely stay there during their lifetime (Source F). Now the American Dream is based partly on mobility on the social ladder. If mobility to those who need the benefits of the dream are unable to achieve it, what is the point? One of the main reasons those in the lower class are unable to move up is inequality. They are given less opportunities because they are in a lower class rank. “The Great Gatsby Curve” by Paul Krugman shows “…America is both unequal and has especially low mobility” (Source G). The graph compare America as well as other countries from around the world. The inequality in our country is a direct cause to the lack of mobility. By definition, the lack of mobility conflicts with the basic principal of the American Dream.

            It is not so clear, black and white, that the American Dream is real. I think that the American Dream is only a dream, and not a reality. The lack of educational success, assistance from the government, and inequality are clearly affecting American people negatively. It would ideal if anyone was able to move up in the ranks, to get that dream job and become that person they always wanted to be. It will most likely never happen for most. I hope that in the future, American’s can pull their act together and make something that may only be a dream into a reality and change our country for the better. 

Social Class

My results from the quiz showed that I belonged to the Bourgeois Vous, or the upper-middle class. I this reflects pretty accurately on my life. I do indeed eat a lot of fruits and vegetables and our house contains many books. I do view people in a positive light (unless they demonstrate otherwise) and I am not a fan of heavy metal music. I found it interesting how the length my parent’s breast fed me helped determine my class. I also thought it was different how choosing to eat food without paying or spy for a competitor gave a person a higher score on the social ladder.

                The article “Shadowy Lines That Still Divide” by Janny Scott and David Leonhardt shares many similarities and difference to my life and how social class defines and affects it. The article states that “mobility…has flattened out or possible even declined”. I find this very true. It is harder now with worldwide completion to become more successful than your parents. Everyone is vying for that top spot or that loophole. Living in McFarland, a town that is pretty well off, I see how parents “scramble to scoop up a house in the best school district, channel a child into the best preschool program, and land the best medical specialist…”; My parents were the same way, which probably why I still go to McFarland and why they push me so hard to be the best. This is why I don’t agree with the article’s statement: “Parents with money, education and connections cultivate in their children the habits that mediocrity awards”. This seems completely flawed in my personal case. My parents push me to be the best I can be so that hopefully my life could be easier than theirs. There is that constant pressure to succeed, not to settle for anything, especially mediocrity.

I agree with the main message in the article “Money Always Talks” by Daphne Merkin. I think that “the rich are different”. The article also states, “They make us think we would do better if we had their dough….Or, at least, we want the option to prove our lofty conjectures”. As the upper-middle class, I constantly see people talking about how they could change the world if they had the chance, or they would spend the money more wisely. What gets me is how money can inspire and corrupt people. Sure it can change your social class in an instant, but what if it changes you as a person? This thought may reflect on my social class, always trying to see the best in people, but money can flip people. Is it really worth it?

This leads into the film People like Us was very eye opening. It showed me that the rich really don’t have it all. They can be arrogant and selfish and naive, just like the rest of us. It is not their fault, but the fault of the class system. The boys from the mobile home wanted nothing but an education and a future, and I am sitting here complaining about how slow this laptop is. This divide of wants and wills shows that the class system is still here in the United States; those in need should be given more aid. I hope that in the future the class system will be something based on merit and honor and kindness, not money because in the end, money is just paper.

Sound and Fury

Sound and Fury depicts a family that consists of deaf and hearing members, along with all of their offspring. Each side found a stance on the controversial cochlear implant, a device that if implanted could allow a deaf person the gift of hearing. There are many different Discourses present that drive the arguments on each side.

Peter and his wife, along with their three children are deaf. They belong to a community that is close knit and protective of its culture and ways. The deaf community is strongly against the cochlear implant because they feel that it is taking away a member of their society. Belonging to this Discourse, the community and especially

 Peter and his wife don’t know what they are missing by not being able to hear. To them, silence is peaceful and to be happy in life, all they need is each other. They have their own language that suits their needs and the cochlear implant is almost a symbol that deaf culture is being destroyed. It is a message that they are a problem, and this new technology can fix them, yet they see that nothing is wrong with being deaf.

Peter’s family, particularly his mother, father, brother, and sister-in-law all are hearing, and are therefore categorized in the hearing Discourse. They know what opportunities a person can have by hearing and how much life with become easier for their children and grandchildren. They have experienced a world of music and noise and speech, so by denying someone of that right seems morally wrong to them. They feel like if something was created to take away a handicap, and then why not use it. This conflicts with the deaf community because they don’t feel like they are handicapped. Because both parties are different Discourses, it is hard for them to view the other’s point of view, which creates the conflict experienced by this family.

There is also the Discourse of Peter and Nita, as well as Chris and Mary being parents. They all want what is best for their children. Being a parent means thinking things through and giving your child the best chance. For Chris and Mary, they felt that the cochlear implant was the best option for their son because they are also part of the hearing Discourse. For Peter and Nita being part of the deaf discourse, they felt that the surgery required for a cochlear implant was unnecessary and would put their child, Heather, through more pain than was needed. Each couple wanted what was best, but their Discourse presented them with different solutions.

Clowns: Friend or Foe

 Have you ever had something that scares you so much that it will always spark some reaction? Coulrophobia, or the fear of clowns, is something that causes so much fear and anxiety in me. It rooted from when I was around the ripe age of seven. It was an overcast day, perfect for watching movies on T.V. This was before the time of when you could view the titles of shows, so being the innocent seven year old I was, flipped on a movie to channel to a seemingly ordinary film about kids in a suburb, much like McFarland. Things appeared routine until this little boy lost his boat into a storm drain. In the drain resided a clown who lured the child close enough to seize his ankle and wrench him to his doom. You get the main picture that this movie I watched was Steven Kings It.

The fear of clowns goes deeper than just the movie though. You never know what is really lurking under all of that makeup and costumes. Clowns are just so phony and they get right up in your personal space to the point where it is uncomfortable. I don’t think I could put into words why they cause such anxiety in me, but I had to try, it would be the fact that they deceive people with their “happiness” and “tricks”. What are they really thinking inside? What are their true intentions? So much is left unanswered that it leaves me feeling helpless and vulnerable.

Fear is something that is implanted so deep inside of everyone that it is hard to overcome. I believe I will always have some fear towards clowns. I don't know if it will be to the extreme of when I was seven, yet it will remain, festering and waiting to resurface when the time is right. So whenever you here the distinctive laugh of a seemingly "friendly" clown, think twice about approaching with an open hand.

WikiLeaks

There has long been the argument on what is too much when it comes to sharing secret knowledge to the world. What is considered acceptable, and what is considered to be truly classified. Julian Assange and his creation, WikiLeaks, have pushed this line to its breaking point, causing U.S. officials to force him to remain entrapped in an embassy, for fear of being arrested. But was what Assange leaked all that bad? Does it deserve to be brought out in the open to the public?

         

 I feel that this question of whether to categorize WikiLeaks as horrible or ingenious is rigged. I think it depends completely on the situation. If it were exposing military secrets, such as what Chelsea Manning did, then I would find that it would need to be stopped. If WikiLeaks exposed a corrupt politician who was for example transferring government funds into his personal bank account, then I feel it was doing justice.

                    

 The problem with sites such as WikiLeaks is the fact that everything has to be put into someone else’s perspective. Someone could find something completely justifiable for being on WikiLeaks, whereas another would find that it is putting our safety at risk. This inconsistency in perspective is the root of all the problems. I don’t think it would be right to shut down WikiLeaks, because it is a form of journalism in a way and it can help our society, however, I feel like there could be a better way sort out what is acceptable and safe to put out there, and what could really cause harm to a country.  

        

 I think that being consistent is the key. In Schoenfeld’s piece, Can the U.S. Bring Assange to Justice? , they mentioned that “No news outlet has ever faced criminal charges for publishing secrets” (pg. 2). I found this interesting because the news is able to broadcast to millions of people every day and share all of these stories, yet they get praised for their insight and courage. Again this goes back to perspective. WikiLeaks is portrayed as a villain, and the news is a martyr. Others might view it opposite. Perspective is all the matters in this tricky situation.

Overall, I've concluded I am very torn on this decision, and have come to the conclusion that there is no simple solution to Assange and his WikiLeaks. We will just have to wait and see what becomes of this controversial site, and if it lives up to our expectations, or burns down in flames. Only time will tell.