Mo Money, Mo Problems

OVERVIEW: Maneater follows the story of a woman embodying the femme fatale accordingly to Hall & Oates’ 1982 hit “Maneater.”

PLOT: The woman’s night starts off at what can be considered a restaurant date. She continues getting ready in the car until she arrives at the restaurant. At this restaurant, her date leaves her alone for a brief moment with the money used to pay the check, in which she steals said money and flees the scene before he can return. The story follows her return home, where it can be seen that she has an eviction notice, which can be assumed to be due to a lack of finances. Her room is extremely messy, and while she contemplates her actions, she takes off her ring (her commitment to the man whom she stole from), changes attire, and then leaves to continue her thievery. From here, she steals her former date/significant other’s car, and drives off. However, her significant other has realized her deception, thus confronting her. During this confrontation, he realizes that she does not have the finances to purchase the new attire she is sporting, alongside the absence of her ring that binds their relationship. He takes back his keys, leaving her alone with no mode of transportation other than her feet. Despite this moral revelation, the woman continues her travels, and repeats the same process of financial theft. In the end, despite any moral consequences, the woman prevails as she is never apprehended and conclusively able to pay her rent, thus nullifying her impending eviction.

UNIT 2 ARCHETYPICAL QUALITIES:

• Divided Identity: The woman’s divided identity is especially portrayed by her moral consciousness that is evident in scenes where she is alone. She is tired and stressed, and her actual socio-economic status definitely does not match her physical disposition. On one hand, she may be viewed as a viable romantic interest, but on the other, she is a seductress using her abilities for her own survival.
• Fake, Alluring Smile: The woman’s fake smile is persistent throughout her interactions with her implied significant other. She attempts to put on a bubbly persona, especially through the means of her vibrant smile. This is the one quality that she maintains throughout her interactions with others, being her strongest artificial mean of deception.
• Overdressing: The gangster of the consumer era was prone to exposition through their apparent overdressing. This concept remained true for the woman in Maneater, as her new bright pink attire is put into question by her spouse.
• Loss of Morality: The woman demonstrates a loss of morality as she is willing to go as far as to commit vehicular theft on her own significant other.
• Recklessness due to Overconfidence: While not directly touched on in Unit 2, the concept was evident throughout some of the readings. The gangster would notoriously believe his own false image, and then act recklessly due to such belief of high standards. In Maneater, the woman does exactly the same, forgetting her ring at her residence, allowing her significant other to catch her without it.

FILMIC SYMBOLISM:

• Dress Colors: White, the color of the woman’s first dress, is symbolic of innocence and purity. Additionally, the color represents Daisy Buchanan in The Great Gatsby, who is arguably aligned with the femme fatale archetype herself. Pink, the color of the woman’s second dress, is symbolic of a lack of self-worth and an unwillingness to take matters seriously. While she is taking her own financial situation seriously, she does not account for her immorality towards society, and especially her significant other.
• Musicality and Rhythm: While wearing the white dress, the woman evidently is precisely matching the beats and hits of the score with her actions. In this sense, the woman in white represents a woman of pristine intention and perfection. When the woman sports the pink dress, she loses her rhythmic precision except for one moment: when she is alone driving the stolen car. The woman’s head-bobbing to the beat of the song is indicative of her knowledge of her own actions, as one could say that she now knows exactly what she is doing.
• The Mirror: When reentering her residence, the woman has a few shots of herself in front of a mirror. While her reflection is still evident, the light is relatively blinding, blurring some of her features. This is representative of her own immorality beginning to blind her to impending consequences, especially as she begins to believe her own methods of deception. She is infatuated with her own beauty, but her complex reactions to herself are indicative of her envelopment with her own facade.
• Facial Recognition: For the first forty seconds of the film, the woman is only observed through her features. Her face is never identified straight-on by the camera. This changes when she is face-to-face with her implied significant other at the restaurant, as once she puts the menu down, the audience receives a full-front angle of her face. This is symbolic of her masking her own identity, as we see her only in portions or unconventional reflective angles before she officially begins to act on her ploys of thievery. In the same sense, it demonstrates how the audience can also be prone to falling under the fallacious spell of beauty, as the woman could easily be objectified by the portions seen of her in these same seconds.
• Fourth-Wall Break: After the woman steals the car, while she is driving, she can be observed to be swaying to some form of musicality. In this sense, she is swaying to the beat of the score (“Maneater”), which is indicative of her knowing exactly what she is doing. She aligns with her immorality, and in a twisted sense, finds enjoyment in her knowledge and actions.
• Stationary Canted Angle: In film, a canted angle is where the camera is angularly displaced. This displacement is representative of disorientation of what is being captured, and this angle is specifically and intentionally used only once–during the confrontation scene. In this scene, the woman is fully exposed to her significant other, thus eliciting disorientation on her end as she had fallaciously believed she would be able to act in the ways she has been without any repercussions. This disorientation represents her reaction to her unforeseen consequences (the implied abrasiveness of her significant other upon her exposition), but also represents her disorientation in morality, as even after this confrontation, she continues to act immorally in her ways of deception and thievery.

Daryl Hall & John Oates’ “Maneater,” initially released in 1982, works lyrical wonders to correlate to the archetypical femme fatale, as further demonstrated by F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Daisy Buchanan within his publication of The Great Gatsby. Through my analysis of these lyrics, the song could theoretically even be used to demonstrate Daisy Buchanan’s effect on Jay Gatsby. In a sense, this song could be utilized as a warning for Gatsby, as the maneater that is Daisy Buchanan will effectively “chew [him] him” through his incessant desire for her.

            The song opens with comparisons of “she” to a lean, hungry animal. With this, these opening lyrics establish a womanly hunger for something. With respect to The Great Gatsby, Daisy’s “hunger” can be attributed to her fallacious “desire” for Gatsby, but more-so for his wealth and the pair’s status to be used against her unfaithful husband, Tom Buchanan. The following lyrics, “Oh, she’s sitting with you, but her eyes are on the door,” appropriately relate to Daisy’s fallacious desire, as she makes it appear to Gatsby that she’s “sitting with him,” but her eyes are truly “on the door” as she prioritizes her relationship with her husband over any perceptual relationship she could’ve continued to have with Gatsby (0:56-1:01). Furthermore, the emphasis of “money’s the matter,” allows me to incorporate this topic into my broad subject matter of Mo Money, Mo Problems, especially as Gatsby’s wealth becomes prey to the predator that is Daisy Buchanan (1:16-1:18). Right after this delineation, the claim “If you’re in it for love, you ain’t gonna get too far” is stated, which especially is representative of the aforesaid warning that could’ve been given to Jay Gatsby (1:18-1:25).

            The following chorus plays with a catchy beat to establish that the maneater is coming to chew up the men in which she preys financial success off of. I could envision this song being played as Daisy first enters the Gatsby Mansion, as the chorus itself is quite literally a warning of this maneater’s behavior. The next verse opens with more warning, saying “I wouldn’t if I were you, I know what she can do, she’s deadly man, she could really rip your world apart” (1:54-2:04). To this degree, this line comes off as an educated audience of The Great Gatsby’s warning to Jay Gatsby as Daisy manages to rip his world apart. Even so, Daisy is responsible for the murder of Jay Gatsby, hence her being “deadly,” as she gives him the responsibility for her vehicular manslaughter which places a hit on the back of his head. Right after, the lyrics “Mind over matter, the beauty is there, but a beast is in the heart” are sung, emphasizing the belief that we the audience (and likely, Nick Carroway) wish Gatsby would’ve been able to hold before his fate (2:05-2:11). Gatsby did not recognize this beast, and neither did narrator Nick Carroway until after the tragic events of The Great Gatsby occurred. These descriptions of a maneater align with the traditional definition of femme fatale, just as a femme fatale utilizes her beauty to manipulate her victims.

            The song continues with the choral warning up until its conclusion, which makes me wonder, had Gatsby have been able to hear this, would he be able to recognize Daisy Buchanan for who she truly is, or would he still get “chewed up” just as he tragically did? Would this warning have any effect on him, or would it work conversely to further empower Daisy—a true maneater?

Hall, Daryl and Oates, John. “Maneater.” The Very Best of Daryl Hall & John Oates. RCA Records, 2001. Spotify, https://open.spotify.com/track/3xkG5WXCnSYxastDq3pmKn?si=429e14d61fe742fe

            Recently, I started watching the show The Traitors: Canada, as it featured a few of my favorite Canadian competition reality television participates: Kevin Martin (Big Brother Canada 3 & 5), Kuzie Mujakachi (Big Brother Canada 11), and Erika Casupanan (Survivor 41). The Traitors: Canada follows a large group of people seemingly playing the traditional game of “mafia.” There are three anonymous “traitors” within the group, and those traitors vote to kill a “faithful” within the group each night. In the evenings, the group congregates to attempt to vote out one of the traitors. The cycle repeats until all traitors are voted out, or a traitor makes the endgame, winning up to $100,000. Specifically, of the players I was drawn to the show for, Kevin Martin has won the same amount from winning Big Brother Canada 5, and Erika Casupanan has won $1,000,000 from winning Survivor 41. Kuzie Mujakachi, on the other hand, has won nothing but fame from her respective season. This information may seem irrelevant in terms of the game; however, the traitors’ first kill exemplifies a struggle experience by Fitzgerald’s Gatsby and Daisy, representative of how having Mo Money indefinitely leads to dealing with Mo Problems.

            When the game’s traitors were selected, Kuzie was selected as the second traitor, with Erika and Kevin reigning as faithfuls. The trio notably formulated an alliance, until faithful Collin Johnson painted a picture that enabled the traitors to make a kill that would frame him. Collin verbally stated that he “wanted whoever wins to be deserving and in need of the money,” implying that someone such as Erika (who had won $1,000,000 from Survivor), would be killed if he were a traitor. Compromising her own allegiances, Kuzie acted swiftly to make sure that Erika would be killed that same night. Erika, the most successful reality tv housemate on this show, happened to now align herself with some of the least successful, being the show’s first boot. As such, Collin was framed, and consequently voted out that following evening.  

            Paralleling this situation, Daisy Buchanan resembles Kuzie Mujakachi, whereas Jay Gatsby resembles Erika Casupanan. Both Daisy and Kuzie established their presences not through awards, accolades, or money (although both had such due to their established presences), but by their social allures. Both women masterfully manipulate the crowds into believing that they are harmless, when in reality, both women are capable of murder: especially towards those closest to them. Both Gatsby and Erika established their presences through a sudden gain in “new money,” and allowed themselves to be vulnerable to whom they believed they could trust, only to fall victim to masqueraded malice. Gatsby and Erika both were relatively content with their lifestyles yet still craved more as Gatsby sought Daisy’s romance, and Erika sought this new show’s grand prize. Daisy and Kuzie both also wanted more from what they already possessed, and with their greed, caused fatal detriments to those who would consider their relationships as “close.” The two women also not only caused the downfalls of Gatsby and Erika, but also their framework resulted in collateral murders as well, such as those of George Wilson and Collin Johnson. While The Traitors: Canada is simply just a metaphorical competition tv show, the first “fates” of the show truly align the characters with those of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, which is a parallel I simply couldn’t let go unrecognized.

            In The Great Gatsby, the wealthy character Jay Gatsby becomes synonymous with the concepts of loneliness and isolation. He believed that his wealth would be directly proportional with social connection, specifically a romantic connection with former romance Daisy Buchanan; however, that couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, his wealth drew him further away from these authentic connections, and instead established his character’s inevitable isolation. I have come to discover that while the audience doesn’t fully come to terms with Gatsby’s isolation until his fate is revealed (and the overall dominance of the concept all throughout), Fitzgerald subtly references the concept within the last paragraph of every chapter of his novel.

            At the end of the first chapter, Nick assumes that Gatsby’s appearance “gave a sudden imitation that he was content to be alone” (Fitzgerald I). As an educated audience member, I can concede that this is truly not the case—Gatsby is not content to be alone. His death was anything but content, and he was alone. This assumption also serves to confirm that Nick’s assumptions and judgements are not always correct, further establishing himself as an unreliable narrator.

            At the end of the second chapter, Mr. McKee’s portfolio includes “Beauty and the Beast… Loneliness… Old Grocery Horse… Brook’n Bridge…” (Fitzgerald II). I cannot necessarily concede the importance of this specific reference rather than for continuity, but the concept is directly stated with no strings attached.

            At the end of the third chapter, Nick’s unreliability is established by referencing how he believes himself to be isolated from society with his statement, “I am one of the few honest people that I have ever known” (Fitzgerald III). This statement is widely regarded as one of the most important statements to delineate Nick as an unreliable narrator, as he himself believes that he is different than most of society. With this, he isolates himself through his ideology. Once again, as an educated audience member, I can confirm that Nick is not necessarily “honest” himself either, further establishing delusion and negative connotations within this novel’s portrayal of isolation.

            At the end of the fourth chapter, the concept is indirectly referenced through Nick’s comparison to Gatsby and Tom’s love interests and the lack of his own. This realization prompts him to engage in a relationship with Jordan Baker, which is fallible as the relationship falls through by the end of the novel. Did Nick truly love Jordan Baker, or did he love the idea of not being perceived as romantically alone in comparison to those whom he’d surround himself with? From these connections, I have come to believe that Nick’s relationship with Jordan had been produced from feelings of utter isolative loneliness.

            At the end of the fifth chapter, the concept is geared towards Nick’s isolation within his presence alongside the pair of Gatsby and Daisy. He claims that the pair “had forgotten [him],” and that “Gatsby didn’t know [him] now at all” contrasting Daisy who at the least acknowledges him (Fitzgerald V). Nick’s isolation at the end of this chapter demonstrates Gatsby’s deceptive nature, as the man who prided himself on his friendship with Nick suddenly forgets his friend whenever he finally receives what he was using the said friend to obtain (a reconnection with Daisy). In this, Nick leaves the pair, which allows Daisy to fallaciously prompt Gatsby to believe that he still has a chance of romance with her. Therefore, in this chapter, isolation is detailed through Gatsby’s detrimental vulnerability and inability to mask his own intentions, which additionally affects Nick as well.

            At the end of the sixth chapter, isolation is described through Nick’s inability to speak after witnessing Daisy and Gatsby kiss. This concept directly links to the end of the previous chapter, as if Nick did not already feel disconnected, he might have spoken up. I believe in this instance, he could have possibly spoken up about how fabricated the entire relationship seemed to be, as Daisy was in fact a married woman. At this point, Nick realizes that both Buchanan’s are in separate affairs with different people, and rather than involving himself to stop a situation from exploding (which it inevitably does), he remains quiet. While the audience doesn’t particularly know what Nick was prompted to say but didn’t, we can make these inferences based on contextual clues and our education of the entirety of the narrative. This moment could have been pivotal in the turning point of the narrative’s conclusion, but Nick’s isolative inability to act prevented such tragedy from falling through.

            At the end of the seventh chapter, the tragedy begins to evidently unfold through Gatsby’s isolation as he “’want[s] to wait here till Daisy goes to bed” despite her realigning with her actual spouse. Supportively reacting to such, Nick “walked away and left him standing there in the moonlight—watching over nothing” (Fitzgerald VII). Once again, the emphasis of tragic isolation is made, as even when faced with the legal spouse of Daisy, Gatsby refuses to give into reality. His fantasies facilitate his fallacious belief that his isolation is not true isolation as he believes he reestablished his relationship; however, he didn’t, and instead Daisy is alone with her husband as both face the realizations regarding their affairs. In some respect, it could be understandable that Gatsby waits under the belief that Tom’s knowledge of Daisy’s marital deceit would destroy their marriage, but that is simply not the case. Daisy’s motivations for her actions instead could be attributed to her material consumerism, but also to the fact that she wanted to seek revenge on her husband by replicating his exact marital dishonesty. Overall, this chapter truly accentuates the delusion drawn from isolation within the novel, further emphasizing the concept’s overarching detriment to the characters.

            At the end of the eighth chapter, the concept continues to prevail as Nick references his discovery of the casualties of Gatsby and Wilson, both of whom died alone. Poetically, isolation reigns key to the faults within this story, as especially Gatsby himself died alone in his pool. Representing sheer disillusionment, Gatsby couldn’t acknowledge the depth of trouble he had put himself in for taking the blame regarding Daisy’s vehicular manslaughter of Mr. Wilson’s wife, Myrtle. He was so isolated in his own false reality that he could not foresee his own murder, in which Tom orchestrated and Wilson executed. Wilson, on the other hand, ended up killing himself because of the marital isolation he had now definitively experienced with his wife also dead. He felt as though Gatsby had taken his only person, although Tom was the culprit behind her affair, and his only motive was to seek vengeance (and then end his own life, as he likely believed he had nobody left but himself). Altogether, this chapter establishes the tragically inevitable fates that this disillusioned isolation would bring to the characters.

            Finally, at the end of the ninth chapter, Nick reconciles in his own isolation as all the core characters within his narrative have either disappeared or died. His isolation leads him to believe that in telling this story, “we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past,” ironically appearing to emulate one of Gatsby’s tragic flaws of believing that the past could definitively be repeated (Fitzgerald IX). In this sense, it appears that though his own isolation, he absolves himself by retelling the story of how he came to be where he is presently. In this respect, the effects of the concepts of isolation are left ambiguous, as we the audience are left with multiple reasons as to why Nick continues to retell the past. In his isolation, is Nick attempting to objectively retell the narrative to identify the faults that led to the ultimate outcome? Or is Nick retelling the story to convince himself that nothing was his fault as he was simply a bystander (who happened to be indirectly involved)?

Personally, I choose to believe that this final repetition of an indirect reference to isolation illustrates the concept in a positive light, contrasting the negative connotation the concept has received in prior chapters. In this sense, I choose to believe that Nick retells the story as objectively as he does specifically to highlight and identify the faults of himself and all of the other characters, but he could only realize such by himself. As he claimed, he is one of the few honest people that he has ever known, so who better to hear these objective faults from than himself? His self-honesty within isolation allows him to absolve himself after the tragic events of the narrative. By having this contrast, Fitzgerald is able to demonstrate the true ambiguity of the concept, as within the novel it is detrimental, but in the present, it is beneficially enlightening.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald. eBook #64317. Project Gutenberg, January 17, 2021, online. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/64317/64317-h/64317-h.htm

In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, Daisy Buchanan embodies the villainous traits of femme fatale, with wealth and prosperity structuring her primary motives. Likewise, in Rian Johnson’s Brick, Laura Dannon embodies almost the same exact traits. After watching Brick, I realized that both of these women accentuate the ideals of Mo Money, [causing] Mo Problems, just as their ambitions for money facilitated the deaths of those whom they were surrounded with.

                In Brick, protagonist Brendon aims to solve the mystery of his ex-girlfriend’s murder, which eventually leads to the exposition of Laura’s malicious actions regarding the illicit dealings of bricks of heroin. Laura manipulated the entire situation of the brick dealing to her own benefit, allowing her acquaintances to take the falls for her own gain. As one of the bricks had gone missing, it had been discovered that Laura had been the culprit despite her pinning the blame on everyone else. Emily had been murdered as Laura had initially framed her for stealing the brick. Furthermore, both The Pin (the dealer) and Tug (The Pin’s enforcer) had been pitted against each other as the confusion eventually led to Tug impulsively shooting Dode (Emily’s “protector”). As such, The Pin and Tug have an intervention staged by Brandon, which eventually leads to a shoot-out and a police raid, killing or incarcerating everyone involved at the scene (except for Brandon, who managed to escape). Laura had expected Brandon to be at this meeting and face the same fate himself, which would’ve allowed her to have no further repercussions. Brandon, however, discovered her cigarette at this place, which linked directly to the cigarette he found when he uncovered Emily’s dead body, and thereby was able to directly link Laura to the organized crime. Laura had attempted to seduce Brandon in order to further gain his trust earlier, but as distrust allowed him to not let her get too close, he was able to fully identify her as the true criminal herself.

                Comparatively, Daisy’s actions directly facilitated only three deaths, and she never received any repercussions. Unlike Laura, Daisy earns the responsibility for killing the protagonist, Jay Gatsby. Laura did not kill the protagonist of her story, in which he (Brendon) manages to report her, eliciting her repercussions and unsuccessful demise. Daisy’s seduction tactics blinded Gatsby (the protagonist) to her ulterior motives, which Laura could not accomplish herself with Brandon. Both women manipulated their situations to feign blame off of themselves and onto others, just as Laura did Emily and Daisy did Gatsby with reference to her vehicular manslaughter of Myrtle Wilson. Both women came from wealth themselves, and with the culmination of their wealth and manipulative tendencies, they believed they could get away with whatever they pleased with whomever they desired. If Laura had managed to indirectly accomplish Brandon’s murder, she likely would have gotten away with her misdeeds, just like Daisy. These women, driven by a desire for wealth and prosperity, acted recklessly with no respect to the lives of others, truly aligning themselves with antagonistic roles in tragic stories.

Daisy Buchanan, a primary demonstration of the correlation between Mo Money, [causing] Mo Problems, is beautifully represented in Paper Mill Playhouse’s musical adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby by Eva Noblezada. As such, on September 28^th of this year, the first press release of her solo song “Beautiful Little Fool” was released, showing a mezzo-soprano/alto Daisy’s relation to the popular phrase. As a woman who has always been very well financially stabilized, she articulates her desire (which she hopes to pass on to her daughter) of being a beautiful little fool. I have found it relatively hard to transcribe the lyrics, however, I’d love to use this blog post to analyze the bits that I have definitively been able to transcribe.

                To start, Daisy opens her song, pondering to her audience (assuming it’s either Jay Gatsby or a fourth wall break), with the lines, “Do you know what I did when my baby was born? You don’t” (BroadwayWorld 0:14-0:20). As the audience, I feel as though we also don’t really know what she did when her baby was born, as it was only briefly mentioned in the novel to my knowledge. From this opening line, we can gauge that this song is going to give more of an insight to her relation to her child, which is crucial to the analysis of this song. She proceeds to give answers to the question she prompted but mentions that “Tom was god… knows where” (BroadwayWorld 0:27-0:33). Although the lyrics are “god knows where,” there is a deliberate pause in her vocalization between “god” and “knows where,” which corresponded to my idea that while Daisy finds herself battling with her lust for Gatsby, she also holds Tom with a respect as though he is her god. At this point in the musical, I’m assuming the song takes place before she decidedly sides with Tom over Gatsby, so this little pause could truly be foreshadowing of her actions in the future.

                The song continues with her referencing the birth of her daughter, opening up the next part of the song with the lines “I pray that my beautiful child could be a fool that I could never be” (BroadwayWorld 0:56-1:06). With this, we can see Daisy attempting to live her own dreams through her daughter. As seen in the novel, Daisy’s wealth allows her to act as though she is a “beautiful little fool,” even though she knows exactly what she’s doing with respect to luring Gatsby for his money. She projects all of her own actions onto her dreams for her daughter, which prompts sympathy from the audience, but by fully knowing her character prior, I can deduce that this song is all simply just an act. She proceeds to sing her wish “that the choices she makes in this life are never hers” (BroadwayWorld 1:13-1:26). This line is especially alluring as it shows Daisy’s wish to refuse to take accountability for her own actions and hopes her daughter can fall under the same mindset. The choices one makes typically are always of their own volition and being a wealthy “beautiful little fool” does not excuse such actions, especially in Daisy’s case. I find this portrayal juxtaposing elegance with ignorance, with attempts to mask said ignorance with beauty. Eva Noblezada’s vocal performance is phenomenal and seems to manipulate the audience into feeling sympathy for her blatant ignorance, which I find especially intriguing.

                Finally, for the last minute of the song, Daisy continues to emotionally belt the lines, “the best thing a girl can be in this world is a beautiful little fool” (BroadwayWorld 1:45-2:32). The beautified, continued repetition of this phrase truly hammers the audience with the dilemma of either believing Daisy’s emotional wishes or accrediting her message as a manipulative tactic. While in the book, we know Daisy ends up following her own wishes of becoming a manipulative, destructive, and careless “beautiful little fool” herself, this song gives the audience the idea that she herself only wishes that for her daughter. Just as she claims, she ends up fulfilling “the best thing a girl can be in this world” herself, all the while hoping her daughter fulfills the same. By projecting her own wishes/reality onto the emotional uprising of her daughter, she continues to reject her own accountability, allowing such manipulation to continue to be masked by beauty. Overall, the beauty of the song truly evokes sympathy for Daisy’s character, but we as the educated audience especially know not to trust a wealthy “beautiful little fool,” as this fool serves to be nothing but detrimental to whomever she latches on to.

BroadwayWorld. “Take a first look at Eva Noblezada in #TheGreatGatsby at @Paper Mill Playhouse!” TikTok, 28 September 2023, https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8MCjtQe/.

Mo Money, Mo Problems is especially true in the case of lottery winner Abraham Shakespeare, just as can be seen in The Great Gatsby’s story of Jay Gatsby. Both figures found themselves within a sudden abundance of “new money,” with Shakespeare’s being from the American lottery, and Gatsby’s being from illicit bootlegging. Both men arguably found themselves in merely parallel situations, especially made discernible by the involvement of antagonistic women.

                In 2010, three years after Shakespeare’s $17 million full lottery payout, his body was discovered by investigators with two bullet wounds in the chest behind a Plant City home owned by Dorice “Dee Dee” Moore. Moore was found to have become acquainted with Shakespeare a year after his payout, in which he had already given away or loaned a majority of his winnings. Eventually, Moore had come to obtain authority over what remained of Shakespeare’s money, then promptly murdered him after he had grown suspicious due to his sudden loss of control over his own funds. Throughout Moore’s court trial, Circuit Judge Emmett Lamar Battles, accredited her with the descriptions of “the most manipulative person,” “cold,” “calculated,” and “cruel” (White). I find that within this case, many parallels can be drawn to the situation regarding Gatsby and Daisy, without any regard to the fact that Moore received the justice that Daisy additionally deserved herself.

                Furthermore, Daisy herself could also be found synonymous with the same descriptions given to Moore by Judge Battles. Throughout The Great Gatsby, Daisy found herself infatuated with Gatsby’s new wealth rather than his own human individuality. She was responsible for the vehicular manslaughter that sparked a domino effect leading to Gatsby’s death, and then promptly disappeared after the fact. She cried over Gatsby’s beautiful shirts yet couldn’t shed a tear for his wrongful murder. Daisy allowed Gatsby to further develop his love for her, which was fallaciously reciprocated in his eyes, whereas she truly only cared for his prosperity. She manipulated him into thinking she loved him when in actuality, she only loved his money. Unlike Moore, however, Daisy was allowed to flee the scene and suffer no repercussions for any of her actions.                

Alike Shakespeare, Gatsby’s body was also discovered to be lifeless due to a gunshot wound. Both men’s riches led to them living fallacious realities, inviting manipulative women into their lives who would ultimately be the reasons they no longer lived. The parallels in their situations show definitively that having more money can, will, and does lead to more problems (and in their cases, fate).

White, Gary. “Woman Convicted of Killing Lakeland Lottery Winner Abraham Shakespeare Seeks New Trial.” The Ledger, The Ledger, 13 July 2023, www.theledger.com/story/news/local/2023/07/13/woman-convicted-of-killing-lottery-winner-abraham-shakespeare-seeks-new-trial/70409263007/.

While the title of my blog is Mo Money, Mo Problems, this post might be stretching from the connotative topic. Since April 2021, the public has been aware of a work-in-progress Broadway adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. However, at the beginning of this month (September 2023), we officially received a cast list for this upcoming musical. Specifically, A-list Broadway celebrities Jeremy Jordan and Eva Noblezada have been cast to take on the roles of Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan, respectively. Specifically, I wanted to compare Jordan and Noblezada’s biggest Broadway roles to these new upcoming roles, as assuredly they are being paid more money to take on characters with significantly more problems.

                I had first been introduced to Jeremy Jordan by his portrayal of Jack Kelly in Newsies. My school had decided to perform this musical during my 8^th grade year, so I had become very familiar with this work very quickly. Ironically, I would also argue that Newsies is Jordan’s best-known work, which might have some aforesaid bias incorporated into this thought. Jack Kelly is a seventeen-year-old newspaper boy from Manhattan, New York. He is extremely poor and protests for change within the unfair newspaper industry through strikes. He even claims that he has “no folks anywhere.” He falls in love with the main antagonist’s daughter, who reciprocates the same affection and becomes instrumental in assisting the protagonist take down her father. Jack doesn’t necessarily achieve financial prosperity, but he receives prosperity in the social and romantical aspects of his life. Gatsby, on the other hand, also came from a background of relative poverty. However, rather than striking and working with a community, Gatsby turned to illegal methods to obtain financial prosperity. His love interest ended up working against him alongside her preexisting relationship to her antagonistic husband, Tom Buchannan, which is where the stories of Jack and Gatsby truly diverge. In the end, Jack obtains social and romantical prosperity (and a happy ending), while Gatsby only maintains his financial prosperity (and a fatal ending). In the beginning, Jack was lonely while Gatsby would throw extravagant parties at his house, always being in the presence of at least someone. In the end, Jack was socially prosperous while Gatsby ended up practically alone (except for Nick). These characters might have started from the same place, but both took drastically different paths to attempt to fulfill themselves, ending with very different results for both.

                My introduction to Eva Noblezada had initially been through her presence in the Jimmy Awards, but then I came to know her as Eurydice in Hadestown. While I had never been familiar with the musical, I have seen bits and pieces that allow me to make this comparison to Daisy Buchannan, alongside a prior knowledge of basic Greek mythology. Eurydice was a young, impoverished girl who was destined for a doomed romance. While looking for food, she was bitten by a snake and perished, leaving her husband Orpheus to attempt to save her from the underworld. As she enters the underworld, The Fates chastise the audience for judging her for choosing self-interest over love. Orpheus is notably attracted to her beauty, but he overcome by doubt and breaks his promise which condemns her to Hadestown, and the whole story loops. There are many parallels between this role and story with The Great Gatsby and Daisy Buchannan. Daisy, for one, is attractive not only because of her beauty, but unlike Eurydice, because of her wealth too. I feel as though Eurydice mirrors Gatsby’s character more than Daisy’s, which is ironic as Noblezada will be coming to play such a contrastive character. Orpheus betrays Eurydice, just as Daisy betrays Gatsby. However, both Eurydice and Daisy notably choose self-interest over love, and it’s ironic that in Hadestown the audience is chastised for judging her decision. With The Great Gatsby, the audience is left with nothing but resentment for Daisy when she consistently acts with emphasis on self-interest rather than love. Eurydice was destined for a doomed romance, just as Gatsby was, and it’s very ironic how this character contains many aspects of both Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchannan. Even so, in the song “Wait for Me (Reprise),” Eurydice is found singing, “I’m coming, wait for me” (Hadestown 2:48), which is definitely something Daisy would never be found saying. It will definitely be interesting to see how Noblezada will tackle the challenge of playing a character that intricately incorporates the qualities of both of the two leading roles (Orpheus and Eurydice) of her most well-known works.

                Overall, I’m very excited to see how Jordan and Noblezada will come into the roles of Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchannan. They’ve had a respectable amount of experience with characters sharing the same complexities as Gatsby and Daisy, so I’d imagine they will be delivering award-captivating performances. With this being said, based on the assumption that these new roles will bring more money (and hopefully awards), both Jordan and Noblezada will definitely have to dig deep to display the complexity of Gatsby and Daisy’s overwhelming problems.

Hadestown Original Broadway Company. “Wait for Me (Reprise).” Spotify. https://open.spotify.com/track/3RwvO1Mit858RMmFVtREBU?si=a586e7ca84a74d8c.