# Ivy Style: The Great Gatsby and Old Money.



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Sometimes it's possible to get the details wrong, but still be entirely right. Such is the case of Ivy Style's article concerning the title of this post.

https://www.ivy-style.com/the-great-gatsby-and-old-money-versus-new.html

"First published April 10, 1925, F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" gripped the American imagination"

Not really. It sold poorly, was panned by most critics and was largely forgotten for the next 30 years.

I think the critics got it mostly right. And the best thing about such a hoo-ha as is being made about this forgettable book by the public at large is that the public is infinitely fickle, has the attention span of a 2-year-old, and will soon move on, forgetting it ever was interested in the first place. As is even more deserved by Brooks' line of sub-mediocre clothing derivatives seeking to capitalize on a film's publicity much in the way of a Darth Vader Happy Meal.

But what the estimable Mr. Chensvold is entirely correct about is the nature of much old money. Or at least old money when I knew it. I'm impressed that such a young man would even have such an awareness, much less the deep and nuanced understanding that he offers. In an America that has not only turned its back on the values he describes, but either derides them or is ignorant of them, this is of significant value. And it offers an insight into many areas, including those sartorial, divorced of anything for a buck!


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

Thank you for posting this. I really enjoyed reading it.


----------



## Barnavelt (Jul 31, 2012)

Are you saying the book itself is forgettable?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Flanderian said:


> But what the estimable Mr. Chensvold is entirely correct about is the nature of much old money. Or at least old money when I knew it. I'm impressed that such a young man would even have such an awareness, much less the deep and nuanced understanding that he offers.


The estimable Mr. Chensvold didn't write the article. It's an excerpt from "The Old Money Book" by Byron Tully.


----------



## HerrDavid (Aug 23, 2012)

FWIW: That article was not written by Chensvold, but Byron Tully "_a Los Angeles-based screenwriter happily married to a proper Bostonian. "The Old Money Book" is his first book and is available on Kindle and Nook."_


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

Not sure about the conclusions. First, I don't know what the author intends by "old money". Does he mean Rockefellers? Vanderbilts? Or Beekmans? 

It might make a difference. For example, the claim that "old money" treats people and their civil society so well falls by the way side if he means some of the "old money" from the post-Civil War era. For the most part this wealth was built on crony capitalism and labor exploitation. With the older "old money" wealth was often acquired by virtue of being there first...and being somewhat ruthless as well.

Not to interject myself into the story, but I am of some of the old-old money families...Beekmans, Van Zandts, and on and on. Once you're related to one you're related to several. Anyway, by the time I was born (early 1970s), the decline was well advanced. The families, most of the lines, were broke or getting there. Shabby gentility was not a choice. Many family members were hopeless alcoholics. Some were straight out crazy. Those who attended charity functions and sat on boards did it not for love or civic duty. It was prestige and obligation. Sure, there were some good people. But it was really no different than any other segment of society. 

Currently, I work for a billionaire. He is decidedly new money. Jewish. From the Lower East Side. Started building an empire in the 1960s. Was super wealthy no earlier than the 1990s. He is extraordinarily low key. Drives his own car. Lives in a nice, but modest house...in Brooklyn. Very soft spoken. No flash at all. He is more old money than much of old money. He donates massive sums to charities and genuinely looks at that as his life's work...that was what he made the money for in his opinion. Now look at the Biltmore estate or any of the mansions in Newport. Hmmph. I don't think we need to be nostalgic for that.


----------



## TradThrifter (Oct 22, 2012)

What an insightful analysis Old sport. And thank you Reldresal for your contribution.


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

I hope it comes across well. Hard to say all in this format.

Walter McDougall's _Throes of Democracy: The American Civil War Era 1829-1877_ has an interesting thesis. America is essentially a pretentious country. Pretense in the truest sense of the word. We pretend we have freedom. We had slaves. We pretend we were the beacon of light to the world. We deliberately massacred Indians, women and children as well as men. We proclaimed democracy, and then restricted voting to (in most places) white men. And in the realm of business we always wanted to "feel good about doing well." This meant that the rich were drawn to power and to charities. They quickly found that the levers of power useful in maintaining their status. They turned this into a system by which they proclaimed they had the best interests of all at heart, but somehow, that always meant their best interests, too. All those territorial governors from New England that went west. Oh yes, they setup functioning governments and did great work. But they sure got rich speculating in land while doing it!

And the post-war industrialists. Their descendants became philanthropists, senators and all that. But behind it all was violence and coercion. Not unlike the English nobility. There is a parallel there to _Quarrel with the King_ by Adam Nicolson. When he describes the vast lands and opulent house of the Herbert family he makes sure to point out that the origin of it all, just a few centuries before, was based upon brute violence. For all the refinement and pretense to elegance, the titles and lands were bathed in blood---at the forefront, a sociopath.

And so it continues. We wax nostalgic for a world that probably never existed. "Old money" was never just concerned with doing good. That was probably a 2nd or 3rd generation thing. And even then self-interest was never not intertwined with public good, but public good was not always intertwined with self-interest. It's been this way for a long time. New forces have rushed in to the breach, no doubt. Perhaps they are just less discreet.


----------



## LordSmoke (Dec 25, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> ...
> I think the critics got it mostly right. And the best thing about such a hoo-ha as is being made about this forgettable book by the public at large is that the public is infinitely fickle, has the attention span of a 2-year-old, and will soon move on, forgetting it ever was interested in the first place. ...


Thank goodness, I am not the only one. I reread the book a year or so ago as part of my lifelong commitment to carefully read all of those books assigned to me in high school and early college. Aside from a glimpse into historic fashion, which would not have been historic in its day, I could find nothing of substance in the book. It didn't seem to be about anything of interest. A waste of time. I was looking forward to the movie to see what the filmmakers might have deemed worthy to present that I might have missed.

On the other hand, "Last of the Mohicans" - great book, "Moby Dick" - perhaps the greatest book.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

While not liking _Gatsby_ is certainly fair enough, since fortunately tastes do differ, claiming it contains "nothing of substance" strikes me as very peculiar and arouses suspicion that it simply hasn't been understood. Last of the Mohicans on the other hand, I thought was pretty awful even as a teenager. Good story, but very badly written.


----------



## LordSmoke (Dec 25, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> While not liking _Gatsby_ is certainly fair enough, since fortunately tastes do differ, claiming it contains "nothing of substance" strikes me as very peculiar and arouses suspicion that it simply hasn't been understood....


That's why I was hoping the movie might enlighten me.



Belfaborac said:


> ... Last of the Mohicans on the other hand, I thought was pretty awful even as a teenager. Good story, but very badly written.


Again, that was my view as a teenager. When I re-read it a few years ago, it took me about half a chapter to get into the cadence and style of the writing. Thereafter, I couldn't put it down.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

It wasn't the old-fashioned style that bothered me, I have always enjoyed old books, written in archaic language. I simply found it badly written and too liberally spattered with the usual inconsistencies one finds in all of Cooper's books. Passable, just, as a children's book, but no more than that. I tried to revisit _The Pathfinder_ myself a few years back, but had to put it away after twenty-odd pages.

I'm not _Gatsby's_ greatest fan either, by any stretch of the imagination, and can't see how it has come to occupy the pedestal upon which it has been placed, but at least it is a proper and quite accomplished piece of adult literature.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Gatsby is an outstanding work of literature. One of the first truly American novels, Fitzgerald is right up there with Twain and Burroughs as responsible for creating a uniquely American voice. There is a perspective that links Gatsby directly to the stark modernity of say Ellis' American Psycho.

It is a book that is about what is not said, what is not seen and what is barely experienced. The quality of light is deftly employed to set the scenes described within the pages even to the exclusion of the environment and the objects within it (cf the incomparable artistry of Edward Hopper). A mesmerizing intangible yet incredibly prescient portrayal of the modernity of life as lived where that which is not still yet aspires to _be_ - the superficiality celebrated in the flicker which famously runs through the narrative.

The book bristles with newness - telephones, telegrams, automobiles, electric light, stocks and shares, mass production, seismographs even - the shock of civilisation on the very precipice of the Anthropozoic era. Carraway epitomises this new age, pragmatic aloof and self-contained - yet whilst reading the book its narrator seems to evaporate in one's hands, a shadow, a cipher, barely registering within his own story.

A wonderful book and the last movie version was pure sh*t and I have no reason to believe that this new version will be any better. The people who make these movies have no idea what Fitzgerald's story is actually about...... they cannot see any further than, for example, a ham-fisted literal interpretation of Daisy's muffled sobs into shirts monogrammed in Indian blue.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The Great Gatsby: A good read, but far too much is lost in the movie and BB really did 'jump the shark' with their Great Gatsby collection. I agree with LordSmoke's assessment of Moby Dick, a great book which made for an even better movie.  However, as for my offering to this stew of literary assessment, "Silas Marner," by George Eliot; a great read, offering many life lessons and arguably the blueprint for a good and honorable life!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> The Great Gatsby: A good read, but far too much is lost in the movie and BB really did 'jump the shark' with their Great Gatsby collection. I agree with LordSmoke's assessment of Moby Dick, a great book which made for an even better movie. However, as for my offering to this stew of literary assessment, "Silas Marner," by George Eliot; a great read, offering many life lessons and arguably the blueprint for a good and honorable life!


Do you know, I've never read Silas Marner? It's now on my Amazon wish list- thanks for the recommendation Eagle. :icon_smile:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

My friend, you are quite welcome and while I have a copy in my home library and have read it a couple of times, full disclosure requires that I admit to you that the first time I read the book was as an eighth or ninth grade secondary school student, when I was forced to read it by an overbearing, yet well meaning Ms ???? (Egads!! I've forgotten her name?), our beloved English /Literature teacher!


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

Let's not forget Frank Norris. He was on the way to becoming as great an American writer as Melville and Twain before his life was cut short. _McTeague_ is a masterpiece that is for some reason largely ignored by high school and college courses. Perhaps it is silly, and it is certainly trite, to say one work is better than another, but _McTeague _is better than _Gatsby_.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Barnavelt said:


> Are you saying the book itself is forgettable?


Yup!

A trivial tale full of cardboard-cutout characters.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

hardline_42 said:


> The estimable Mr. Chensvold didn't write the article. It's an excerpt from "The Old Money Book" by Byron Tully.


Ah, ha!

So his best thoughts are those borrowed from others? :icon_smile_wink:

Good selection. Poor attribution.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Shaver said:


> It is a book that is about what is not said, what is not seen and what is barely experienced.


You mean, rather like the King's Clothes? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Barnavelt (Jul 31, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Yup!
> 
> A trivial tale full of cardboard-cutout characters.


I find it thought provoking and immensely enjoyable. Like most things worthwhile I suppose it is subjective.


----------



## Barnavelt (Jul 31, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> You mean, rather like the King's Clothes? :icon_smile_wink:


I would propose more along the lines of "Brideshead Revisited" or "Heart of Darkness".


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Barnavelt said:


> I would propose more along the lines of "Brideshead Revisited" or "Heart of Darkness".


Excellent comparisons, both in form and content - especially Conrad's trail-blazing novel which rather informed Fitzgerald's own prose style. :icon_smile:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Reldresal said:


> I hope it comes across well. Hard to say all in this format.
> 
> Walter McDougall's _Throes of Democracy: The American Civil War Era 1829-1877_ has an interesting thesis. America is essentially a pretentious country. Pretense in the truest sense of the word. We pretend we have freedom. We had slaves. We pretend we were the beacon of light to the world. We deliberately massacred Indians, women and children as well as men. We proclaimed democracy, and then restricted voting to (in most places) white men. And in the realm of business we always wanted to "feel good about doing well." This meant that the rich were drawn to power and to charities. They quickly found that the levers of power useful in maintaining their status. They turned this into a system by which they proclaimed they had the best interests of all at heart, but somehow, that always meant their best interests, too. All those territorial governors from New England that went west. Oh yes, they setup functioning governments and did great work. But they sure got rich speculating in land while doing it!
> 
> ...


I pretty much agree with your characterizations and believe they are important.

And certainly pointing out that the origin of virtually all fortunes entails theft of one nature, or another, rings true. But then by its very definition this 1st generation isn't _old money._ And as you point out, more appealing behavior was left to succeeding generations. But these succeeding generations did once exist, and their effect upon national character was largely benign and positive.

I am struck by your remarks about the English aristocracy. (Though it need not be confined to the English.) I had been thinking lately that in such a society the king was really whoever was the most successful robber.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Barnavelt said:


> I find it thought provoking and immensely enjoyable. Like most things worthwhile I suppose it is subjective.


I'm glad you find it both enjoyable and thought provoking, and IMHO, there's no reason you shouldn't. That literature doesn't just allow, but demands interpretation, and engenders passionate differences of opinion, is among its most valuable attributes.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I'm glad you find it both enjoyable and thought provoking, and IMHO, there's no reason you shouldn't. That literature doesn't just allow, but demands interpretation, and engenders passionate differences of opinion, is among its most valuable attributes.


Flanderian, fine fellow, that is one of the most reasonable comments I have had the pleasure to read amongst these fora in quite some time.

A lesson to us all - and probably most especially to me. :redface:


----------



## Barnavelt (Jul 31, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I'm glad you find it both enjoyable and thought provoking, and IMHO, there's no
> reason you shouldn't. That literature doesn't just allow, but demands interpretation, and engenders passionate differences of opinion, is among its mostvaluable attributes.


^An example of why gents like Flanderian are amongst the class of the forum, even if I do disagree with his assessment.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Flanderian said:


> I'm glad you find it both enjoyable and thought provoking, and IMHO, there's no reason you shouldn't. That literature doesn't just allow, but demands interpretation, and engenders passionate differences of opinion, is among its most valuable attributes.


Couldn't agree more. I think what the writer presents, and what the reader receives can easily be quite different, and equally valid. My own take on Moby Dick is a fine treatise on whaling in the age of sail, with an interesting little revenge story scattered throughout ; I'm given to understand there are those who differ.


----------



## Ekphrastic (Oct 4, 2009)

This thread is epic, from the assessments of _The Great Gatsby_ to--I almost couldn't believe it!--the correct usage and spelling of "discreet." Seriously, seeing this all in [semi-] public discourse is an English professor's dream come true!


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

I share your opinion of Fitzgerald, Shaver. While I enjoy reading him, however, I also appreciate a more light-hearted look at the subject. Marquand's _Wickford Point_ (which came out about the time _Gatsby_ appeared) is a great read as it pokes fun at a fading family.

I think every generation needs a _Great Gatsby_. Like _The Talented Mr Ripley_, it confirms that dressing like, and adopting the manners of, old money can never make one a member of the club. To the contrary, it is sure to lead to multiple deaths. This hint of danger is what makes a Trad forum so appealing.


----------



## Trad-ish (Feb 19, 2011)

P Hudson said:


> I share your opinion of Fitzgerald, Shaver. While I enjoy reading him, however, I also appreciate a more light-hearted look at the subject. Marquand's _Wickford Point_ (which came out about the time _Gatsby_ appeared) is a great read as it pokes fun at a fading family.
> 
> I think every generation needs a _Great Gatsby_. Like _The Talented Mr Ripley_, it confirms that dressing like, and adopting the manners of, old money can never make one a member of the club. To the contrary, it is sure to lead to multiple deaths. This hint of danger is what makes a Trad forum so appealing.


Some of you guys must have a trail of bodies about a mile long...


----------



## Dovid (Feb 26, 2008)

Reldresal said:


> And so it continues. We wax nostalgic for a world that probably never existed. "Old money" was never just concerned with doing good. That was probably a 2nd or 3rd generation thing. And even then self-interest was never not intertwined with public good, but public good was not always intertwined with self-interest. It's been this way for a long time. New forces have rushed in to the breach, no doubt. Perhaps they are just less discreet.


John D. Rockefeller never impressed me as having been "new money" at any stage in his life. I would agree that he may not be typical of founders of other old money families, but then I have not given much thought to finding other examples.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

It gladdens me to see sociology and economics enter this discourse; otherwise, it's just clothes fetishism, not that there's anything wrong with fetishism, but it's nice to go a little deeper. Perhaps there's no such thing as Old Money, but merely people who are born into privilege, no matter if daddy made the bucks himself or some ruthless baron centuries ago. The Kennedys have always been thought arrivistes, but the JFK generation was born entitled and that's all that matters. We get in endless retrospectives, with WASPs being New Money to the Dutch and so on, all the way back to the ruthless barons. At best, geneology can be amusing, since there's nothing we can do about our ancestors' ruthlessness or powerlessness, other than to redress the injustices of the past so we can have justice in the present and the future. What can be more Old Money than an actual title? In my own family there's one, not that anyone has used it or even benefited from it, for it both goes back far enough to have done nothing to ease struggle and poverty and early enough to be less than impressive -- according to my mother, who thought it hilarious, the original guy was a common highwayman who somehow escaped the noose and bought himself a title. And his best known descendant was a fascist (quite literally) murderer, so no one brags about the name. But the best title I know of belonged, if he ever wanted to claim it, to a writer I once met, a far-left Spaniard, whose ancestor was a 19th century field worker, handsome enough to have been noticed by that "delightfully promiscuous Spanish Queen", as an historian called her, Isabel II, and brought to her bed, where he performed so splendidly that she gave him a title. Now, isn't that better than owning slaves, massacring children or being, like Gatsby, a gangster?
All the brouhaha is making me reread The Great Gatsby, first read in college a lifetime ago. Pretty nice. The Great American Novel? Dunno. Faulkner was a greater writer, but his modernism can make him, like Joyce, tough going. Hemingway was terrific . . . when I was 14, 15; best boy lit ever. Moby Dick is one whale of a book; doesn't go down easy. Fitzgerald's prose is smooth and his style, like the sartorial one appreciated here, carries an effortless elegance. The Great Gatsby is "Great American" in the sense that Death of a Salesman is the Great American Play, for it explores, in art, a big American phenomenon. Gatsby, like Willy Loman can only be American, and for learning about him and, by extension, us, we can be grateful.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

efdll said:


> "delightfully promiscuous Spanish Queen"


The more I've read about European aristocracy, the more it seems that adultery and promiscuity, rather than being a vice, seemed an obligation. If anyone is to look askance at those born on the wrong side of the blanket, then pretty much the forbearers of the entire English nobility would need to considered. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Flanderian said:


> The more I've read about European aristocracy, the more it seems that adultery and promiscuity, rather than being a vice, seemed an obligation. If anyone is to look askance at those born on the wrong side of the blanket, then pretty much the forbearers of the entire English nobility would need to considered. :icon_smile_wink:


Much the same as American 'old money', would be my guess.

Also, marriage is about the division of property. I don't see the relevance.

It's not like they got to choose whom they married...


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

BTW, I got that "Old Money Book" on my e-reader, it's not worth the $2.99 cost. All it says is stuff like "Old Money doesn't advertise itself", "OM doesn't spend too much on Bridezilla weddings", "OM doesn't waste money on trendy stuff", basically the same thing any parent before the '70s or so would've told their kids, OM or not.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> Much the same as American 'old money', would be my guess.


Most certainly. Also not confined to the aristocracy. Just enjoyed Franny Moyle's book, _Constance.
_
But I suspect the aristocracy often had more freedom to act, and motivation for doing so.



Bjorn said:


> Also, marriage is about the division of property. I don't see the relevance.
> 
> It's not like they got to choose whom they married...


Also true.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

Finally saw the movie, way over the top, but to be expected. Acting was pretty good, though the direction -- more like the manipulation of the image -- was so overwhelming that one wonders how the players would've done in a more restrained mise-en-scene. But to go back to the core of this forum, trad style, in this case Ivy League as well as old vs. new money vs. vulgar money vs. no money, it seemed the men's clothes were, like the music, more today's style than of the period. Charlie Chaplin wore very tight short jackets, but he was a clown. Gatsby's suits look clownish. Ill-fitting. Everything rides up on the shoulders, something unseen in period Hollywood films, and Gatsby in particular shows unsightly wrinkles in the upper chest, again something I've never seen in period films. Rather than the BB Gatsby line being inspired by the movie, I'd say the movie's costumes seem inspired by BB's contemporary efforts at trendiness. Come to think of it, I recall Chaplin's jacket riding well on his torso as he went through all his contorsions -- and God knows he contorted! What's that about? No great tailors left in Hollywood? Or a slavish addiction to what's contemporary?Or both?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

efdll said:


> Charlie Chaplin wore very tight short jackets, *but he was a clown*. Gatsby's suits look clownish. Ill-fitting. Everything rides up on the shoulders, something unseen in period Hollywood films, and Gatsby in particular shows unsightly wrinkles in the upper chest, again something I've never seen in period films. Rather than the BB Gatsby line being inspired by the movie, I'd say the movie's costumes seem inspired by BB's contemporary efforts at trendiness. Come to think of it, I recall Chaplin's jacket riding well on his torso as he went through all his contorsions -- and God knows he contorted! What's that about? No great tailors left in Hollywood? Or *a slavish addiction to what's contemporary*?Or both?


:thumbs-up: :thumbs-up: :thumbs-up:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

P Hudson said:


> I share your opinion of Fitzgerald, Shaver. While I enjoy reading him, however, I also appreciate a more light-hearted look at the subject. Marquand's _Wickford Point_ (which came out about the time _Gatsby_ appeared) is a great read as it pokes fun at a fading family.
> 
> I think every generation needs a _Great Gatsby_. Like _The Talented Mr Ripley_, it confirms that dressing like, and adopting the manners of, old money can never make one a member of the club. To the contrary, it is sure to lead to multiple deaths. This hint of danger is what makes a Trad forum so appealing.


Amusing, but more people than old money Yale types wore what we now call Trad clothing -- which really is just a controlled solution of Ivy League from the '50s-'60s and Preppy from the '70s-'80s. Surely that doesn't make them poseurs or lead to them being psychotic!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

efdll said:


> Finally saw the movie, way over the top, but to be expected. Acting was pretty good, though the direction -- more like the manipulation of the image -- was so overwhelming that one wonders how the players would've done in a more restrained mise-en-scene. But to go back to the core of this forum, trad style, in this case Ivy League as well as old vs. new money vs. vulgar money vs. no money, it seemed the men's clothes were, like the music, more today's style than of the period. Charlie Chaplin wore very tight short jackets, but he was a clown. Gatsby's suits look clownish. Ill-fitting. Everything rides up on the shoulders, something unseen in period Hollywood films, and Gatsby in particular shows unsightly wrinkles in the upper chest, again something I've never seen in period films. Rather than the BB Gatsby line being inspired by the movie, I'd say the movie's costumes seem inspired by BB's contemporary efforts at trendiness. Come to think of it, I recall Chaplin's jacket riding well on his torso as he went through all his contorsions -- and God knows he contorted! What's that about? No great tailors left in Hollywood? Or a slavish addiction to what's contemporary?Or both?


While I have not yet seen the movie, to your above point about the clothes being "ill-fitting" and "Everything rides up on the shoulders," when I went to BB to see the Gatsby clothes, the construction of the suits was cheap (I posted about it at the time). Surprisingly, based on what I read elsewhere and your comment here, my guess is they didn't make better quality versions of the clothes for the actors to wear in the movie itself (something a friend in fashion told me they regularly do); hence, the cheapness of the clothes resulted in them not flowing naturally with the body.

As you also pointed out, this rarely happened in period movies because, not only where they tailored better, they were of much better quality. I caught about a half hour of "Three Loves has Nancy" the other night on TCM and was impressed with Robert Montgomery and Franchot Tone's clothes. They were - to your comment - incredibly well fitting and appeared to be of an insanely high quality as the drape was beautiful and they moved fluidly with the actors.

Every time I begin to think we on this board are crazy for being so into traditional attire, I catch an old move and it reminds me how the elegant and thoughtful dress of the era both reflected and created a more refined culture and atmosphere. Now we have a crass, loud, in-your-face culture that is also reflected in this era's clothes.


----------



## Pale_Male (May 20, 2013)

What's that about? No great tailors left in Hollywood? Or a slavish addiction to what's contemporary?Or both?

Perhaps no great tailors left in Sydney. Or at least at Fox/Sydney.


----------



## joeyzaza (Dec 9, 2005)

Fading Fast said:


> Every time I begin to think we on this board are crazy for being so into traditional attire, I catch an old move and it reminds me how the elegant and thoughtful dress of the era both reflected and created a more refined culture and atmosphere. Now we have a crass, loud, in-your-face culture that is also reflected in this era's clothes.


Well said.


----------



## Trad-ish (Feb 19, 2011)

Fading Fast said:


> While I have not yet seen the movie, to your above point about the clothes being "ill-fitting" and "Everything rides up on the shoulders," when I went to BB to see the Gatsby clothes, the construction of the suits was cheap (I posted about it at the time). Surprisingly, based on what I read elsewhere and your comment here, my guess is they didn't make better quality versions of the clothes for the actors to wear in the movie itself (something a friend in fashion told me they regularly do); hence, the cheapness of the clothes resulted in them not flowing naturally with the body.
> 
> As you also pointed out, this rarely happened in period movies because, not only where they tailored better, they were of much better quality. I caught about a half hour of "Three Loves has Nancy" the other night on TCM and was impressed with Robert Montgomery and Franchot Tone's clothes. They were - to your comment - incredibly well fitting and appeared to be of an insanely high quality as the drape was beautiful and they moved fluidly with the actors.
> 
> Every time I begin to think we on this board are crazy for being so into traditional attire, I catch an old move and it reminds me how the elegant and thoughtful dress of the era both reflected and created a more refined culture and atmosphere. Now we have a crass, loud, in-your-face culture that is also reflected in this era's clothes.


Glad to see I wasn't the only one watching that movie.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Amusing, but more people than old money Yale types wore what we now call Trad clothing -- which really is just a controlled solution of Ivy League from the '50s-'60s and Preppy from the '70s-'80s. Surely that doesn't make them poseurs or lead to them being psychotic!


I agree. I was just pointing to a theme that runs through both stories, and that seems often to be missed when people discuss them--esp Ripley, who is ridiculed by Freddy after Tom has adopted a new persona and spent a fortune to look sophisticated ("this room is so...bourgeois") and destroys a man in _Ripley's Game_ for making fun of his lack of taste and manners: being rich doesn't get you "into the club". Furthermore, I feel that some such comment is in order when people try to turn this forum into a place for sociological analysis. I'm not here because I'm announcing membership in a particular social class or even social construct. I'm too old to wear costumes (ok, I know some will reply that everything is costume). I just happen to like the clothes that were in style when I was in high school. I sometimes wish it hadn't come back into style, because in 5 years people will say, "that is so 5 years ago" when what I'm thinking is "that is so 35 years ago". Maybe it fits all too well in tough economic times.


----------



## Yuca (Feb 19, 2011)

efdll said:


> Finally saw the movie, way over the top, but to be expected. Acting was pretty good, though the direction -- more like the manipulation of the image -- was so overwhelming that one wonders how the players would've done in a more restrained mise-en-scene. But to go back to the core of this forum, trad style, in this case Ivy League as well as old vs. new money vs. vulgar money vs. no money, it seemed the men's clothes were, like the music, more today's style than of the period. Charlie Chaplin wore very tight short jackets, but he was a clown. Gatsby's suits look clownish. Ill-fitting. Everything rides up on the shoulders, something unseen in period Hollywood films, and Gatsby in particular shows unsightly wrinkles in the upper chest, again something I've never seen in period films. Rather than the BB Gatsby line being inspired by the movie, I'd say the movie's costumes seem inspired by BB's contemporary efforts at trendiness. Come to think of it, I recall Chaplin's jacket riding well on his torso as he went through all his contorsions -- and God knows he contorted! What's that about? No great tailors left in Hollywood? Or a slavish addiction to what's contemporary?Or both?


'Brooks' seem to know so little about vintage style in general, and their heritage in particular, that they may well be blissfully unaware of the difference in quality between what's in the film and what was the norm decades ago.

Having wasted money on the Brooks book (It's All About the Clothes - the world's most innaccurate slogan), I suspect they have got no real grasp of why Brooks was the best for so many years.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> A wonderful book and the last movie version was pure sh*t and I have no reason to believe that this new version will be any better. The people who make these movies have no idea what Fitzgerald's story is actually about...... they cannot see any further than, for example, a ham-fisted literal interpretation of Daisy's muffled sobs into shirts monogrammed in Indian blue.


Shaver I am in full agreement with your analysis of the book.

I am a little surprised you did not like the 1970s film however. I thought it was a very credible attempt to capture the essence of the book... and yet I seem to find myself in the minority as I haven't met anyone yet who liked it (apart from my mother!) Mia Farrow and Sam Waterston in particular gave excellent performances. I thought Robert Redford was also better than the "wooden" performance attributed to him, although admittedly while he got the superficiality of Gatsby's charm nailed, it was more difficult to credit the harder edge that surely must have been necessary in working the way up Wolfsheim's organisation. I understand that Di Caprio is stronger in this regard.

I am going to see the new movie although am not really looking forward to it as there appears to have been some self-indulgence on the part of the director. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Barnavelt said:


> I would propose more along the lines of "Brideshead Revisited" or "Heart of Darkness".


There was a recent interesting article in The Spectator (UK version) saying that both The Great Gatsby and Brideshead Revisited are popularly celebrated novels (or novellas) which have been completed misunderstood and misinterpreted by the audience that now extol them (while also unworthy of their fame on a literary level).

I dont agree with the authors opinions on the two works but it was an interesting read - I hope this link works in the USA: 
https://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8904541/not-so-great-gatsby/


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> There was a recent interesting article in The Spectator (UK version) saying that both The Great Gatsby and Brideshead Revisited are popularly celebrated novels (or novellas) which have been completed misunderstood and misinterpreted by the audience that now extol them (while also unworthy of their fame on a literary level).
> 
> I dont agree with the authors opinions on the two works but it was an interesting read - I hope this link works in the USA:
> https://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8904541/not-so-great-gatsby/


I'm just watching the Brideshead (Jeremy Irons version) box set again at the moment. It makes me very happy.

Poor, poor Sebastian.......

Anthony Blanche is a thoroughly charming literary figure, deployed as a character most devastatingly endowed in exhibition of such supreme mastery of nuanced conversational skills as to be quite simply thrilling to experience.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> Shaver I am in full agreement with your analysis of the book.
> 
> I am a little surprised you did not like the 1970s film however. I thought it was a very credible attempt to capture the essence of the book... and yet I seem to find myself in the minority as I haven't met anyone yet who liked it (apart from my mother!) Mia Farrow and Sam Waterston in particular gave excellent performances. I thought Robert Redford was also better than the "wooden" performance attributed to him, although admittedly while he got the superficiality of Gatsby's charm nailed, it was more difficult to credit the harder edge that surely must have been necessary in working the way up Wolfsheim's organisation. I understand that Di Caprio is stronger in this regard.
> 
> I am going to see the new movie although am not really looking forward to it as there appears to have been some self-indulgence on the part of the director. I hope I'm wrong.


I watched a 15 minute trailer of the movie with interviews with the cast and director. Oh, dear. Not a one of them had the faintest idea what they were talking about. Nit wits. Especially Baz - he's a super nit wit if ever there was.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Anthony Blanche is a thoroughly charming literary figure, deployed as a character most devastatingly endowed in exhibition of such supreme mastery of nuanced conversational skills as to be quite simply thrilling to experience.


I like him too, but I'm given to understand that not everyone was pleased to have "experienced" Brian Howard. As to the actors' and director's comments, did you get the impression that none of them had any genuine feel for 1920s America? The years can turn so many characters into caricatures, and if the latter are all the filmmaker knows, well....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

phyrpowr said:


> I like him too, but I'm given to understand that *not everyone was pleased to have "experienced" Brian Howard.* As to the actors' and director's comments, did you get the impression that none of them had any genuine feel for 1920s America? The years can turn so many characters into caricatures, and if the latter are all the filmmaker knows, well....


_"Anybody seen in a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life" _:tongue2:


----------

