Transformers II reviewed from revolutionary perspective

[Saorsa]

http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/transformers-ii/

I got home from Transformers II in a rage and wrote a review of it. It's the most reactionary film I've seen in ages, they had the audacity to make the Autobots and their US army handlers based in Diego Garcia (the island where the UK expelled all the inhabitants against their will to make way for a US airbase). Some stuff in this film just beggars belief. Anyway, thought people might be interested.

[Sasha]

http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/transformers-ii/

I got home from Transformers II in a rage and wrote a review of it. It's the most reactionary film I've seen in ages, they had the audacity to make the Autobots and their US army handlers based in Diego Garcia (the island where the UK expelled all the inhabitants against their will to make way for a US airbase). Some stuff in this film just beggars belief. Anyway, thought people might be interested.


thanx for the effort but although i havent seen it yet i think i will probilly agree with this review:
Honestly, I have no problem with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. It is exactly what it's supposed to be: a movie based on a line of plastic dolls, in which trucks turn into robots and vice versa and shit blows up for 150 minutes and sometimes Megan Fox's boobs do things in slow motion. Mission fucking accomplished. This might be the only film franchise for which Michael Bay is absolutely, preternaturally suited. I am not even mad.

source (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/dear-nerds-i-have-some-questions/Content?oid=1740991)

its an giant blockbuster about giant robots blowing each other up in giant ways, from micheal fucking bay, what did you expect? sommething that could have been made by ken loach?
its capitalism at its finests, so offcourse its reactionary as hell, you should have known that going in. you dont expect political correctness from porn.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Not seen it, but I think this review says everything that needs to be said: http://io9.com/5301898/michael-bay-finally-made-an-art-movie

[Saorsa]

I did know what it'd be like going in, but I felt it was still worth commenting upon. 99% of people who see that film won't know that Diego Garcia had it's original inhabitants removed against their will and that it's now used to launch airstrikes on Afghani children. If one person reads my review, learns that and gets pissed off about it then I'm satisfied.

[Sasha]

Not seen it, but I think this review says everything that needs to be said: http://io9.com/5301898/michael-bay-finally-made-an-art-movie


:laugh: that review is an work of art in itself

[Revy]

Good review, the film sounds like a piece of crap. Who thought it would be a good idea to have a sequel to Transformers anyway? totally unnecessary.

however, The Island was directed by Michael Bay, which is actually a good movie.

Maybe this should be in the Literature & Films forum?

[Hit The North]

Maybe this should be in the Literature & Films forum?

Agreed.

[Q]

I've seen it and the movie does give something of a kick when you see it, an assault on the senses, as io9.com puts it. However, the plot is extremely dull.

[Revy]

Michael Bay also directed Pearl Harbor.

From an imdb review:


The climax of the film is the attack on Pearl Harbor - an American defeat. But it seems the film-makers decided that the American audience wouldn't be satisfied with this - and so the movie grinds on and on for another hour or so dramatising a revenge attack on Japan. And we're supposed to believe that this attack was fought by the very same guys who were on the ground in Hawaii. I mean we all know that America won the war in the end, so did we really need this long epilogue?

[Killfacer]

yeah but did you see optimus prime kicking ass? That film was better than the first because it at more fucking huge robots kicking each other in.

[Pogue]

Wow, I don't think I'm really that serious about politics to go to see Transformers and expect to be met with some sort of political statement.

[Revy]

Has anyone here seen Transmorphers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0960835/)? :laugh:

[Pirate Utopian]

yeah but did you see optimus prime kicking ass? That film was better than the first because it at more fucking huge robots kicking each other in.
But it's foul and reactionary!!!!!!

I have made an essay on why the movie Wall-E is actually a glorification of the Klu Klux Klan and why Mr. Bean provokes imperialism, let's see if I can find it...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That wasn't a film review. That was a political polemic that was mislabelled as film review. Do you seriously expect an intellectual analysis of imperialism from a summer blockbuster? If so, I think you should pick different films to watch.

As for the racist undertones, if the first film is anything to go by, the allegedly "black" robots are simply a ham-fisted attempt at making "hip" characters that the "cool kids" can identify with. How on Earth does a robot have a skin colour, anyway? Wait, they don't. They have behaviour and personalities which, despite also being present in people of other skin colours (aspects of American "street" culture (such as rap & hip-hop, as well as the slang terms, mannerisms and outlooks commonly associated with it) having been exported and imitated the world over), you automatically assume that they're somehow meant to be black.

All this is quite apart from the fact that to assume that the cultural evolution of alien robots mirrors that of us squishy Earthlings is a concept nuttier than squirrel shit to anyone who gives it a moment's thought. A far more parsimonious explanation is that Autobots cultivate individual personalities that humans can relate to. Considering the absolutely astounding computer processing capabilities displayed by Autobots and Decpticons, it would be but the work of a moment to "put on" a human personality, much like one would put on a mask.

[Q]

Has anyone here seen Transmorphers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0960835/)? :laugh:
A bad mix of Transformers and Matrix (maybe more, but that's what I recognised thusfar). How incredibly lame.

[Guerrilla22]

It's a blockbuster film based on a toy line. I wouldn't put too much into it. Enjoy watching stuff blow up and robots battle for 2 and a half hours and leave it at that.

[Qayin]

Fuck this movie

Racist and full of military bullshit

[Agrippa]

As for the racist undertones, if the first film is anything to go by, the allegedly "black" robots are simply a ham-fisted attempt at making "hip" characters that the "cool kids" can identify with. How on Earth does a robot have a skin colour, anyway?

Not to start a flamewar around the 13-hour three-hour car/toy commercial that is the Transformers film franchise - but that argument is ridiculous. It would only make since if there actually were transforming robots running around, and Bay had merely filmed them as a documentary.

You might as well say that Golliwog isn't a racist caricature since he's not a literal black person, but a doll who comes to life through magic. Ignore the fact that it was written by a human living in an era of racism

I also don't see how "racist undertones" and " a ham-fisted attempt at making "hip" characters that the 'cool kids' can identify with" are in any way mutually exclusive

Wait, they don't. They have behaviour and personalities which, despite also being present in people of other skin colours (aspects of American "street" culture (such as rap & hip-hop, as well as the slang terms, mannerisms and outlooks commonly associated with it) having been exported and imitated the world over), you automatically assume that they're somehow meant to be black.

All this is quite apart from the fact that to assume that the cultural evolution of alien robots mirrors that of us squishy Earthlings is a concept nuttier than squirrel shit to anyone who gives it a moment's thought. A far more parsimonious explanation is that Autobots cultivate individual personalities that humans can relate to. Considering the absolutely astounding computer processing capabilities displayed by Autobots and Decpticons, it would be but the work of a moment to "put on" a human personality, much like one would put on a mask.[/QUOTE]

[NoMore]

http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/transformers-ii/

I got home from Transformers II in a rage and wrote a review of it. It's the most reactionary film I've seen in ages, they had the audacity to make the Autobots and their US army handlers based in Diego Garcia (the island where the UK expelled all the inhabitants against their will to make way for a US airbase). Some stuff in this film just beggars belief. Anyway, thought people might be interested.

I agree,I think it's borderline propaganda. They did it with comic books in the 40s and 50s in the U.S.

[Bilan]

Wow, I don't think I'm really that serious about politics to go to see Transformers and expect to be met with some sort of political statement.

Ideology underpins film and literature alot of the time, especially those to do with war.
I haven't seen this film, but I detest the people who go see it. Only because I work at the cinemas.

[Killfacer]

for me anything with that in:

http://www.reelcomix.com/albums/Transformers2/t2-revengefallen.jpg

negates politics.

It did have mouth watering special effects.

[Killfacer]

So they set a military compound in a military compound? I don't think Michael Bay was like "hHAHAHAHHAHAHAH we're going to set it here because some indiginous fuckers go kicked out once".

The "black" autobots were a bit of a stereotype. Specially the two little ones, they were fucking annoying. In fairness though, most TV/Film is choc full of these kind of tired stereotypes, so i fail to see why you're picking on Transformers in particular.

[Agrippa]

Ideology underpins film and literature alot of the time, especially those to do with war.

Some Hollywood films, such 300 and the Dark Knight, in addition to being stunning, aesthetically brilliant films, are propaganda for the militarist Western bourgeoisie in regards to the "war on terror". Thus, in their brilliance, they demand intelligent critique. However, neither Transformers nor Transformers II qualifies. The former was so boring it put me to sleep. If it had any political message at all it probably would have caught my attention. It was just mindless pornography. You might as well write an anti-capitalist critique of a Sears catalogue. Writing a serious review of either film is granting both films, and the whole Transformers franchise which began in the 80s as a line of cheap, plastic toys, and expanded into a commercial for the cheap plastic toys, a dignity it doesn't deserve.


I haven't seen this film, but I detest the people who go see it. Only because I work at the cinemas.

It's certainly not a film I have any interest in seeing, especially not in theatres where the sensory overstimulation would probably make me sick, but are the indie hipsters lining up to see Garden State and I ♥ Huckabees any better, honestly?

[Agrippa]

for me anything with that in:

http://www.reelcomix.com/albums/Transformers2/t2-revengefallen.jpg

negates politics.

It did have mouth watering special effects.

Is that a Confederate battle-flag on the far-top-right? More fuel for anti-racist Transformer conspiracy theories?

[Agrippa]

I agree,I think it's borderline propaganda. They did it with comic books in the 40s and 50s in the U.S.

Actually, you have your geek history slightly confused. Comic books were considered mildly subversive up until the start of WWII, when the comics industry and the US government basically forced writers and illustrators to manufacture pro-Allied propaganda. (the Jewish authors of Superman were taking jabs at both Nazi and Stalinist anti-Semitism long before the start of the war) By the time the 1950s came about, the US government was actually prosecuting and criminalizing the comics industry during the height of McCarthyite Cold War paranoia. (It may seem ridiculous, but no more so than thinking the friggin' CPUSA was a legitimate threat to the internal stability of the US) This was mostly due to the increased popularity of violent, salacious, and sometimes politically subversive horror, western, and pirate comics, but superheroes got a good del of the brunt too - since in the minds of paranoid statements they encouraged vigilantism, disrespect for the law, radical feminism and lesbianism, (in the case of Wonder-Woman) and homosexuality. (In the case of Batman and Robin)

The comprimise that was agreed upon was the Comics Code which pretty much became meaningless in the laste 60s when both Marvel and DC became infested with socially conscious hippies

[Bilan]

Some Hollywood films, such 300 and the Dark Knight, in addition to being stunning, aesthetically brilliant films, are propaganda for the militarist Western bourgeoisie in regards to the "war on terror". Thus, in their brilliance, they demand intelligent critique. However, neither Transformers nor Transformers II qualifies. The former was so boring it put me to sleep. If it had any political message at all it probably would have caught my attention. It was just mindless pornography. You might as well write an anti-capitalist critique of a Sears catalogue. Writing a serious review of either film is granting both films, and the whole Transformers franchise which began in the 80s as a line of cheap, plastic toys, and expanded into a commercial for the cheap plastic toys, a dignity it doesn't deserve.

Spot on. I must remind you I didn't write one, I was merely pointing the fact out to Killfacer.




It's certainly not a film I have any interest in seeing, especially not in theatres where the sensory overstimulation would probably make me sick, but are the indie hipsters lining up to see Garden State and I ♥ Huckabees any better, honestly?If only you knew how I looked! :lol:
Further, there are a lot less of them; they're usually better dressed (an admirable trait); and the movie is probably not as big - i.e. not bringing in 6000 people a day, and 8000 on a Saturday, and probably more this Tuesday (Cheap ticket day).

[Sarah Palin]

I just can't see myself paying $10 to go see a 2 hour Ford/U.S Army commercial.

[Killfacer]

I feel i should point out that i do realise that Transformers is a pretty poor film. It's just that personally seeing giant robots blow two shades of shit out of each other is enjoyable.

Bilan, what were you trying to point out to me? I seemed to have missed something.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Actually, you have your geek history slightly confused. Comic books were considered mildly subversive up until the start of WWII, when the comics industry and the US government basically forced writers and illustrators to manufacture pro-Allied propaganda. (the Jewish authors of Superman were taking jabs at both Nazi and Stalinist anti-Semitism long before the start of the war) By the time the 1950s came about, the US government was actually prosecuting and criminalizing the comics industry during the height of McCarthyite Cold War paranoia. (It may seem ridiculous, but no more so than thinking the friggin' CPUSA was a legitimate threat to the internal stability of the US) This was mostly due to the increased popularity of violent, salacious, and sometimes politically subversive horror, western, and pirate comics, but superheroes got a good del of the brunt too - since in the minds of paranoid statements they encouraged vigilantism, disrespect for the law, radical feminism and lesbianism, (in the case of Wonder-Woman) and homosexuality. (In the case of Batman and Robin)

There's an interesting irony here, in that (thanks to the Comintern's confused backing of nationalism), the British Communist Party actually played a key role in the British anti-comics campaign. Hardly the worst things Stalinists have done, but still pretty crazy. There's a book called A Haunt of Fears (available on google reader) that covers the UK anti-comics campaign, including the heavy Communist involvement, if anyone's interested.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Both right-wingers and left-wingers accuse Hollywood of being propagandists for the opposite side, so I take all such accusations with a huge fucking grain of salt. Hollywood is interested in money, not politics. If a film is a jingoistic heap of crap, that's because that sort of thing sells. Hollywood reflects society, not the other way round, which is why it's alleged "values" are so schizophrenic, enabling accusations of propaganda from wingnuts left, right and centre.

I really do think we should leave the job of waging monumentually stupid "culture wars" to the right wing idiots. Seeing leftists treat an entertainment film the same as a policy statement or political broadcast makes me fucking cringe, just like the loonies who say that Brokeback Mountain is propaganda for the Gay Agenda™.

Heh, who am I kidding? It seems inevitable that people will read their own prejudices and attitudes into such things,


Not to start a flamewar around the 13-hour three-hour car/toy commercial that is the Transformers film franchise - but that argument is ridiculous. It would only make since if there actually were transforming robots running around, and Bay had merely filmed them as a documentary.

You might as well say that Golliwog isn't a racist caricature since he's not a literal black person, but a doll who comes to life through magic. Ignore the fact that it was written by a human living in an era of racismA golliwog is obviously intended to be a caricature of a black person. An alien robot, not so much.

Think of it like this - assuming Skids and Mudflap to be an intentional representation of black people is as silly as assuming Megatron and Starscream to be intentional representation of Jewish people. I'm sure if you did some digging and made some casually racist assumptions you could write a description of the latter pair that would make it seem as though they were meant to be caricatures of Jewish people.

Or maybe a "nerdy" or technically competent robot is obviously intended be asian, since we all "know" that asians are a buncha fucking geeks, amirite? :rolleyes:


Some Hollywood films, such 300 and the Dark Knight, in addition to being stunning, aesthetically brilliant films, are propaganda for the militarist Western bourgeoisie in regards to the "war on terror".That's funny, I thought they were both works of fiction. Silly me. Obviously people are a bunch of dumb fucking sheep who walk into cinemas as total blank slates politically speaking and who never get their political influences from the news, friends and family, political pundits, clergy, and politicians.

I saw 300, and I'm afraid I must report that I've yet to have any urges to be mean to people from anywhere east of Europe. I must be some kind of freak of nature or something, a genetic abnormality. Or maybe I'm ill! Quick, get me to a hospital!

[Agrippa]

Take a chill pill, Noxion. Transformers and 300 are not the end of the world.

I do not consider movie-goers "sheep", any more so than I am a "sheep" for smoking, drinking beer, and posting on RevLeft to cope with the stress of capitalist existence.

I do not know who "Skids" and "Mudflap" are, since I don't give a damn about the Transformers franchise, and can't keep track of the one-dimensional characters. (They all look identical to me) However, what litttle I know of the films, I do know that the "alien robots" are voiced by human actors. Other posters have made it sound pretty clear as if some of the robots speak in exagerated/mocking New Afrikan accents, using contrived, appropriated, and mangled ebonic slang. That's totally different than a character happening to have some individual characteristics that, in another context, could form part of a harmful racial stereotype (for example, a character happening to enjoy watermelon) The fact that the mangled ebonic slang may just be introduced as an attempt to be "cool" and appeal to the lowest common denominator, (remember, that's what the whole film is) that doesn't mean it's not racist, since it's not like the lowest common denominator isn't racist.

The way you refer to Hollywood (or the way anyone refers to any sector of capitalism) as a homogeneous entity is sort of silly. Yes, there are Hollywood types who are in it for the money, not ideology. But there are others, such as Gibson, Eastwood, or Tarantino, who are clearly in it mostly to get their message across, be it intelligent social commentary, (in the case of Eastwood) reactionary racist blather, (in the case of Gibson) or mindless nihilism. (in the case of Tarantino)

Also, something that's fiction can't be propaganda? What about Birth of a Nation and Jud Süß? Were they documentaries?

I think you take the geeky, silly pop culture you enjoy a little too seriously. I think if you learn to appreciate the silliness of the pop culture you like, you'll come to a more mature enjoyment of it. At least that's been my experience.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Take a chill pill, Noxion. Transformers and 300 are not the end of the world.

I do not consider movie-goers "sheep", any more so than I am a "sheep" for smoking, drinking beer, and posting on RevLeft to cope with the stress of capitalist existence.

So why the brouhaha about "propaganda"?


The fact that the mangled ebonic slang may just be introduced as an attempt to be "cool" and appeal to the lowest common denominator, (remember, that's what the whole film is) that doesn't mean it's not racist, since it's not like the lowest common denominator isn't racist.What the fuck? In my experience, racists hate the fact that ebonic slang is "cool". If you've ever been to Stormfront, you'll know that they constantly ***** and whine about how such things are presented (in their eyes) as good or desirable.


The way you refer to Hollywood (or the way anyone refers to any sector of capitalism) as a homogeneous entity is sort of silly. Yes, there are Hollywood types who are in it for the money, not ideology. But there are others, such as Gibson, Eastwood, or Tarantino, who are clearly in it mostly to get their message across, be it intelligent social commentary, (in the case of Eastwood) reactionary racist blather, (in the case of Gibson) or mindless nihilism. (in the case of Tarantino)Even so, the films they make appeal to people who already like that kind of stuff. I certainly have no interest in seeing The Passion of the Christ. I'm more familiar with Eastwood as an actor - while I have no love for the police, I still enjoyed watching Harry Callahan's fictional exploits. Tarantino films are a bit more hit-and-miss for me - Pulp Fiction is one of my favourite films, yet I didn't like Reservoir Dogs all that much.


Also, something that's fiction can't be propaganda? What about Birth of a Nation and Jud Süß? Were they documentaries?Of course films can be both, and the two films you mentioned were primarily propaganda if the Wiki entries are anything to go by. But I hardly think people will be seeing Transformers II in order to gain political insight - I reckon most of them will be simply geeks who want to watch their favourite characters kick Decepticon ass.


I think you take the geeky, silly pop culture you enjoy a little too seriously. I think if you learn to appreciate the silliness of the pop culture you like, you'll come to a more mature enjoyment of it. At least that's been my experience.I'm not even that much of a Transformers fan, I just don't see why some people are seemingly taking an obvious work of fiction so seriously.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I just returned from watching this movie and somehow I see it as silly that you guys would care so much about the politics of a movie. A fucking movie. They're made for entertainment, nothing else.I watched it as something entertaining and it was. Mind you, I'm not picky about movies.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

What the fuck? In my experience, racists hate the fact that ebonic slang is "cool". If you've ever been to Stormfront, you'll know that they constantly ***** and whine about how such things are presented (in their eyes) as good or desirable.
Racism =/= nazism. You don't have to be an out-and-out white supremacist in order to present black people in a degrading way.


Of course films can be both, and the two films you mentioned were primarily propaganda if the Wiki entries are anything to go by. But I hardly think people will be seeing Transformers II in order to gain political insight - I reckon most of them will be simply geeks who want to watch their favourite characters kick Decepticon ass.

And that's why it's effective as propaganda. People are skeptical of things that're obviously openly politically biased, something that's "just entertainment" is much more likely to slip under the radar without being critically examined. Thus allowing it to transmit its messages much more effectively. I'm still not entirely convinced that writing lengthy critiques of films about giant robots is a worthwhile use of anyone's time, but I don't think it's helpful to pretend that just because something has giant robots it's automatically politically neutral either.

[Killfacer]

Noxion has never been wrong in his 500 year existance so i'd just agree with him.

[Psy]

Both right-wingers and left-wingers accuse Hollywood of being propagandists for the opposite side, so I take all such accusations with a huge fucking grain of salt. Hollywood is interested in money, not politics. If a film is a jingoistic heap of crap, that's because that sort of thing sells. Hollywood reflects society, not the other way round, which is why it's alleged "values" are so schizophrenic, enabling accusations of propaganda from wingnuts left, right and centre.

Those on the right that accuses Hollywood of being propagandist are the same that call Obama communist. Hollywood doesn't reflect society, if it did then most Hollywood movies and TV shows would have undertones of class struggle to reflect the class relation in capitalism. Watch the documentary Class Dismissed (Preview of Class Dismissed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJENf-s6r4) to show how US television paints class).

[Agrippa]

What the fuck? In my experience, racists hate the fact that ebonic slang is "cool". If you've ever been to Stormfront

You have a narrow-focused perception of racism. Not all manifestations of underlying societal racism resemble the grievances of national socialist radicals. I'm referring to a much broader concept of racism that refers, not simply just to attitudes that disdain and refuse to tolerate non-whites, but virtually all cultural perceptions of ethnic distinctions, including many that claim to be positive.


Even so, the films they make appeal to people who already like that kind of stuff.

Not nessicarily. Mel Gibson's films, for example, have a very broad popular audience.


I certainly have no interest in seeing The Passion of the Christ.

Are you presenting yourself as the average person? You, someone who posts on a message board called "RevLeft"?


Of course films can be both, and the two films you mentioned were primarily propaganda if the Wiki entries are anything to go by. But I hardly think people will be seeing Transformers II in order to gain political insight - I reckon most of them will be simply geeks who want to watch their favourite characters kick Decepticon ass.

The same is true of the audiences that went to see the two films I mentioned.


I'm not even that much of a Transformers fan, I just don't see why some people are seemingly taking an obvious work of fiction so seriously.

I don't see why people are taking Transformers so seriously, since it's too mindless to be worth it, but I think the notion that something being "fiction" that's allegedly just there for people to enjoy is somehow exempt from being analyzed from a political perspective. In my opinion, those sort of films are the ones we can learn the most about society from.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I still found the little robots hilarious. I was about to defend them, but then I changed my mind. The Hispanic kid in the movie is portrayed as a coward as well. Is there a single legitimate portrayal of a minority in that film? The black soldier was cool, but he had a violent temperament.

I'd say none of these people are individually a problem. Some people use slang and are funny. Some minorities aren't brave. Some blacks are violent. It's the same for all groups. There is no reason to pretend everyone in a particular racial group is perfect.

The overall lack of legitimacy in the portrayal of non-white categories does seem to be troubling when I actually think about it. We've known about this issue for years, though. It's usually the case in every movie.

Also, apparently Michael Bay made Megan Fox gain 10 pounds. I'll give him props for that because she was probably underweight if that's how she looks after the weight gain.

[Communist Theory]

I wanted to watch it but I would feel like a Nazi now if I went...

[ckaihatsu]

I think you take the geeky, silly pop culture you enjoy a little too seriously. I think if you learn to appreciate the silliness of the pop culture you like, you'll come to a more mature enjoyment of it. At least that's been my experience.





And that's why it's effective as propaganda. People are skeptical of things that're obviously openly politically biased, something that's "just entertainment" is much more likely to slip under the radar without being critically examined. Thus allowing it to transmit its messages much more effectively. I'm still not entirely convinced that writing lengthy critiques of films about giant robots is a worthwhile use of anyone's time, but I don't think it's helpful to pretend that just because something has giant robots it's automatically politically neutral either.


I, for one, am convinced that the *only* worthwhile use of *anyone*'s time is *in writing* lengthy critiques of films about giant robots...! (heh) (Or to read a particularly good send-up of it, like that one at io9.com....)

So, anyway, I think we can agree that cultural products like movies (entertainment) are meant to be *consumed*, and so, in that regard, can be enjoyed from the vantage point of the consumer's armchair.... None of here are Puritans, so we wouldn't deny anyone their share of the enjoyments of the world....

From the labor theory of production we have to acknowledge, though, that the *production* of these cultural goods takes place in the real world, and is influenced by it. The *themes* of warfare, Diego Garcia, the U.S. military, the robot characters, and so on, are all analogues or derivatives of *actual* dynamics, places, organizations, people, and events that *exist* in the outside world.

Unless we were to watch a movie that was comprised entirely of a journey through an artificial, math-based fractal graphic, with a musical score that was composed purely from random numbers, we're going to *inevitably* encounter cultural goods with cultural baggage.

And, actually, even in *that* case, we'd still have to ask *who* directed it, what were their influences, who worked on it, how much was the budget, who sponsored it, etc.... There's no escaping the *materialism* of the process of production....

Nor can we easily dismiss the real-world cultural references that go into the fictional creations we see on the screen -- certain facial or body types, speech patterns, and so on, *are* similar to real-world people, and thus *evoke* the recognition of those types when we see and hear them. Considering that the financing for these major productions has to come from somewhere, the *themes* contained in these releases will reflect themes and representations that the funders *don't object to*. (Think of it for yourself -- if you had a few thousand to throw around in order to make something to post to YouTube, you would want some creative control in return. If you published your name alongside it you would want it to be something that you wouldn't mind being associated with.)

So, considering that major releases are *not* funded by those who work on it themselves, the money has to come from *somewhere* -- those who own capital have social connections to certain sections of people in society, and they are *not* the laboring types who can't even afford to back the production that they're working on...(!)

Those who *do* own capital and underwrite movie productions will tend to approve those projects that *they* agree with -- those that contain themes which are agreeable to the capital-owning-people-type point of view about things....

Since *many* owners of capital are releasing *one* product -- the movie -- they have to come to some *agreement* among all of them as to what themes in the movie will be okay and which won't be, and so won't be included. Because the *single* product will be viewed by *thousands*, or even *millions*, of people, the product is a *mass consumer product*. It is *not* merely being passed around a small group of friends, or is an off-beat, cultish, subcultural thing -- because of its distribution and viewership it is a *mass cultural good*.

Finally, putting the two things together here, we have a select-group backing of a cultural good that is being seen by masses of people -- this is the *very definition* of cultural imperialism since it's not like those masses of viewers in turn have the means to *reply* to the movie with a like-budgeted movie of their own. Sure they can enjoy the movie themselves, as consumers, and willfully gloss over the real-world themes contained within, but that doesn't neutralize the *existence* of those real-world themes in the movie....


Chris






--




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Dr Mindbender]

Cheer up everyone,

Bruno is on Saturday, can't wait. :D

[TheFutureOfThePublic]

Havent seen the new one and probably wont bother.I liked the first one but im more into the classic tv series than the new hollywood movies

[Psy]

Finally, putting the two things together here, we have a select-group backing of a cultural good that is being seen by masses of people -- this is the *very definition* of cultural imperialism since it's not like those masses of viewers in turn have the means to *reply* to the movie with a like-budgeted movie of their own. Sure they can enjoy the movie themselves, as consumers, and willfully gloss over the real-world themes contained within, but that doesn't neutralize the *existence* of those real-world themes in the movie....

You also have the movie valued by its commercial success. Transformers 2 is a bad movie on the technical side, yet that doesn't matter in capitalism as it already made tons of money and there will probably be a Transformers 3 with none of the technical flaws of Transformers 2 addressed or the racial and sexual insensitivity since the capitalists don't care.

[dogfooddi]

supposedly megan fox auditioned for transformers by "washing" michael bays "ferarri"?!

[Dr Mindbender]

Cheer up everyone,

Bruno is on Saturday, can't wait. :D

scratch that,

the Bruno movie is shit. :(