Is the entertainment industy more emblematic of the capitalist system?

[RadioRaheem84]

Sometimes I think that Hollywood markets some movies straight to its base: bourgeoisie upper class snobs, while relying on the rest of us to pick up the tab.

Many times over we see these films involving upper class working professionals in New York City having some romantic complication disrupt their materialist and shallow lives. Add a snooty Brit into the mix and wa-la you have your typical American Rom Com.

Little is ever said about working class people in other cities not NY or LA. Even then they're seen as miserable people or comedic miscreants.

From Confessions of a Shopaholic to now this one, it seems like Rom Coms appeal only to A.) Those in the upper class or B.) Those WANTING to join the upper class. But each time we're supposed to ogle and envy their lives as being the right type of life in America. They create an image for people to emulate.


So I ask who are these films really representative of? The people in the films or the people making most of the revenue for the films?

Also, more and more films are going to places outside of the US seeking non-union crews. Actors and Actresses become more and more bourgeoisie linking themselves with bougie liberal politicians that hardly ever seek out the interests of workers (Clinton, Obama). They become less and less advocates of socialism and more for capitalism with a human face. Their children inherit the wealth and connections it takes to make it in the biz. I mean it ends up being just any other American industry, just that they parade themselves as being 'people of the left'.

Any thoughts?

[Tatarin]

There is nothing strange with what movies show in capitalism. I would say that the person making the movie reflects, consciously or "unknowing" his own life, or at least his view on what a normal life should be.


They become less and less advocates of socialism and more for capitalism with a human face.

I wonder if there even are any socialist actors. Once you speak your mind, you can forget about that role in the next Terminator movie. Machines are socialists, not people!


I mean it ends up being just any other American industry, just that they parade themselves as being 'people of the left'.

In a way, entertainment has a way of expressing "lefty" views. Comedies can play on taboos, even horror movies do so now with the new twist of torture. Fight Club could be said to be a mixture of both, showing (in its time) intimate fights and the criticism of consumerism, and ending in a very different way from the ordinary "happy ending".

As for being "lefty", the question is in what matters? Actors can be as much anti-war as they want, their lives doesn't hang on it. And as is known, charity has been around for years, and like most things today, it is a big business. Perhaps these actors know that?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You are completely right, Hollywood is, always has and always will be a bourgeois propoganda machine. Cinema can be a tool of education as good as anything else and I feel we must embrace the medium and start a movement which embodies our revolutionary principles; Working class cinema.

[mikelepore]

"Working class cinema." --- As a first step, people who have skill in this area could begin writing scripts at any time. That part doesn't cost any money.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

"Working class cinema." --- As a first step, people who have skill in this area could begin writing scripts at any time. That part doesn't cost any money.

I have written a few scripts in relation to the idea of working class cinema. But they are just that, on paper that is fine, I am still young I suppose and I am sure I will get an opportunity at some point to realise these scripts.

[Proletarian]

the film industry is and always has been capitalist, hollywood uses false heroes like don corleone from puzos book to say, respect this man he beat the bourgesie holding the people on the strings, it should be saying fuck the bourgesie, fuck corleone abolish capitalism and do something for yourself instead of rotting your brain with TV.

[RadioRaheem84]

the film industry is and always has been capitalist, hollywood uses false heroes like don corleone from puzos book to say, respect this man he beat the bourgesie holding the people on the strings, it should be saying fuck the bourgesie, fuck corleone abolish capitalism and do something for yourself instead of rotting your brain with TV.

You're right.

Another example is how the anti-union Marlon Brando movie On the Waterfront was well received but a pro-union worker movie Salt of the Earth was shunned the same year!

Not to mention that guys like Howard Hughes were seen as heroes. The megalomaniac schitzo was the biggest libertarian proponent out there.

And now supposed liberals like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are in talks to produce and star in Atlas Shrugged. A film that was very much proposed to be done in the early 50s by Humphrey Bogart.

A working class story about their romantic shenanigans can only be filmed in the light of pitying them for living "loser lives" and or making fun of them, or both. It could never really promote the simple life as the writers, directors and producers of these films dislike that simple life they ran away from to get to Hollywood.

[Jimmie Higgins]

While Hollywood is and always will be about money and will always largely reflect the ideas of the ruling class, there has also always been a working class and left-wing populism in Hollywood.

Charlie Chaplin was one for the first major stars and his films are always about the underdog verses the well to do and the authorities, for example.

While costume dramas (and comedies and drams for that matter) showed the life of the rich, in most classic Hollywood movies, there was also all the genre and serial movies that were mostly about and from the perspective of working class people. In the 30s and 40s the populist sentiment was very strong in Hollywood with movies like "Sullivan's Travels" and "Grapes of Wrath" and of course the influence of radicals the writers and other unions.

In the 50s, it seems like a lot of this went away and instead of femme fatals and streetwise characters, we got Doris Day (who could be happy if only she could get away from her high-paying job and find a man to settle-down with and tell her what to do).

So I don't doubt that the return of visible class struggle from our side will mean a return to more populism in American movies. It's like with the music industry: as long as the industry can get away with it, it would like to have 5 major bands that are pre-fab and fit neatly into market and demographic niches. But after a while, they begin to loose money because noone wants to hear 99 auto-tunes songs in a row or 99 slick hari-metal guitar solos in a row. At that point, the smart sections of the industry try and promote and sell "credability" in their acts or local music scenes beging to sprout up and with people mixing beats in their appartments or recording bands in their garages.

I think the representations of people in film has gotten worse since the ruling class went more onto the offensive in the 1970s. When I watch a Spielberg movie from the 70s or early 80s, the family in ET is about the richest of the group and in that movie, it's a single-mom, the dad seems to be a dead-beat and they aren't fabulously wealthy, they just have a nicer middle class suburban house. In Close Encounters, the families seem pretty realistic and working class for the most part; even in Jaws, there's conflict over townies vs. outsiders and the fisherman vs. the rich college guy.

If charaters are rich in movies from this era, a point is usually made about them being rich. Today, it's like charaters are just rich and it has nothing to do with the plot or the charater, it's just laziness on the part of the film-makers because if their character wasn't a rich attourney or academic, then they would have to write some dialogue to explain why their character never has to go to work! But it's wierd to have rich charaters and their class has nothing to do with the story - it's like today's writers and producers just assume that everyone is as rich as that.

[RadioRaheem84]

But it's wierd to have rich charaters and their class has nothing to do with the story - it's like today's writers and producers just assume that everyone is as rich as that.

Good point. I've noticed that writers are more and more writing about what seems like the world that surrounds them. They make it seem like the only thing people do after college is become yuppies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Good point. I've noticed that writers are more and more writing about what seems like the world that surrounds them. They make it seem like the only thing people do after college is become yuppies.

I think really it has to do with not wanting or being allowed to talk about class issues in normal genre movies. you can make a movie like "Precious" that's all about class, but I think producers and studios try and remove class from action movies and sci-fi and so on.

I read this thing recently about how in the 70s sci-fi pulp writers wanted to make their characters more realistic and relate-able so they introduced more black and female protagonists, but the publishers would always just put either a white guy or a scantily-clad space-woman on the covers no matter what the protagonists were like in the book.

I think TV and film writers get the same kind of pressure to present a very narrow range of characters. I also read this thing by some TV writers who complained that networks discouraged them from writing characters who didn't like or were bad at their jobs (unless being bad was part of a comedy about bumbling characters). They said that the networks really hated stories about women who were bad at their jobs.

Again, I think this is just an attempt to cover over class conflict in our society. It's like Hollywood's representations of ethnic or sexual minorities in the past (wait, and present): don't put them in because it's a volatile subject in our society and if you do include these themes make sure it's either a prestige film that only plays in urban art-houses or make these characters buffoonish side-characters.

[RadioRaheem84]

True.

It seems like if they must portray life outside of NY, LA or any other major city, the people must be seen as leading rather miserable or pointless lives. Comedic films about podunk towns show lovable yet dopey characters with no real guidance.

It's also funny that you mentioned that they don't show workers being bad at their jobs. I've noticed this too. They have to be really good at their jobs and are rewarded with luxury possessions but they're usually bad at the game of love. Most of the time they need the help of a shrewd heartless ***** too; a real Randian of sorts, to get them through the tough time.

[Psy]

If charaters are rich in movies from this era, a point is usually made about them being rich. Today, it's like charaters are just rich and it has nothing to do with the plot or the charater, it's just laziness on the part of the film-makers because if their character wasn't a rich attourney or academic, then they would have to write some dialogue to explain why their character never has to go to work! But it's wierd to have rich charaters and their class has nothing to do with the story - it's like today's writers and producers just assume that everyone is as rich as that.

Well MTV's Downtown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_(TV_series)) did show working class characters that had limited living standards but MTV canceled it after one season. I really liked how Alex the main character in the series was smart graduate working in a dead end copy shop living in a dump of a apartment. I think writters learn that their capitalists masters (i.e employers) don't want stories that speak directly to the proletrait condtition.

[Die Rote Fahne]

You're right.

Another example is how the anti-union Marlon Brando movie On the Waterfront was well received but a pro-union worker movie Salt of the Earth was shunned the same year!

Not to mention that guys like Howard Hughes were seen as heroes. The megalomaniac schitzo was the biggest libertarian proponent out there.

And now supposed liberals like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are in talks to produce and star in Atlas Shrugged. A film that was very much proposed to be done in the early 50s by Humphrey Bogart.

A working class story about their romantic shenanigans can only be filmed in the light of pitying them for living "loser lives" and or making fun of them, or both. It could never really promote the simple life as the writers, directors and producers of these films dislike that simple life they ran away from to get to Hollywood.

Great points.

On Pitt though. He acknowledges that socialism isn't a bad thing.

[RadioRaheem84]

On Pitt though. He acknowledges that socialism isn't a bad thing.
When did he say this? He was on the Maher show not too long ago and assured the audience that there is nothing to fear about the nation going socialist. He's been to a socialist country and assured people that the US is not and won't be. It sounded like he wasn't all for it.