Nietzsche’s Approach on History and the Great Gatsby’s Historiographical Performance

Introduction

The Great Gatsby, directed by Baz Luhrman in 2013, narrates Jay Gatsby’s story that takes place in 1920’s New York. The film represents this period through its cinematography and artistic design. From this perspective, the historical representation practiced in Luhrman’s Great Gatsby could be discussed in the field of historiography.

In order to further my study on the historiography of The Great Gatsby first I will effort to interpret the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche in On the Use and Abuse of History (2010) (The book is first published in 1873). After I will analyze the historiographical performance of the film.

In On the Use and Abuse of History, Nietzsche addresses the meaning of history and its necessity for life. According to him, knowledge of the past is a rewarding tool to generate prospects for future activities and to interpret the present when approached with a hint of critical distance. In his words, “History is neccessary to the living man in three ways: in relation to his action and struggle, his conservatism and reverance, his suffer and his desire for deliverance” (Nietzsche, 2010; 5).

For these necessary uses of history, he introduces a distinct terminology: monumental, antiquarian, and critical history (ibid). History in its monumental utilization refers to knowledge of the past used to set an example for mankind (ibid). When the guidance of wisdom is needed and cannot be found among contemporaries, the cognition of the past can serve as a monument to interpret the present. Nietzsche attributes to the antiquarian cognition of history the approach of perceiving the past, present, and future as a coherent whole (ibid, 7). In this cognition, knowledge of the past signifies the progress of mankind. History functions as a bridge between the past, present, and future, highlighting the continuous progress in each of them.

On the other hand, acknowledging history as a fixed body of knowledge about a past event carries the risk of restricting one’s perspective. In his view, this excessive appreciation of and dependence on history weakens the personality and destroys the vitality of the present. A critical perspective toward history would serve as a shield to protect man from the encapsulation of the discourses that mould in history (ibid, 8). He indicates that looking at knowledge of the past in a critical way dismantles this constitution by putting a knife to its roots to reveal its components. The unhistorical perception that would be formed through the critical perspective, for Nitzsche, would best be balanced with the superhistorical understanding to constitute the dynamic relation toward knowledge of the past (ibid, 29).

In his critical approach, Nietzsche discusses the key concepts of objectivity, narration, and the historiographer’s perspective in the practice of historiography. I will attempt to explain Nietzsche’s critical approach to history by interpreting these concepts alongside E. H. Carr’s ideas on historiography in his book What is History? (1990).

Nietzsche acknowledges the practice of historiography as the artistic composition of past events (ibid, 15). Identifying narration as the fundamental component of historiography, he asserts that history is the work of the dramatist who links events causally to form a coherent presentation of the past. The practice of historiography inevitably incorporates narration in order to express knowledge of the past. Information or an idea in abstract form cannot exist as a pure substance, nor can it be transferred to the minds of others. Communication, whether in verbal or written mode, occurs through the expression of the sentiment of the idea. This depends on the selection and placement of words and, of course, on utterance. Narration can then be defined as the process of selecting, ordering, and accentuating words in order to convey meaning. Another key aspect of narration in historiography is the attribution of causality to the order of events. Carr mentions that historians constantly endeavor to arrange the past experiences of humanity by attaching a cause-and-effect relationship to them (1990, p.88). Based on this idea, Carr defines history as a construct composed of organizing the incidents of the past into an order that involves a cause-and-effect relationship.

The practice of organizing the past through a cause-and-effect relationship inevitably involves the exclusion of some historical data that become irrelevant in the narration. In the practice of historiography, Carr underlines the rejection of irrelevant data about the past when composing a logical and rational historical document (ibid, 147). For Nietzsche, this practice of selection corresponds to the annihilation of the vitality of the past (2010, 17). The judgment of the historiographer regarding which historical events to include and exclude damages the atmosphere of the past as a once-dynamic field. Therefore, any historiographical attempt will fail to express the full meaning of the past, even if it is practiced with a pure heart. On the other hand, for Nietzsche, any historiographical attempt that struggles to avoid narration in terms of selecting and marshaling events in an order would lose its creative instinct to represent the past event. Consequently, history should be understood as a narrative that is constructed through the perspective of the historiographer. Accordingly, Nietzsche directs his critical approach toward the objectivity of the historiographer.

Nietzsche considers the conception of objectivity in historiography fundamentally problematic due to the process that flows from the present toward the past (ibid, 14). In the process of forming a historical document, the event belongs to the period of time in which it occurred, but the act of documenting is carried out in the present.

Therefore, the cognition and interpretation of that previous event are inevitably carried out through the eyes of the present. Carr explains the notion of the contemporary formation of history, asserting that the past can only be viewed and comprehended through the eyes of the present (1990, 24). The eyes of the present refer to a cognition that is shaped by the tendencies of the present society. The perspective of the historiographer cannot be evaluated apart from the society the historiographer belongs to. The social tendencies of the society inevitably shape the cognition of the historiographer toward the past event. Carr claims that in order to understand the work of the historian, the place where s/he stands and the roots of that standpoint within the social and environmental circumstances should be analyzed (ibid, 40). Therefore, a historical fact cannot be acknowledged as an objective and autonomous entity free from the interpretation of the historian, and the interpretation of the historian is bound to the tendencies of her/his society.

For Nietzsche, history creates the dull illusion of the past (2010, 17). The constructed nature of historiography that narrates the past through the perspective of the present drains the vital energy of the past and transforms it into a carcass. As a cure, Nietzsche suggests incorporating an artistic approach into the practice of historiography. He explains that art has the opposite effect to history in terms of vitality. In his view, if history is transformed into a pure work of art, then it would embody and be able to transmit the vital energy of the past. The artistic approach to historiography would recreate the sensation of the past; hence, the representation would sustain the vital energy.

From my perspective, Nietzsche’s suggestion regarding the artistic execution of historiography provides a fruitful field in which to discuss the historiographical performance of the diegetic historical film. In the remainder of the paper, I will endeavor to explain the historiographical performance of the diegetic film in order to analyze The Great Gatsby’s (2013) historiography of the 1920s. The explanation of the historiographical performance of the diegetic film is grounded in the research I conducted in the field for my MA thesis.

Historical representation in historical films can be included in historiography once historiography is acknowledged as a constructed practice of historical representation. As I have discussed above, historiographical practice is based on the selection and marshaling of historical facts toward the intended narration. From this perspective, the filmic representation of history fits into the field of historiography. However, I find it useful to distinguish between diegetic and non-diegetic practices based on the sensory experience that diegetic practices transmit.

As Hayden White suggested in Metahistory (1975), historiography is a narration that performs the representation of the past, and if so, it may not be appropriate to limit historiographical performance to written practices. In this respect, historiography comes to include other media that perform historical representation. Within this climate of openness toward other media that perform historical representation, I distinguish the forms of the practice as diegetic and non-diegetic historical representations. I locate the distinction between diegetic and non-diegetic representations within historiography itself, rather than in the medium of written or filmic practices. All historiographical practices are composed of narration, and they include historical facts in their historical representations. However, the diegetic representation of history generates a sense similar to the experience of the historical event that the narration represents.

The diegesis in a narration is the sphere where all the events occur; it is the genuine world design generated for that narration. The diegesis possesses its own internal rational consistency by establishing a sphere of actuality in which events occur according to causality within the rules of diegetic gravity. The rational consistency of the events in the narration is bound to diegetic gravity; hence, the plot is legitimized in its own space of actuality, independent of the restrictions of reality.

The process of making sense of a diegetic film lies in experiencing it rather than in watching it. The film medium is acknowledged as a conductive device that transmits discourse to the spectator by Apparatus Theory, grounded in the sensation it generates in the field of experience. The closural continuous narration, identification, and the inner coherence of the narration are the main elements of diegetic narration in film. Through these structures, the spectator becomes attached to the narration. The film makes sense through the attachment established with the inner structures of the diegesis. The diegesis operates via its own gravitational rules, and comprehension depends on the acceptance of these rules. Therefore, the act of comprehending a film demands a shift in the basis of plausibility according to the inner coherence of the diegesis.

When a historical event is represented through a diegetic structure, that event is transported to a realm that is free from the laws of historical accuracy. In spite of the fictive representation of the historical event, the plot is established in the historical consciousness via the comprehension of the historical event through the sense of experience. Consequently, the sense of experience in which diegetic practices locate their process of comprehension differentiates the effect of diegetic practices of historiography from the rest. Diegetic historical films operate in the field of experience through the identification they establish between the spectator and the narration.

Diegetic historical films reproduce the experience of the past, and thus the audience experiences the sensuality of the past in the present. In Persistence of History, Vivian Sobchack asserts that experiencing the past in the present through diegetic historiographical practices transforms history into a phenomenon that happens in the present (1996, 7). For Sobchack, the historiographical performance of diegetic practices abolishes the temporal space between the present and the past through the sensual experience they transmit. This creates a blur in the cognition of history by dragging meaning into the field of simultaneity. In her words: “Today history seems to happen right now – is transmitted, reflected upon, shown play-by-play, taken up as the stuff of multiple stories and significance, given all sorts of ‘coverage’ in the temporal dimension of the present as we live it” (Sobchack, 1996; 5). The sense of experience generated for a historical event through the historiographical performance of diegetic film transforms the perception of history into a sensation of the present. The conception of history mutates into a conception that is produced and described from the present; therefore, the whole temporal sensation dims in a broad sense.

Through the discussion I have presented concerning the historiography of diegetic film, the historical representation in Baz Luhrmann’s Great Gatsby can be acknowledged as a historiographical performance. Produced in 2013, the film is an adaptation of the novel of the same name written by F. Scott Fitzgerald in 1925. The novel narrates a story that takes place in 1922, which is almost the same time period in which it was published. Luhrmann’s filmic adaptation, which is coherent with the novel, on the other hand, was produced in 2013. The time difference between the creation of the original story and its filmic adaptation necessitates the practice of historical representation in the first place.

The Great Gatsby narrates the dramatic love story of Jay Gatsby, a rich young entrepreneur living in New York City in 1922. Accordingly, the film performs the historical representation of New York City in the 1920s as an urban space. As introduced in the opening sequence of the film, this is a time when Wall Street reaches peak levels, dazzling society with the sparkling opportunities of the stock market. The crowded streets of the city, darkened by the shade of skyscrapers, are represented in the film through Luhrmann’s vivid cinematography and editing style. Another striking historical representation in the film is the portrayal of the entertainment culture of the period. The governmental ban on alcohol production and distribution that shaped the social practices of entertainment is reflected in the representation of public spaces as hidden clubs. The hedonistic lifestyle of bourgeois society is represented in detail throughout the film’s various party sequences.

In order to perform a more detailed study on the historiographical performance of the film I will focus on the sequence, which Gatsby and Nick goes for a lunch in the city. The sequence opens with the scene where Gatsby takes spins around Nick’s house to invite him to a tour to the city with his brand new car. The art direction in broad could be acknowledged as the most powerful tool of filmic practice of historiography, which recreates the vital atmosphere of the past. The design towards the interior of the house from the plates that tremble with the vibration of the car engine to the architecture of the exterior express the 20’s visually along with costume and props. Their road trip describes the urban settlement of the period signifying the texture of the roads and the road signs along with many more. The establishing shot of the road that reaches to the city with Gatsby’s car on it through a bird’s eye angle exhibits the gross crevasse between the residential and the industrial areas of the city. In this shot the medium specific visual narration gains prominence once again in terms of the representation of urban space. In the diegetic sphere of the film, we experience the sight of New York City as it was in 1920’s through an extreme long shot. As the camera travels down to the level of the car, it introduces the audience to the chaotic settlement of the streets with the upper railroads where the trains pass by. Gatsby and Nick enter the local where they have lunch together from a barbershop. The entrance of the local is masked with a barbershop due to the alcohol ban practiced in the period. This portrayal is as an attempt towards the socio-political representation of the period. The wide shot of the local exhibits a dark crowded club covered with smoke from the cigarettes where the sweaty dancers perform a swing routine on the stage dressed in the stage fashion of the period. There they came across with the commissioner of the city dancing on a table with a few women who are just as tipsy as his. The corruption of that period that wraps around the city from the trade activities to the politics is represented in Nick and Gatsby’s local scene.

Nietzsche’s suggestion of practicing historiography with an artistic approach in order to maintain the vital energy of the past seems fitting, considering the film’s medium-specific audiovisual capacities for historical representation. The Great Gatsby’s filmic representation reproduces the atmosphere of the 1920s in the liveliest possible way. The historiographical performance of the film transmits the sensual experience of the period through the bond established with the diegesis. Nevertheless, Sobchack’s criticism of diegetic representation diminishing temporal space retains its validity. Through the diegetic historiography of the film, the audience experiences the sensuality of the 1920s in the present, which pastes the perception of the past into the field of the present, shattering temporal cognition.

On the other hand, I propose that the choice of songs on the soundtrack of The Great Gatsby may function as a distractive element to prevent the abolition of temporal space. The director Baz Luhrmann, who also produced the soundtrack, selects and brings together some of the most popular recent artists and their songs to compose the musical score of the film. The songs in The Great Gatsby play an important role in expressing meaning, as we often encounter in Luhrmann’s cinema (Strictly Ballroom (1992), Romeo & Juliet (1996), Moulin Rouge (2001)). Jay Z, Beyonce, Fergie, Lana Del Rey, and Jack White perform original songs in The Great Gatsby, along with other popular names. One of the leading songs on the soundtrack is the cover of Amy Winehouse’s Back to Black by Beyonce. Some of the songs are featured in the film in their original compositions, while others are reorchestrated to incorporate the jazz or swing rhythms of the era.

I perceive a distraction in the transmission of the sensual experience of the period represented in the film, constituted through the unquestionable recency of the popular songs. The utilization of recent popular songs cracks the coherent structure of the diegesis that performs the historical representation. Through this distraction, the bond with the diegesis fractures, along with the transmission of the sensual experience of the past event. In my view, the recent soundtrack could re-establish the temporal distance that dissolves during the sensual experience of the past in the present. In other words, the distractive effect of the soundtrack in The Greta Gatsby may function to reveal the constructed nature of the historiography practiced in the film.

Bibliography