Rules of the Game: through the lens of The Great Gatsby
by Megha Subramanian
French society of that time. Bazin, the French critic observes the greatness of the film in its
representation of “dark reality” amongst the French pre-war cinema. It is also studied as a film
where realist mis-en-scene reached its zenith. It has characters that present a different side of
human beings, which had probably never been done previously in cinema. Of course there have
been dark characters in films like Nosferatu, M, Birth of a Nation, Battleship Potemkin and so
on. But what makes Renoir’s characters stand apart is their portrayal of exterior depth and
passion contrasted with their interior superficiality. One can never get too attached or want
anything badly because that means creating an ideal world for oneself which in turn means
breaking the ‘rules’ of living itself.
This portrayal of human nature reminds one of another work of art, that of Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. Everything that applies to Renoir’s characters applies to the characters in this novel. Thus the aim of this paper is comparison between these two discourses to interpret their contexts, their characters, their stories and plots within the purview of what Bazin calls ‘mixed cinema’.
In the essay ‘In Defense of Mixed Cinema’ Bazin states that cinema draws from all other forms
of art to create its own versions. He also notes that it also depends on the greatness of the
filmmaker to stay true to the core of the art that s/he chooses to represent. He appreciates this
ability to re-present another work of art which not only increases the popularity of the original
work but also adds a new dimension to it. Considering the example of The Namesake, one could
say that the Russian writer Gogol was made popular by the book and the book by the film. This
deals with adaptation. But this thesis does not deal with adaptation because there is nothing to
prove that Renoir adapted Fitzgerald’s novel. Although the film is in part an adaptation of Alfred
de Musset's Les Caprices de Marianne, a popular 19th-century comedy of manners. Bazin’s
theory does emphasize on adaptations but his theory can be extended and applied to works of art
that have unknowingly represented themselves.
Both these works of art are concerned with decadence of their respective societies and human
values. Fitzgerald wrote the novel during the ‘Jazz Age’ in America which is characterized by
expression of opulence and emergence of a new individualism and culture. The novel has also
been described by some as a portrayal of Hollywood. Renoir made his film just before WWII
when the society around him was expressing its unified individualism in its poaching of certain
communities. The world by then was so individualistic that the only thing to bring them together
was being against a certain community or a person. Both these discourses occupy themselves in
the study of classes and the tendency of the upper classes to close ranks.
The last dialogues of the film suggest this:
SAINT-AUBIN
A new definition of the word ACCIDENT!
GENERAL, sharply
No, no, no, no, no! La Chesnaye does not lack class, and that is a rare thing these days, my dear
Saint-Aubin, believe me, that is a rare thing!
At the end of The Great Gatsby, we realize that nobody attends Gatsby’s funeral except Nick
Carraway, his father and a few servants. The cinematic representation of this is aptly shown in
the Rules of the Game where all the guests go back into the house and propose to wait till the
next day to sort out the ‘accident’. In fact Jurieu is in a far more pathetic state than Gatsby who
at least has Nick but Jurieu does not even have Octave by him. He is left as a hunted rabbit to be
cleared up the next day. Hence one observes that extending Bazin’s view on ‘mixed cinema’ to
study the Rules of the Game from the perspective of The Great Gatsby only brings new insights
and understanding to the film. The film when compared with a novel that was produced in 1925
with characters similar to those of the film, only increases the pathos in the understanding of
human nature presented by these works of art.
The plots of the two are quite similar. There is a hero who is obsessed with his love; (Christine,
in the case of Jurieu and Daisy in the case of Gatsby) and he accomplishes a great feat (Jurieu
crosses the Atlantic in twenty-three hours and Gatsby gains wealth) to gain the love of his
woman. But these women leave them for other men with inheritance and are almost ready to
accept them at the end, when both the heroes die due to a misunderstanding. In their sub-plots
are people from the other classes who have affairs with the husbands of these women (Genevieve
with the Marquis and Myrtle with Tom). These affairs cause the death of the romantic hero. In
the Rules of the Game, Octave makes the Marquis invite Jurieu so that he can get rid of
Genevieve.
But the presence of Lisette’s affair with Marceau leads Schumacher to poach Jurieu
instead of the ‘real’ lover of his wife. Similarly Gatsby is shot by Mr. Wilson, Myrtle’s husband,
who for the most part like Schumacher is unaware of his wife’s exploits. Both Fitzgerald and
Renoir have sub-plot characters who lead equally superficial lives like their main characters.
Renoir even goes a step ahead in carefully expanding the lives of Lisette, Octave, Marceau and
Schumacher. Myrtle, unlike Lisette is not a character that has multiple affairs; she just has one
lover, Tom.
The central protagonists do not narrate their stories. Gatsby is seen through the eyes of Nick
Carraway and Jurieu through the character of the lens. The lens in Renoir’s Rules of the Game
functions as an omniscient narrator like Nick that knows everyone and makes judgments through
its wideness and closeness with its characters. We trust these narrators for the most part because
they seem to be constantly reviewing themselves. The lens also offers Marceau and the Marquis
a fair chance as it covers their discussion of wanting to be an Arab and not hurting their women.
Nick through the window looks at the unhappy Tom and Daisy trying to hatch a plan. For a
moment the reader feels that these characters might be repenting for their actions.
The Rules of the Game also has Octave who can partially be considered to occupy Nick’s place
as Jurieu’s only friend. But the film is not from his perspective; it is from the perspective of that
of the lens. Octave makes the meeting between Christine and Jurieu happen but his character is
further complicated by the revelation of his affection for Christine. But as Raymond Durgnat
observes, ‘Octave is unstable because he confuses what I take to be his moment of authentic
communication, of shared experience with Christine, with love. But he could love her only as he
could love several other women like her.’ Octave repents for having sent Jurieu to take his place
but he never stands up for Jurieu at the end. He is amongst the other people who walk into the
mansion. Thus the case of Jurieu is far more pathetic than that of Gatsby’s because the camera
who has been Jurieu’s friend also deserts him by holding on to the guests’ silhouette and the
balustrade.
Both these discourses comment on the state of the romantic heroes. The protagonists Gatsby and
Jurieu are sincere lovers. Christine describes Jurieu as sincere and therefore boring, in her
conversation with Genevieve. This is also the flaw with Gatsby he is so sincere in his love for
Daisy that he refuses to see the superficiality of her love for him. Both Daisy and Christine
declare at one point that they are in love with Gatsby and Jurieu respectively, but these sincere
lovers want to hear that these women are only in love them and not with their husbands.
Daisy in an intense conversation between her, Tom and Gatsby breaks out saying, “I loved him once but I love you too.” Gatsby is shocked by her usage of ‘too’ as he can never imagine loving someone
else like he loves Daisy. Meyer Wolfsheim describes Gatsby as a man you can take home to your
mother and trust one’s wife with as he can never look at more than one woman in that way. It is
interesting to see the similarity between Daisy’s and Christine’s character as Durgnat describes
Christine as being the one who ‘could love Octave or Jurieu’. In the film Jackie and Genevieve
both try to attract the attention of Jurieu but with little success, nobody can possibly change his
goal of attaining Christine.
In both these stories we do not completely trust any of the characters; even Nick we realize is not
truthful to Jordan about his previous love, to whom he still writes letters. He is at a vantage point
like Octave who can be both in and out of the class barriers as he chooses because he is easily
accepted in every circle. To be specific, Nick is a confidante for both Gatsby and Daisy and her
social circle; and Octave is a confidante for Jurieu, Christine and her social circle including
Lisette, Marceau and Jackie. But Nick we trust more than Octave because his stance towards
Gatsby and the others is constant but that of Octave’s keeps changing. Durgnat calls Octave a
chameleon who is a part universal confidante and a part procurer.
We do not trust Gatsby because he lies about the manner in which he acquired his wealth. He is living a lie of wanting to be with Daisy who he can never get because she doesn’t really want him. We also know nothing clearly of his background. Jurieu similarly is as ridiculous as Gatsby. Octave brings this to light by telling him that he was disgraceful in answering the media for his accomplishment by
mentioning his lost love. He seems to lack tact just like Gatsby. We also do not know why he
likes Christine. We also know nothing of his past.
The other characters are completely untrustworthy as we are a witness to their private talks. The talks between Christine and Lisette reveal the superficiality of their love for their husbands and lovers. We also see them interact with the other characters with the knowledge of these private conversations. Similarly, we know the private interactions between Tom, Myrtle, Catherine, Daisy and Jordan through Nick. We judge them then by their interactions with Gatsby. Having been a witness to their dual or multiple sides we cannot afford to trust them.
The story is ridden with glittering parties, in the case of the novel and a hunt and a masquerade in
the case of the film. These devices perform a similar function of exposing the inner truth in the
society. A masquerade was used in Jacobean tragedies to reveal to the audience the reality of
these characters, the audience being aware of the characters wearing these masks. Similarly we
are aware of this in the film. We know when Schumacher shoots, whom he is killing and so do
we know in The Great Gatsby that when Wilson shoots Gatsby, he is shooting the wrong person.
The audience is rendered helpless in the face of this huge masquerade and the glitter of parties,
music and dance. This only accentuates our empathy for the central characters.
Babara Wyllie in her book Nabokov at the Movies observes the cinematic nature of the novel.
She says that Daisy’s superficiality is noted by her sounds; her laughter, her tone when she
delivers lines. Nick also observes Gatsby’s parties cinematically: “The groups close more
swiftly, swell with new arrivals, dissolve and form in the same breath…and color constantly
under changing light.” [pp.44-45, The Great Gatsby] She notes that the novel moves into
consistent wide and close up shots to give a different perspective on characters. Bazin in his
essay on ‘Mixed Cinema’ observes that some films can be filmed as novels. One looks at the
Rules of the Game as one such work that embodies a novel-like quality. It does not have quick
cuts but a lot of broad strokes that strives to establish context in every scene that is shot.
Therefore Bazin calls it the zenith of mis-en-scene at work. In the scene where Octave walks
through the corridor slapping a maid’s bottom that culminates into a scene with Jurieu, the
audience follows him, a long take that alters between wide shots and close-ups never leaving the
context or geography of the scene. This is a very important characteristic of a novel. The hunt
lasts on screen for a long time in wide shots so that its futility registers. Similarly in the novel,
Nick reveals Gatsby’s vulnerability cinematically in the lines: “Fifty feet away a figure had
emerged from the shadow of my neighbor’s mansion and was standing with his hands in his
pockets regarding the silver pepper of the stars… as far as I was from him I could have sworn
that he was trembling. [pp25-26, The Great Gatsby] (referred from Barbara Wyllie’s Nabokov at
the Movies). Renoir achieves what Fitzgerald achieves in his world with words and Fitzgerald
achieves what Renoir achieves in his world with cinematic usage of verbs and language.
Thus one feels the closeness of these works of art to each other as they unknowingly draw so
much from each other. It is interesting to note that both these works failed when they were
initially presented to the market and were revived later to be accepted as masterpieces that aptly
represented their times. Renoir in Jean Renoir: Essays, Conversations, Reviews by Penelope
Gilliatt says that Jurieu was shot because he did not know how to play the game. One survives
only as long as one plays the game, he never played it, so he died. Similarly, Gatsby never
played the game, he only tried but he could not, therefore he was poached just as Jurieu was. The
game is the game of classes; classes that close ranks on others that do not belong with them and
can term murders as accidents. They are ruthless. But the pun in the Rules of the Game is that
Renoir plays Octave, a double-edged character. He therefore critiques himself and blames
himself as much as he blames everyone else in the film.
The irony in both is that there is no escape and both these works indulge in a misanthropist
portrayal of the world. Leo Braudy in Jean Renoir The World of his Films observes that his films
are closer to that of Eliot’s The Wasteland. One can definitely apply that to The Rules of the
Game because the murkiness of the world is as close to The Wasteland as it can get. If we can
say that for Renoir, so can we for Fitzgerald whose novel was published only three years after
The Wasteland (1922), in 1925. Fitzgerald also produced the novel as a film in 1949, obviously
understanding that the context of his book was still relevant in 1949. The Rules of the Game was
first released in 1939. It is important to note that in a span of every ten years we have seen the
context repeated in different forms.
Therefore borrowing from Bazin one can conclude that it is in the interest of the art forms to
knowingly or unknowingly refer to each other as Renoir and Fitzgerald do. This observation not
only leads us to a better understanding of their works but also of changes or lack of changes,
(rules, in this case) in society.
References:
1. McGrath, J., Teitelbaum, M. (1984). Rules of the game. Villier’s publication, London.
2. Raymond, D. (1976). Jean Renoir. University of California Press, Berkley and LA.
3. Braudy, L. (1989). Jean Renoir: The World of his Films. Doubleday & Company, NY
4. Gilliatt, P. (1975). Jean Renoir: Essays, Conversations and Reviews. The Viking
Press, Inc.
5. Wyllie, B. (2003). Nabokov at the Movies. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers,
Jefferson, North Carolina and London
6. Bazin, A., Gray, H. (2004). What is Cinema? University of California Press, Berkley
and LA
7. Fitzgerald, F. S. (1985). Bloom’s Modern Critical Views. Chelsea House Publishers
No comments:
Post a Comment