Movies Under Socialism

[TheBigREDOne]

Right now I'm wondering how I movie would get made in a communist society.
Would big budget movies go extinct? Although I like idea of Hollywood no longer having its iron grip on the industry( forcing filmmakers to be more creative).

[Non-Aligned]

I just hope it isn't some boring Socialist Realist type stuff. I like a badly made, nonsensical film here and there.

[Bala Perdida]

I was thinking that areas would exist in which people have access to film sets and film supplies. There probably won't be as much of a shut down of community activity to make room for films, but that's up for the public to decide.
I don't think movie making will be much of a profession though. Stuff like this should stay a hobby in my opinion, but others disagree.

[TheBigREDOne]

I was thinking that areas would exist in which people have access to film sets and film supplies. There probably won't be as much of a shut down of community activity to make room for films, but that's up for the public to decide.
I don't think movie making will be much of a profession though. Stuff like this should stay a hobby in my opinion, but others disagree.

I'm not sure making movies can be just a hobbie. If it was then you'd only get low budget short films.

[Ritzy Cat]

There would be so much free time in the shorter work week, making movies would be easy - it wouldn't be a profession, because its not really necessary. Such entertainment can be produced in a much more timely fashion when not under the stranglehold of moving picture monopolies, and greater access to those who do wish to take part in directing / acting, etc.

[TheBigREDOne]

There would be so much free time in the shorter work week, making movies would be easy - it wouldn't be a profession, because its not really necessary. Such entertainment can be produced in a much more timely fashion when not under the stranglehold of moving picture monopolies, and greater access to those who do wish to take part in directing / acting, etc.

And under a socialism, wouldn't jobs(as we know them) be emliminated? If so I can't see why someone couldn't make filmmaking/acting their "profession"?

[Ritzy Cat]

There are many viewpoints on what role that "entertainment" or "the arts" should play in society. Jobs wouldn't be eliminated. Under socialism, the workers control the means of production. They can decide what is produced. If that is movies, then so be it.

I personally don't think it is necessary. The most important thing would be to have every fed and housed, which would be easy to do when the resources are all made readily available to the people. Then we can decide where to place our efforts. However, it should be made clear - there are many things more important than the production of movies. I fear of going into detail because I can't envision or quantify how much extra manpower we will have as a result of the destruction of bourgeois hegemony.

[TheBigREDOne]

There are many viewpoints on what role that "entertainment" or "the arts" should play in society. Jobs wouldn't be eliminated. Under socialism, the workers control the means of production. They can decide what is produced. If that is movies, then so be it.

I personally don't think it is necessary. The most important thing would be to have every fed and housed, which would be easy to do when the resources are all made readily available to the people. Then we can decide where to place our efforts. However, it should be made clear - there are many things more important than the production of movies. I fear of going into detail because I can't envision or quantify how much extra manpower we will have as a result of the destruction of bourgeois hegemony.

But with scarcity gone, why couldn't it be? And I'd art, in any form, is neccesary for any society's culture.

[Ritzy Cat]

With scarcity gone, "anything is possible". Eh, I don't find it a necessity. Surely we could all go on, living gray drab lives without the injection of arts into society. I wouldn't like it, sounds pretty boring. Nonetheless, if people want to make movies, so be it, there is nothing to stop them. I don't think it needs to be an official "profession".

In response to your original question, I can't say whether or not "big budget movies" would go extinct or not. There would be plenty of ways to contribute efforts to the arts in general. I assume with how popular motion pictures are in our modern society, it would be likely they'd receive the most traction. The society can decide where it wants to invest its time and efforts. I cannot provide a specific amount as to how much we can allow on any given film, since currency would simply not exist.

A quote from a member on this forum whom answered a very similar question I had asked:


Taking into account the fact that the work day could be cut much shorter in communism (perhaps to the point where, if technology is further developed, people wouldn't even have to work every day or even every other day), anyone and everyone would have the time to do what their heart desires whether it be music, drawing, painting, writing, acting, etc. The arts will flourish in communism! Communism will be the true start of human history, where the fullest of human potential can be put into every aspect of society.

[Ro Laren]

I don't think the idea that it would just be a "hobby" limits it so much. There are some fan productions, like Star Trek: Phase II, that are already pretty impressive, and I don't see why, given more free time and better access to equipment/actors/etc, people couldn't make movies that rival Hollywood productions. Except, you know, without the shit churned out to make a quick buck...

[The Red Star Rising]

I enjoy the (very frequent) big dumb movie, and I see the establishment of a socialist society having a benefit many don't see.

The end of copy right.

Figures like Optimus Prime, Mario, Wonder Woman, and Commander Shepard are like our modern mythological heroes, but whereas the heroes of old were essentially public domain with anyone free to make a recognized addition to "canon" so long as it was widely recognized enough; currently our modern mythology is trapped behind the wall of copy right. This phenomenom is something I see fan-fiction as a people's response to. Yes, a lot of fan-fiction is legitimately terrible (one need only have a cursory glance through Fanfiction.net to wish to gouge out your eyes with a hot poker after a while), but to be perfectly honest, a lot of "professional" fiction is also terrible (sturgeon's law and all) and fan made works have their goods and their bads just like anything else. Under a socialist society, anyone would be free to make a film where Megaman and Samus Aran join forces to destroy the Demons of DOOM. It is probably going to be really stupid, but everyone who flings their stories into the public should always be ready for it to be eviscerated should it be lacking in quality.

In addittion, the lack of need to pander to certain bases for money or to ensure your investment is returned will likely allow some further freeing up of movies.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I might come in on this in more detail at some point but essentially the film industry is an industry like any other. It has division of labour, factory-like production processes, workers' struggles, etc. So, just like the car factory or the power plant, the working class must take over control of the means of production. And just like the car factory and the power plant, in the future we will use the tools given to us by those industries to produce exactly what people need.

[John Lennin]

What seems to be overlooked by most of you is the fact, that (in a capitalist society) art is nothing more than a commodity.
This brings up more questions:
What does this mean for art?
How is art influenced by being a commodity?

I suggest reading this piece on culture industry:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm

[Ritzy Cat]

What seems to be overlooked by most of you is the fact, that (in a capitalist society) art is nothing more than a commodity.
This brings up more questions:
What does this mean for art?
How is art influenced by being a commodity?

I suggest reading this piece on culture industry:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm

Art is supposed to be a testament to the feelings and/or provide a symbolic representation to something important to the artist. This mainly applies to music, visual arts, and writings. Movies in a modern society have become almost devoid of a coherent theme and message, opting for sensational special effects and sexual/violence appeal.

However, there have been many times when such art was suppressed (think in the Soviet Union - suppression of art whose purpose was not "to advance the socialist revolution" or whatever type of rhetoric Stalin used). Hitler deemed modern art as "degenerate", and he banned it, favoring the old Roman and Greek styles which were "free of Jewish influences". The fact it is a commodity allowed states to manipulate it as they would any other industry. Just like how there are many different types of oil, one could be embargoed similar to how any type of given art could have been suppressed, but in this way art served a cultural use. Through art states were able to tap into the cultural upbringings people were exposed to, something that not very many commodities are actually able to do.

[TC]

Not only did non-capitalist governments like the Soviet Union fund films, capitalist governments like the US and UK fund films. Either public film companies would produce their own films or public art funding bodies would provide grants to independent film makers and collectives to produce films. A wealthy socialist society might have the same sort of big budget films in the sense of having a large investment of technology, transport, film and staff time and numbers (not in the sense of paying anyone huge sums of money).

[TheBigREDOne]

Sorry to nitpick what your saying but...

Art is supposed to be a testament to the feelings and/or provide a symbolic representation to something important to the artist. This mainly applies to music, visual arts, and writings. Movies in a modern society have become almost devoid of a coherent theme and message, opting for sensational special effects and sexual/violence appeal.

Ignoring films like Blue is the Warmest Color, City of God, Drive, No Country for Old Men, The Royal Tenenbaums, There Will Be Blood, Children of Men, etc.
Sorry but I just hate it when people say "they don't make movies like they used to"

[John Lennin]

Movies in a modern society have become almost devoid of a coherent theme and message, opting for sensational special effects and sexual/violence appeal.

It's not the "modern society", it's capitalism. Sex, violence, special effects are simply more attractive to a large number of people.
It's not only movies, it's the same with every form of art: It is made to be sold.
And therfore it has to appeal to possible consumers. That's exactly why art as is not a genuine expression of the artists emotions.
There may be leftovers to a certain degree (form almost nothing in a primitve action movie to a lot more in poetry), but in the end art is always damaged.

[John Nada]

Movies will consist of Red Army marches, happy workers and details of the great deeds of our Chairperson. Anything else is bourgeois propaganda and counter-revolutionary. :lol: But seriously, I think movies would be made for art and entertainment. Unlike now where it's always about profit, even if it sucks. Think about how much copyrights fuck movies up. Or a studio buy a good script just to sit on it. Or changing the plot for product placement. And how a direct critique of a business or state probably won't get made. Also everything's based on a show, a book, a comic, a video game(usually sucks, unfortunately) a remake and sequels. All because they're already tested and a safer investment. Also, movies and shows today use stereotypes for basically anyone not a straight White male. Shit they even go out of their way to make the lead a White guy. Everyone else exists to support or oppose him. I think they'll be more women, POC, and LGBTQ characters with more depth and in leading roles. Another thing is a lot of movies receive funding from the military and weapons industry. See a weapon or equipment used in the military? They probably help the movies get made in the first place for war propaganda. And there's cop shows and movies too. You'd think ever cop was some brilliant detective who gives a fuck, save a few bad apples that get what's coming. NO! I hope all this shit goes away!

[Orange Juche]

It's not the "modern society", it's capitalism. Sex, violence, special effects are simply more attractive to a large number of people.
It's not only movies, it's the same with every form of art: It is made to be sold.
And therfore it has to appeal to possible consumers. That's exactly why art as is not a genuine expression of the artists emotions.
There may be leftovers to a certain degree (form almost nothing in a primitve action movie to a lot more in poetry), but in the end art is always damaged.

Yeah, the movies that aren't made for larger audiences typically are far better. There's a lot of good film out there, if you look for it.

[ckaihatsu]

---





Now, I have said that the community by means of organisation of machinery will supply the useful things, and that the beautiful things will be made by the individual. This is not merely necessary, but it is the only possible way by which we can get either the one or the other. An individual who has to make things for the use of others, and with reference to their wants and their wishes, does not work with interest, and consequently cannot put into his work what is best in him. Upon the other hand, whenever a community or a powerful section of a community, or a government of any kind, attempts to dictate to the artist what he is to do, Art either entirely vanishes, or becomes stereotyped, or degenerates into a low and ignoble form of craft. A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist. Art is the most intense mode of Individualism that the world has known. I am inclined to say that it is the only real mode of Individualism that the world has known. Crime, which, under certain conditions, may seem to have created Individualism, must take cognisance of other people and interfere with them. It belongs to the sphere of action. But alone, without any reference to his neighbours, without any interference, the artist can fashion a beautiful thing; and if he does not do it solely for his own pleasure, he is not an artist at all.

And it is to be noted that it is the fact that Art is this intense form of Individualism that makes the public try to exercise over it in an authority that is as immoral as it is ridiculous, and as corrupting as it is contemptible. It is not quite their fault. The public has always, and in every age, been badly brought up. They are continually asking Art to be popular, to please their want of taste, to flatter their absurd vanity, to tell them what they have been told before, to show them what they ought to be tired of seeing, to amuse them when they feel heavy after eating too much, and to distract their thoughts when they are wearied of their own stupidity. Now Art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make itself artistic. There is a very wide difference. If a man of science were told that the results of his experiments, and the conclusions that he arrived at, should be of such a character that they would not upset the received popular notions on the subject, or disturb popular prejudice, or hurt the sensibilities of people who knew nothing about science; if a philosopher were told that he had a perfect right to speculate in the highest spheres of thought, provided that he arrived at the same conclusions as were held by those who had never thought in any sphere at all – well, nowadays the man of science and the philosopher would be considerably amused. Yet it is really a very few years since both philosophy and science were subjected to brutal popular control, to authority – in fact the authority of either the general ignorance of the community, or the terror and greed for power of an ecclesiastical or governmental class. Of course, we have to a very great extent got rid of any attempt on the part of the community, or the Church, or the Government, to interfere with the individualism of speculative thought, but the attempt to interfere with the individualism of imaginative art still lingers. In fact, it does more than linger; it is aggressive, offensive, and brutalising.




http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

[Wht.Rex]

I personally love old Soviet comedies such as "Brilliant's hand", "Afonya", "Operation Y and other Shurik's adventures" etc. :grin: They were childish but with good mature humour too, Target audiance was for both children and adults.
They bring me so much memories from childhood, I loved to watch them with my grandfather and laugh together.