The recent review by Laura Collins-Hughes in The New York Times critiques the new production merging the iconic tale of The Great Gatsby with the extravagant narrative of The Queen of Versailles. Collins-Hughes sheds light on the ambitious endeavor, revealing both its merits and its shortcomings. Thematic links among the characters from both narratives are explored, presenting a rich tapestry of American excess and aspiration. However, Collins-Hughes also emphasizes that despite the conceptual innovation, the execution falters. The production’s reliance on grandiosity distracts from emotional depth, creating a spectacle that ultimately lacks resonance. The performances of the cast are noted as strong, but even their talents cannot fully bridge the gap between the dazzling visuals and a compelling story. The reviewer highlights that while the show gleams with ambition and potential, it often seems more concerned with style over substance, leaving the audience yearning for a deeper connection. Collins-Hughes’s assessment serves as an important reminder that theatrical brilliance is not only about lavish sets or star power but equally about narrative integrity and emotional engagement.
For further reading, please refer to the full article [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/03/theater/gatsby-queen-of-versailles-review.html).
Sincerely,
Lotte van Deyssel
Lotte van Deyssel’s reflections on Laura Collins-Hughes’ review illuminate a profound truth about contemporary art: the delicate balance between spectacle and substance. In merging “The Great Gatsby” with “The Queen of Versailles,” this production ambitiously seeks to examine the mythos of American excess, yet it stumbles into a poignant irony. The allure of visual opulence, while captivating in its own right, can often serve as a distraction from the emotional profundity that drama demands.
Collins-Hughes provides an astute critique, echoing the timeless dilemma faced by artists: how to weave emotive narratives into the fabric of grand aesthetics without losing the essence of story. The vibrant performances, commendably noted, reveal how even exceptional talent can be overshadowed by a narrative that prioritizes style over substance. This raises a philosophical question about the role of art in society—should it merely dazzle, or should it cultivate a deeper understanding of the human experience?
In pursuing a narrative steeped in such rich thematic exploration, the production’s potential remains unfulfilled, leaving audiences in a liminal space between admiration for the visual feast and a longing for genuine connection. Indeed, the true measure of theatrical brilliance lies not solely in lavish sets or star-studded casts, but rather in the artist’s ability to stir the soul and evoke the shared struggles of existence. Collins-Hughes’ critique serves as a vital reminder: artistry must engage not just the eyes, but the heart, crafting experiences that linger long after the final curtain falls.