Capitalism and Cinema

CAPITALISM AND CINEMA *

Nildo Viana **

The relationship between film and capitalism can be observed by various aspects. The first aspect would be the perception that the cinema is a product of capitalism and this is linked to the process of discussion of the oligopolistic media, as highlighted by some authors. Another aspect is how capitalism is played in the cinema, or how movies reproduce social relations of capitalism, in more particular aspects or larger. Thus, capitalism produces the film and the film reproduces capitalism and, depending on what is focused, will focus on the social process of constitution of cinema and film productions or filmic production itself. Briefly address these two aspects.

The Cinematographic capital, or the the Capitalist Production of Cinema.

The way to address the issue of cinema as a cultural production process always refers to the terms "cultural industry" and "film industry". These terms, however, are problematic, because the idea of ​​industry is relatively 'neutral', focusing more on the shape of the essential elements of the production process, which is capitalist. The most suitable is to work with the concepts of communicational capital (Viana 2008) and cinematographic capital (Viana, 2009a). The movie capital is very little understood, as well as the so-called "cultural industry" in general. There are two conceptions of the culture industry that influence the design related to the movie capital, named "film industry".

The first design is apologetic, characterized by seeking exalt it and put it is an expression of public or reality; the second design is called by some "apocalyptic" and is characterized by considering the "culture industry" as a system of domination linked to capitalist interests. Both views are wrong, although the latter is closer to reality.

Undoubtedly, the communicational capital plays the dominant values ​​and concepts and aims to profit above all else. However, there are contradictions inside give communicational capital. Besides it can not control everything all the time, you need to ensure profit. The concept behind the film production has less importance than the need for profit. Therefore, the communicational capital produces and distributes films, works of art, books, etc., that are contrary to the interests, values, conceptions of capitalism. So there is the possibility of critical production inside the communicational capital.

This also goes for the cinematographic capital. If there is critical audience for movies, so it will produce such films. But critics intentionally films are few, because there is such a large audience for such productions as well. In addition, filmmakers and agents of filmmaking can do great things using metaphors, skits, etc., and not be perceived by the directors of the cinematographic capital, which only look at the financial return of production (or, for some, their only technical or public reception). Finally, it is worth noting that many produce films that can be interpreted as critique of capitalism without its producers had no intention of it.

Thus, the movie capital does not shy away from following the capitalist model and seek profit, but its contradictions enable this critical production. This is so true that even the movie capital is criticized by films, including Hollywood. We can mention in this context, some films that perform such critique of the cinematographic capital: Beautiful, Luchino Visconti (Italy, 1951); Day of the Locust, John Schlesinger (USA, 1975), The Cool World, Ralph Bakshi (USA, 1992); Well Demented Cecil; John Waters (USA, 2000), and especially one of the great works of cinema of all time: The Twilight of the Gods, Billy Wilder (USA, 1950), the best-made critique of Hollywood.

The filmic reproduction of Capitalism or Capitalism in screen

There are several forms of filmic reproduction of capitalism, ie the reproduction of capitalism through cinema. We can point out, first, the film as a historical reconstitution unintentional, ie the film, even if its producers have no intention, just reconstructing the history of his time, that is, from one point of capitalist society. However, this unintentional historical reconstruction is done under different perspectives, depending on the season, production workers and other elements involved in a particular film production. Another way is the film that intentionally intends to reveal elements of capitalist society. This type of film is more rare and is usually more critical and strong. Their production agents try to express social relations in capitalist society and in so doing, reveal their problems, contradictions, limitations, consequences. Another way to show capitalism through cinema is through the very history of cinema, that is, through the succession of films that take on certain characteristics, values, positions which are typical of the time and are determined by the logic of capitalist development.

However, one thing is the intention of the film production of agents, another thing is the interpretation and meaning that the public, critics and researchers do. A film produced by those who have no intention or critical to address capitalism can be considered by the interpreter as a metaphor of capitalism. The proliferation of science fiction films that portray a bleak future, may be interpreted as just a fictional manifestation of present reality, that is, of capitalism. This stems from the fact that the material (the plot), the constituent elements, the technology and its production process, and production of agents (the director, the writers and the entire production team) breathe capitalism and are products of capitalism, and thus what they do in the field of fiction is to transport the reality of capitalist society to another reality that is its reproduction in another form. Even in historical films that seek to portray other times, the brand of capitalist society is present, although the clothes are out of style, the substantive issues are of capitalist society or the interpreted time and presented the perspective of someone who lives in capitalism and can not escape the determinations resulting from that.

In short, there is a variety of ways to play capitalism in the movies, is focusing on the work process, the lives of workers, unemployment, is focusing on institutions, values, psychological effects of capitalist society. A reproduction of all or fundamental aspects of capitalism is possible, as well as secondary aspects or seemingly disconnected from its most decisive elements.

Capitalism in Cinema under the naturalizing Form

Capitalism can be approached in various forms in the movies. The most common is descriptive, i.e. the type of production reproduces only the existing society. If this description reveals their social problems, then takes a character that can be considered with critical intent; otherwise, focuses on single issues in themselves or even without great social relevance, or just portrays the bourgeois society as something natural, then takes apologetics feature with naturalistic character. The descriptive means that the positions of those who make the description are not explicit, are hidden, so that seems a neutrality, which actually does not exist. Play the misery of the workers in a movie is mere description and this can be considered in various ways (but here the problem is the interpretation and not the sent message), but the film's producers had an intention, it could be show the precarious situation life, naturalized misery denounce exploitation.

In each of these options, there is a class perspective and a phenomenon of design, including political position, not necessarily party (linked to political party, although this also occurs quite frequently). Those who want to denounce the exploitation of the workers are the ones who are concerned about the "excessive" and they want someone, the government, for example, do something about it. Since those of Malthusian way try to naturalize, just want to say that life is like that and so we have to see this reality and leave it aside because you need to worry about other things. Those who want to show the plight of workers' lives, just are content to say that things are wrong and that you may need more "humanism", more "philanthropy", more "social policies". Different is a film that goes beyond description, showing the questioning, ie, a critical character, and points to the need and the possibility of social transformation. Thus, there is a description supposedly critical and apologetic.

We can cite as an example of the former films of the "Italian neo-realism" as the films of Luchino Visconti (Terra Treme, 1948 Rocco and his Brothers, 1960), Roberto Rossellini (Rome, Open City, 1945), Vittorio de Sica (Bicycle Thieves, 1948), Giuseppe de Santis (Bitter Rice, 1948), among others. The neo-realism was accepted enthusiastically by various sectors of the intelligentsia and the left, but later some began to realize the limitations of these films, which do not go beyond the existing reality, not pointing to a more effective and critical for the design of the possibility of social transformation . The behind by class perspective of this film production was not proletarian but connected to the auxiliary classes of the bourgeoisie, uniting interests of sectors of filmmaking with partisan political sectors, such as PCI - Italian Communist Party.

The second type of film is the most common and is constant in big Hollywood productions, such as action movies that preach the US world hegemony, as well as other films that naturalize existing social relations in our society, such as Love Story Arthur Hiller (USA, 1970) or Wind - The Power of the Winds, Carroll Ballard (USA, 1992). The first is advocacy of romantic love and becomes the center of human life; the second puts the competition (one of the fundamental characteristics of capitalist social relations and mentality produced by them) as the center of history and the victory as the fundamental objective to be achieved.

But there are other forms of filmic reproduction of capitalism. There are also films that depict specific historical moments, such as the silent films of Sergei Eisenstein (The Potemkin Battleship, USSR, 1925. The strike, USSR, 1924; October, USSR, 1928) and several others that have emerged putting social situations under form of fiction or using historical events as the basis for the film production.

The Critique of capitalism. in Film

The most importantly, however, it is one that exceeds the level of description and makes explicit the positioning of producing agents. It is one that is not naturalistic, but critical. This is the case of the films produced in Germany, even during the silent film, especially expressionist films. Would highlight of this period, among others, Metropolis, Fritz Lang (Germany, 1927); Tartufo, F. Murnau (Germany, 1926); The Cabinet of Dr. Galigari, Robert Wiene (Germany, 1920), although the latter has its end and beginning deformed by the director. It is also the case of French poetic realism of the 30s, like René Clair film (mainly À Nous la Liberté, France, 1931) and Jean Renoir (mainly The Rules of the Game, France, 1936). Of course the historical moment and the incipient nature of the cinematographic capital of the season facilitated the production of these works. The films of the surrealist filmmaker Luis Buñuel also deserve to be mentioned in this context, as Exterminating Angel (Mexico, 1962), among others. The films of Spaghetti Western, Sergio Leone, Sergio Corbucci and Damiano Damiani are other examples. Some focus capitalist expansion in the United States, but most take the Mexican Revolution and the struggle of the workers against the tyranny of the Mexican government.

There is also the George Romero horror films such as The Terror Mask (France / Canada / USA, 2000) and his zombie movies and even films directed by other filmmakers who are Hollywood and despised for it, but focus on aspects of capitalist society critically, as The Thing, Larry Cohen (USA, 1985) and Corrosion - Threat in his body, Phillip Brophy (Australia, 1993), among others. Including old B movies such as Little Shop of Horrors, Roger Corman (USA, 1960) and even some science fiction movies of the 50's always putting the dangers of radioactivity and capitalist greed that generates its indiscriminate use. Thus, science fiction films, often despised as the horror, reveal essential aspects of capitalist society. Several films could be cited in this regard as Matrix, Andy and Larry Wachowski (USA, 1999); Mad Max, George Miller (Australia, 1979); Rebellion in the 21st Century, Charles Band (USA, 1990). Between horror films, in addition to George Romero, there are directed by John Carpenter, as They Live (USA, 1988); Christine - The Car Killer (USA, 1983); Nightmare Mortal (US, 2005), advancing in the critique of capitalism and some fantastic films like Momo and the Time Lord, Johannes Schaaf (Germany, 1986), The Fabulous World of Billy Liar John Schlesinger (England, 1963); Donnie Darko, Richard Kelly (USA, 2001), could be cited. This means, in a nutshell, that not only the films "realistic" or dramas, reproducing capitalist society or its aspects, or even who perform their critical because the science fiction, terror, fantastic, the Western also do.

No doubt, many others could be cited as the political films of Costa-Gravas and Elia Kazan. Even some children's films could be cited as Formiguinha Z, Eric Darnell and Tim Johnson (USA, 1998), Neverending Story, Wolfgang Petersen (Germany, 1988). Also films that address specific institutions and social relations of capitalism, such as Dead Poets Society, Peter Weir (USA, 1989) and A Cuckoo's Nest, Milos Forman (USA, 1975) which addresses the authoritarian education and hospice, respectively, contribute to a conception of the character of modern society. A number of recent films deals with current issues of capitalism: Fight Club, David Fincher (USA, 1999), The Truman Show - The Show of Life, Peter Weir (USA, 1998); V for Vendetta, James McTeigue (USA / England / Germany, 2005), among others.

Obviously some films stand out for reconstituting capitalism more critically and wide, as is the case of Momo and the Time Lord; À Nous la Liberté; When Explode Revenge Sergio Leone (Italy, 1972), among others. The film Momo and the Time Lord shows not only how capitalism draws the time of individuals to exhaustion, as well as subverting the values, abolish communication between humans and corrupt individuals. Already the film À Nous la Liberté shows the destructive character of alienated labor, prison and school, in addition also to oppose antagonistic values ​​and other aspects of capitalist society.

In short, there is a diversity of films about capitalism. Is focusing on the work process, the lives of workers, unemployment, is focusing on institutions, values, psychological effects of capitalist society. There are several films about historical events, on youth, on oligopolistic media, about war, about psychic destruction of individuals on the environment, among many other important social issues in our time.

However, despite this, the cultural and the non-reflection causes many films are not perceived as they are, or not realizing what it shows. This in part is derived from the form of contemplative service, mechanical or formalist that most assistants perform cinematographic works (Viana, 2009c). This is reinforced by prejudice and cultural elitism of many analysts and critics of cinema. The existing film material brings a multitude of possibilities for analysis of capitalist society, since it overcomes the harmful forms of assistance in case of those who are not movie researchers, or that exceed the limited analyzes that are produced by many grounded researchers in ideological conceptions or poor descriptivism number, which is dominant. In other words, it is necessary in the case of daily care, critical care and in the case of researchers, have theoretical and methodological resources to carry out film analysis. Capitalism is in the film, enxerguem or not those who assist him.

References

Adorno, T. & Horkheimer, M. Dialética do Esclarecimento. 2ª edição, Rio de Janeiro, Jorge Zahar, 1986.

Marques, Edmilson. Para Interpretar as Produções Cinematográficas. In: Viana, Nildo. Cinema e Mensagem – O Significado Original e o Significado Atribuído ao Filme. No prelo, 2009b.

Prokop, D. O Papel da Sociologia do Filme no Monopólio Internacional. In: Filho, Ciro M. (org.). Prokop. São Paulo, Ática, 1986.

Santos, Jean I. Cinema e Indústria Cultural. In: Viana, Nildo (org.). Indústria Cultural e Cultura Mercantil. Rio de Janeiro, Corifeu, 2008.

Souza, Erisvaldo. A Renovação da Teoria da Indústria Cultural em Prokop. In: Viana, Nildo (org.). Indústria Cultural e Cultura Mercantil. Rio de Janeiro, Corifeu, 2008.

Viana, Nildo. A Concepção Materialista da História do Cinema. Porto Alegre, Asterisco, 2009a.

Viana, Nildo. A Esfera Artística. Marx, Weber, Bourdieu e a Sociologia da Arte. Porto Alegre, Zouk, 2007.

Viana, Nildo. Cinema e Mensagem – O Significado Original e o Significado Atribuído ao Filme. No prelo, 2009b.

Viana, Nildo. Como Assistir um Filme? Rio de Janeiro, Corifeu, 2009c.

Viana, Nildo. Para Além da Crítica dos Meios de Comunicação. In: Viana, Nildo (org.). Indústria Cultural e Cultura Mercantil. Rio de Janeiro, Corifeu, 2008.