A Chess Match Between Karl Marx and Bill Gates: Analysis of Marxism and Capitalism in the Animated Film, Wall-E.
Sir Thomas More tells the story of a nation, which equally shared its resources, where no exploitation by one class over another existed, where everyone “…enjoy[ed] a perfect social, legal, and political system” (OED). Ironically this nation was called Utopia, which by definition is also described as “an imaginary island” (OED). Arguably, More’s account was effective in illuminating the difficulties and favorable aspects of full-scale socialism, while jointly criticizing capitalism. Would Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels consider a socialist society “imaginary” (OED)? Would it be at all possible to launch a full-scale socialist society, equal and free of subjection, and most important, would it function?
The film Wall-E, reveals the story of a robotic droid in a post-apocalyptic world, toiling away as the sole sign of life on an empty planet. Although there are many plots and themes to the film, the Marxist connotations offer a truly sublime reflection of our society, in the film. If art represents life, then the film reflects thousands of artistic expressions in literature, art, and film, which remind us of continuous class struggles. Emanating exploitation, our artwork serves as a constant reminder that we should transcend beyond a capitalist economy. But would socialism work in place of a capitalist society? Is Marxism, the answer to the worlds economic and social problems, would it bring the demise of subjugation by ruling classes, and does it instill proper motivation for communal good and advancement; or is it a deluded utopia which, is not only non-existent, but also tragically unattainable?
Is there fault in Marxist theory? Is it possible to turn a capitalist society to that of a socialist society? Vladimir Pozner calls attention to “the futility…of having attempted to move Russian to socialism prior to that country’s having experienced capitalist development” (Marx xvii). Is this not a concession on behalf of Marxist theorist and dually a critical argument in favor of capitalism. The continuous improvement of technology: Electronics, medicine, agriculture, energy, biology, engineering, computer science, etc a constant “revolutioni[z]ing [of] the instruments of production” seems to be spearheaded by capitalism (Marx 21). When can a society decide and declare that it no longer needs to fervently pursue improved medicine or engineering? Without some form of compensation or recognition will man have little motivation to work, create, or improve? “Money is the crucial incentive. . . no other incentive or motivational technique comes even close to money…subsequent meta-analyses have tended to support this conclusion (Rynes, Gerhart, et al. 572). Although fictional in account, More retells the story of the people of Utopia, living in a land “free of poverty and suffering” (DC). Nonetheless the seamen are “ignorant…in the use of a compass” (Greenblatt 527). Arguably, without the constant pursuit of maximized profits, and most effective production methods, society would still be in a much more primitive technological state.
Although improved technology is a clear benefit to society and the common good, it also has the unfortunate side effects of obliterating “all distinctions of [skilled] labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level” (Marx 28). In contrast, the assembly line method of production itself, has improved product quality and control since it’s first inception, Wall-E’s ability to replace a broken eye quickly and efficiently, and at one point his mother board, representing his heart, is a splendid example of how capitalism works (Stanton). Not only does Wall-E’s repair represent the assembly line as a uniform method to quickly repair and replace technology, but also as metaphor to the rise of medical advancements associated with prosthetic limbs, surgery, and overall medicine. Thus, Pozner himself makes an argument for capitalism, technological advancement can be effectively achieved by a capitalist economy, a socialist economy with no financial reward system, would have slow technological progress (Marx xvii).
Given that capitalism yields great advancement in all forms of technology, and the potential is present for socialist programs, should there exist a class, which holds most of the assets and power in society? The bourgeoisie by definition, are “the class of modern capitalist, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage-labour” (Marx 17). They are few in numbers, but wield great power as they posses uncontested control of the economy. By continuously reaping the benefits of profits, and the advancement of technology, which improve profits, they perpetually obtain more wealth and increase their hold on resources and means of production. All the while, the proletarian class, commonly known as “proles,” are compensated with wages in a society in which seeks to obtain the most profit from sales and services. Thus, the proles are kept in a constant work pattern, as they must continuously purchase goods that are needed and desired, while continuously being bombarded with media that suggests they need to buy-more. An interview with Noam Chomsky reveals reminds us of a human’s possible state of worth in a capitalist society, “your only rights are what you can get on the market. If you can’t buy water for your children, they can drop dead (Chomsky).
As Wall-E, our representation of the proletarian class, treads though the desolate city, he is bombarded and surrounded by scores of media streams: ads, billboards, banners, 3d signs of all shapes and sizes, and multiple large screens advertise for a singularly powerful corporation know as the “Buy and Large” or “BNL” (Stanton). This corporation, exists as an exaggerated representation of the bourgeoisie class, which feeds a desire to shop at warehouse stores, further inculcated by propaganda such as “do your part, fill your cart.” A recent “Jack-in-the-Box” commercial makes light of this consumerist propaganda while showing Jack, euphorically purchasing a “[widescreen] plasma T.V. twin pack” along with “twenty pounds of jerky” (Jack). Humorous yes, but also an uncannily accurate picture of the bourgeoisie class using media to stimulate certain purchasing habits. To keep the proletarians purchasing, means they are kept in frequent, perpetual subjugation, both mentally and physically.
However the control of the BNL Corporation does not only extend to advertising media. As the BNL Corporation gained profits, it expanded and conquered new markets as it depleted old markets, or as Marx would reiterate, the thorough “conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of thee old ones” (Marx 25). Another exaggerated example from the film grants us remaining probes and robotics from at the location of the original moon landing, with a flashing neon sign adjacent to the lander, “mall coming soon” (Stanton). Did the Earth deplete it’s own resources, and was it forced to expand to adjacent planets, or in this case, markets? Does this not also represent a positive effect of capitalism, as clearly there would have to be a great advancement in technology in order to populate the moon and other planets.
Ironically, it is the exploitation of resources by the capitalist regimes that depleted Earth’s resources, also creating a new market, based on cleaning up the world of all its trash, the very problem that out of control production and consumption created, “to much garbage in your face? There’s plenty of space, in space” (Stanton). The BNL Corporation creates propaganda, to deflect the very problem they created, while as a caring entity they will take charge and “clean the mess while you’re away” (Stanton). Herein we find another negative aspect of capitalism, the BNL Corporation also owns the newspaper, a representation of all media, which it obviously controls and slants. Curiously, behind the picture of the CEO of BNL, Shelby Forthright, is an uncanny resemblance to the back drop of the white house press room, an implication that the corporation is in total control of government. At this point, we find the BNL Corporation in control of virtually all systems, banking, commerce, transport, space travel, and media making it a corporation standing in the role of government.
Upon boarding a ship called the Axiom, which care for humans to the point where they no longer walking, they simply hover and consume, Wall-E’s mentality begins to “infect” other robots. The infection, is clearly, a new consciousness, and new way of being, or living. Wall-E’s first introduction to a robot occurs with M-O, whose duty it is to keep all incoming probes 100% clean from “foreign contaminants” (Stanton). Although M-O is also a proletarian, he is also apart panoptic system that controls the ship, the multiple “eyes that must see without being seen” attempting to keep full control and prevent any new ideas from challenging those in power (Foucault 171). Even though Wall-E brings a physical foreign contaminant, it is really the foreign contaminant of consciousness that is M-O’s duty to cleanse. This new foreign consciousness, introduced into the ship, could be considered a form of radical questioning and thinking which would work against the bourgeoisie. Without knowing, M-O’s reaction to Wall-E, in attempting to cleanse him, causes him to jump off the “assembly line” and fallow Wall-E, something he does with great difficulty (Stanton). Not following the line established for him by the ship, or by association the corporation, M-O now follows his own agenda. This new kind of thinking or awareness is further evidenced as Wall-E also comes into contact with two other humans, who would represent the middle class. His interactions with the humans, John and Mary, seem to almost jolt them out of their current state and almost reawaken them from a sedentary lifestyle, in which they have been bombarded by the ship’s mass media pushing consumption. The lifestyle of consumption itself, seemed to displace even two random humans, having a conversation via telescreen, even though they were sitting in hover chairs next to each other. Notably, the large hallways serve an uncanny resemblance to the America’s Wall Street, where everyone is so involved in their desperation to get to work that there is very little if not, no human interaction.
Again, this consumerism is only a method of keeping the proletarian in a form of perpetual passive subjugation. Keeping them apart of the consumer cycle, with the rewards of instant gratification and consumption, “try blue, it’s the new red,” and attire is changed by the push of a button (Stanton).
Foucault’s revealing of panoptic control joins hand in hand with that of capitalistic power. If Wall-E represents a revolutionary, who brings a new stream of consciousness, then it is the plant brought from Earth, that is his manifesto. The BNL Corporation goes to incredible lengths to keep the plant out of possession of the proletarians and the middle class. As a minor skirmish erupts, started by Eve’s accidental release of the “sick” robots, it must be considered that Foucault also recognizes the need for society to take people that question authority, the law, and the status quo and label them as “mad,” “dangerous,” and “abnormal” (Foucault 199). By creating this propaganda, the corporation attempts to create a division and effectively “brands” the “rogue robots” effectively undermining their new political position (Foucault 199). We see the same tactic used in George Orwell’s novel, 1984, in which radicals made to who repent their crimes against the party, and admit they are “sick in mind and body,” then as Winston states, they are vaporized (Radford). "People simply disappeared, always during the night. Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, and your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annihilated: vaporized (Radford). By doing so, society effectively undermines the validity and power of such individuals who may gain power and incite movements for political reform or even equal rights. Eve’s blast, releasing the sick robots, is actually the release of many revolutionaries armed with questions, thoughts, and the power rebel against power, which is in control for their own benefit. The captain, the representative of the middle class rebels and exclaims “I can’t just sit here and do nothing. That’s all I’ve ever done…I don’t want to survive, I want to live!” The middle class desire to drop the sedentary consumer life-style and join the revolution against the bourgeoisie.
The film Wall-E represents exaggerated class struggles of “human history from the perspective of who owns and who works” (Rivkin 653). Yet, perpetually there will always continue to be class struggles, as historically, there always seems to be groups who desire control and power over the rest of the populace, whether it be by conditions of war or capital.
There can be no pure capitalist society, nor can there be a purely socialist society, indeed only a stable balance will offer tranquility, equity, and a between the proletarian, all it’s various factions, and the bourgeois. Unfortunately, until superpowers attempt to distribute wealth and services equitably there will still be the “exploitation of the many by the few,” and the ever-present reality of a massive revolutionary movement, first peaceful, and lastly violent (Marx xi).
If Karl Marx could walk amongst us now, he would find desperation in all our artwork. A desperate plea by the muses, their instruments, and the populace, each speaking different languages but attempting to understand one another. What would this message be? Declare opposition, incite revolution, and demand that each human be treated as they should, a human, instead as an appendage of profit. Truly until we can hold ourselves accountable, how can we hold our leaders accountable for the creation and maintenance of classes? Do our own politicians have their own investment and retirement programs, or have they equally invested their own finances in what is available to the average consumer, the average proletarian? Neither full-scale socialism, nor all out capitalism, offer a stable and equitable solution for all humans, but it is by our own complacency that the balance in its current form, is unsustainable.
Works Cited
Chomsky, Noam. Interview. Rage Against the Machine: The Battle of Mexico City. Interviewer Zach de la Rocha. Epic Music Video, 2001.
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66hhM2hR_BM >
Dictionary.com. V 1.1 2006. DC Online. Dictionary.com, LLC. 18 Aug 2009
< http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utopia >
Foucault, Michel. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage
Books, 1995.
“Jack in the box at Costco.” Posted by Txgspice. Youtube.com 18 Aug 2009
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDAz09zsj14 >
“Manifestoon.” Posted by Decolinize. Youtube.com 18 Aug 2009
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbTIJ9_bLP4 >
Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. 18 Aug. 2009 < http://dictionary.oed.com.libproxy.csun.edu:2048/cgi/entry/50274070?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=utopia&first=1&max_to_show=10 >
Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1998.
“Rogue Robots” Wall-E. Dir. Andrew Stanton. Walt Disney Animated Studio, 2008. Still Photo and link. < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G8CWRowazY >
Rynes, Sara L., Barry Gerhart, and Laura Parks. "Personnel Pyschology: Performance Evaluation and Pay for Performance." Annual Review Psychology. 56(2005):571-600. Web. 18 Aug 2009.
Wall-E. Dir. Andrew Stanton. Walt Disney Animated Studio, 2008. Film.
“Wall Street Crash History Video.” Posted by Thomas21748. Youtube.com 18 Aug 2009
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoGau07eYs >
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Analysis Four
Patriarchal Order: Re-establishing the Social Expectation?
Although progress has been made in social equality, there still exists an imbalance in the social views of men and women, both in art and in society. Arguably, there may be a formula to any heroic story. The male hero, although flawed finds a solution or is physically capable of solving the problem, while he charms the beautiful woman, he saves the day. This formula, although somewhat varied, seems to fit most branches of art and in some cases social structures. If this formula is not adhered to, then the imbalance becomes corrected as resolution nears, and herein feminism challenges the perpetual patriarchal hierarchy, which is presented continuously in society. In the following clips of the original “Star Trek” series, the crew encounters a Romulan Commander who confronts their intrusion into Romulan airspace, and ultimately confronts her authority and position as a female commander.
The female Romulan Commander, upon confronting Captain Kirk and First Officer Spock, quickly establishes her authority and high intellect by determining their intent and accusing them of espionage by a series of questions and political leverage, citing there is a “violation of treaties” (Lucas). After further questioning, the commander alleges the ship and crew of the Enterprise “knew of the cloaking device…[and] deliberately violated Romulan space with a blatant spy mission by order of the federation” (Lucas). This opening sequence is necessary as it establishes the intellect of the commander and once again reestablishes her power and authority as a military official.
However, as quickly as the commander’s character is fortified as a formidable military official, her gender is used to dismantle her strength noting her female weaknesses. The Commander becomes enamored with first officer Spock, to the point which she states her wishes, over special foods she had prepared for him, and asks that he take control of the Enterprise, and willing submits to an equal if not subordinate position next to him, “there you will take your rightful place as it’s commander, and you lead the ship…with my flagship at your side” (Lucas). The act of preparation for the male and willingly reducing her own authority and power coincide with Rivkin and Ryan’s concept of a patriarchal culture instituting the idea that “men are somehow superior to women” (768). Do these clips, this extension of art, thereby an extension of culture, perpetuate the idea that “maintains the submission, subordination, and exploitation of the ‘feminine’?” (Rivkin 797).
Sadly, the imbalance of patriarchal hierarchy is reestablished when the commander discovers that her first suspicions of espionage were correct. She is inadvertently taken hostage aboard the Enterprise, and is thus stripped of her authority and military power, and also humiliated as this was done by playing on her feminine weaknesses, by courtship; “you must be mad…why would you do this to me, what are you that you could do this?” (Lucas). Why is it, that this particular outcome is favorable? Does this echo the sentiment of a “one-woman revolution,” which “emphasizes her helplessness and her isolation,” and is ultimately doomed to failure (Rivkin 823)? Why should it be celebrated, since the Enterprise, did in fact break a treaty? Logically, wasn’t the female commander righteous in her actions? If we were to designate the United States to the identify of the Romulans, and the Soviet Union to that of the Federation, wouldn’t these actions by the Soviet Union spark an international incident, as they broke the peace treaty? Yet, this outcome is celebrated, because perhaps the female commander is in fact vilified, because she is in such a high power position, and thus she must be a villain. Perhaps, we have not made as much progress in society, as we have thought. The commander’s character may be right, “there is a truth here that remains unspoken” (Lucas).
Works Cited
Lucas, John, Dir. Star Trek: The Enterprise Incident. 1968. Youtube. 13 August 2009. < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5Npu5caRY >
Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1998.
Although progress has been made in social equality, there still exists an imbalance in the social views of men and women, both in art and in society. Arguably, there may be a formula to any heroic story. The male hero, although flawed finds a solution or is physically capable of solving the problem, while he charms the beautiful woman, he saves the day. This formula, although somewhat varied, seems to fit most branches of art and in some cases social structures. If this formula is not adhered to, then the imbalance becomes corrected as resolution nears, and herein feminism challenges the perpetual patriarchal hierarchy, which is presented continuously in society. In the following clips of the original “Star Trek” series, the crew encounters a Romulan Commander who confronts their intrusion into Romulan airspace, and ultimately confronts her authority and position as a female commander.
The female Romulan Commander, upon confronting Captain Kirk and First Officer Spock, quickly establishes her authority and high intellect by determining their intent and accusing them of espionage by a series of questions and political leverage, citing there is a “violation of treaties” (Lucas). After further questioning, the commander alleges the ship and crew of the Enterprise “knew of the cloaking device…[and] deliberately violated Romulan space with a blatant spy mission by order of the federation” (Lucas). This opening sequence is necessary as it establishes the intellect of the commander and once again reestablishes her power and authority as a military official.
However, as quickly as the commander’s character is fortified as a formidable military official, her gender is used to dismantle her strength noting her female weaknesses. The Commander becomes enamored with first officer Spock, to the point which she states her wishes, over special foods she had prepared for him, and asks that he take control of the Enterprise, and willing submits to an equal if not subordinate position next to him, “there you will take your rightful place as it’s commander, and you lead the ship…with my flagship at your side” (Lucas). The act of preparation for the male and willingly reducing her own authority and power coincide with Rivkin and Ryan’s concept of a patriarchal culture instituting the idea that “men are somehow superior to women” (768). Do these clips, this extension of art, thereby an extension of culture, perpetuate the idea that “maintains the submission, subordination, and exploitation of the ‘feminine’?” (Rivkin 797).
Sadly, the imbalance of patriarchal hierarchy is reestablished when the commander discovers that her first suspicions of espionage were correct. She is inadvertently taken hostage aboard the Enterprise, and is thus stripped of her authority and military power, and also humiliated as this was done by playing on her feminine weaknesses, by courtship; “you must be mad…why would you do this to me, what are you that you could do this?” (Lucas). Why is it, that this particular outcome is favorable? Does this echo the sentiment of a “one-woman revolution,” which “emphasizes her helplessness and her isolation,” and is ultimately doomed to failure (Rivkin 823)? Why should it be celebrated, since the Enterprise, did in fact break a treaty? Logically, wasn’t the female commander righteous in her actions? If we were to designate the United States to the identify of the Romulans, and the Soviet Union to that of the Federation, wouldn’t these actions by the Soviet Union spark an international incident, as they broke the peace treaty? Yet, this outcome is celebrated, because perhaps the female commander is in fact vilified, because she is in such a high power position, and thus she must be a villain. Perhaps, we have not made as much progress in society, as we have thought. The commander’s character may be right, “there is a truth here that remains unspoken” (Lucas).
Works Cited
Lucas, John, Dir. Star Trek: The Enterprise Incident. 1968. Youtube. 13 August 2009. < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5Npu5caRY >
Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1998.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Analysis Three
Identifying Blake in Each Individual:
Marxist Approach to Glengarry Glenn Ross
Do money and property define an individual? Karl Marx mentions that men use material means as a “definite form of expressing their life” (Rivkin 651). In a capitalist society men have allowed property to define who they are and what status they have achieved. In the video clip Glengarry Glen Ross, Alec Baldwin portrays a character who defines himself by property and money, and jointly serves as a symbolic manifestation of the evils of capitalism. The video clip arguably, also reveals a clash between capitalistic ideals and socialist values through Marxist theory and examination, and the viewer can pose the question as to whether communism as envisioned by Karl Marx, would do away with the bourgeoisie mentality as represented by Baldwin’s character.
Baldwin’s character, Blake, continually attacks and demeans the four salesmen, stating they are “weak” and incapable of being salesmen (Foley). This identifies Blake, as part of the bourgeoisie class, as he continually demeans the salesmen, referring to them as “shit,” and reminds them that if they do not perform properly they will be “shinning his shoes” (Foley). According to Marxist theory this is represented historically as those in power control the means of production, and perpetually subjugate the lower class, making impossible for them to achieve a higher standard of living even remotely close to that of the bourgeoisie (Rivkin 654). Blake defines himself as superior by possession of an expensive vehicle, a luxurious watch, and an extravagant salary. Although Blake is also a salesman with a similar function and purpose, he clearly elevates himself beyond that of the rest of the salesmen, a clear “conflict of interest” in pursuit of their own profits and ideal economic state (Rivkin 654). A class within a class.
Blake is an oppressive force holding the salesmen, the proletarians, under economic subjugation as he, the bourgeoisie, controls production and capital. Ironically, Blake at one point states, “these are the new leads…to you they’re gold, and you don’t get them” taunting their inability to achieve a higher level of economic success, as he holds the resources (Foley). Again, in a Marxist view, this is the perpetual subjugation of the proletarian class, by the bourgeoisie, and it is precisely this kind of subjugation that Marx looks to abolish by the removal of private property. “The abolition of bourgeois property…that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many y the few” (Marx 34). But is communism, as envisioned by Marx, capable of debilitating the capitalist motivation of a man such as Blake, and by correlation would it remove the bourgeoisie class, or would it merely displace them?
In theory, by removing the private property from an economic infrastructure, this would remove the means of subjugation of one class by another. However, it has been stated that a communist society can only be achieved after capitalism has fully developed a nation first, in order for communism to truly work (Mark xvii). With that said, looking at the history of human and their possession of power, how would an entire class easily relinquish it’s power, even after a forcible seizure of property. Would a man like Blake, peaceably enter a communist society, or would he seek to destroy it’s fundamental principles in order to reinstate his status?
“I made $970,000.00 last year …that’s who I am and your nothing” (Foley) Could a personality, an individual, a class, fortified with their continuous measures of economic success, be forcibly thrown into a communist society without expectations of revolt and chaos? Questionably, the character Blake, may represent an animalistic need in each human, feeding on achievement, recognition, and status, which may overpower the need for communal good.
Works Cited
Foley, James, dir. Glengarry Glen Ross. 1992. Youtube. 5 August 2009.
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WCcKIkMp8Y >
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engles. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Bantam Books, 1992.
Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing,
1998.
Marxist Approach to Glengarry Glenn Ross
Do money and property define an individual? Karl Marx mentions that men use material means as a “definite form of expressing their life” (Rivkin 651). In a capitalist society men have allowed property to define who they are and what status they have achieved. In the video clip Glengarry Glen Ross, Alec Baldwin portrays a character who defines himself by property and money, and jointly serves as a symbolic manifestation of the evils of capitalism. The video clip arguably, also reveals a clash between capitalistic ideals and socialist values through Marxist theory and examination, and the viewer can pose the question as to whether communism as envisioned by Karl Marx, would do away with the bourgeoisie mentality as represented by Baldwin’s character.
Baldwin’s character, Blake, continually attacks and demeans the four salesmen, stating they are “weak” and incapable of being salesmen (Foley). This identifies Blake, as part of the bourgeoisie class, as he continually demeans the salesmen, referring to them as “shit,” and reminds them that if they do not perform properly they will be “shinning his shoes” (Foley). According to Marxist theory this is represented historically as those in power control the means of production, and perpetually subjugate the lower class, making impossible for them to achieve a higher standard of living even remotely close to that of the bourgeoisie (Rivkin 654). Blake defines himself as superior by possession of an expensive vehicle, a luxurious watch, and an extravagant salary. Although Blake is also a salesman with a similar function and purpose, he clearly elevates himself beyond that of the rest of the salesmen, a clear “conflict of interest” in pursuit of their own profits and ideal economic state (Rivkin 654). A class within a class.
Blake is an oppressive force holding the salesmen, the proletarians, under economic subjugation as he, the bourgeoisie, controls production and capital. Ironically, Blake at one point states, “these are the new leads…to you they’re gold, and you don’t get them” taunting their inability to achieve a higher level of economic success, as he holds the resources (Foley). Again, in a Marxist view, this is the perpetual subjugation of the proletarian class, by the bourgeoisie, and it is precisely this kind of subjugation that Marx looks to abolish by the removal of private property. “The abolition of bourgeois property…that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many y the few” (Marx 34). But is communism, as envisioned by Marx, capable of debilitating the capitalist motivation of a man such as Blake, and by correlation would it remove the bourgeoisie class, or would it merely displace them?
In theory, by removing the private property from an economic infrastructure, this would remove the means of subjugation of one class by another. However, it has been stated that a communist society can only be achieved after capitalism has fully developed a nation first, in order for communism to truly work (Mark xvii). With that said, looking at the history of human and their possession of power, how would an entire class easily relinquish it’s power, even after a forcible seizure of property. Would a man like Blake, peaceably enter a communist society, or would he seek to destroy it’s fundamental principles in order to reinstate his status?
“I made $970,000.00 last year …that’s who I am and your nothing” (Foley) Could a personality, an individual, a class, fortified with their continuous measures of economic success, be forcibly thrown into a communist society without expectations of revolt and chaos? Questionably, the character Blake, may represent an animalistic need in each human, feeding on achievement, recognition, and status, which may overpower the need for communal good.
Works Cited
Foley, James, dir. Glengarry Glen Ross. 1992. Youtube. 5 August 2009.
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WCcKIkMp8Y >
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engles. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Bantam Books, 1992.
Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing,
1998.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Analysis Two
An Animated Moment: Defamiliarized
Nine characters have gathered to give their respects for a person who has either passed or can no longer perform. As the nine characters have come together on stage, with the backdrop of an elegant curtain scene behind them, representing the finale of a performance, none are able to speak and deliver their eulogy. Possibly they realize that they no longer have the ability, or they are too overcome by grief, regardless they find themselves speechless, and none of them attempts to approach the solitary microphone only a few feet away from them. They pay their respects, and mourn in silence.
Formally Animated: An Formalistic Approach to “Speechless”
Arguably, art is a representation of life, through the eyes of the artist. Artistic expression is represented in an abundance of forms, and although some may be considered intellectually inferior, they nonetheless can carry the same depth and emotional impact. Comic strips, animated film, cartoon, all can symbolically represent humanity in life lessons, political and economic dilemmas, and yet still provide pleasurable entertainment for the viewer. It must be clear however, that the intent of such art, is sometimes blurred by conceptions which we associate to it’s intent. What we associate may not necessarily fit the original intent of that piece. By using the school of Formalism, we can identify when these association are made incorrectly, in regard to original intent.
Before we can identify when associations are incorrectly made, we must recognize how we make these associations. Looking at the picture above “Speechless,” the event which has taken place is clear. There are various animated characters, in mourning, possibly over another character which has passed on. One of the most notable aspects of this picture, is the difference in the characters themselves. A closer view, grants us a representation of each character, or symbolically who or what group of people each character represents. Notably, these differences are distinct, by immediate comparison to the rest of the characters which surround them. For example, Speedy Gonzalez. If we were not privy to the information of the name of the character, most individuals would look at Gonzalez and recognize that he represents the Mexican, or a South American race. The small stature, darker brown complexion, and obvious use of certain cultural attire would immediately associate cultural traits of a Latin American ethnicity. This is heightened, as one of the characters that towers over Gonzalez is Foghorn Leghorn, who can arguably represent the White race of a Southern Origin. It is in light of these contrasts that their differences become obvious.
Although the characters image grants us an idea of where they may originate from, it is indeed our association that we attach to the characters behavior and the manner in which we expect them to act that is also notable. Viktor Shklovsky would argue that it is “habitualizaton” which blurs character, which becomes a symbol to us, and which “fades and does not leave even a first impression,’’ because we have associated our own ideas to that symbol (15).
Reviewing the picture again, we are granted with the microphone stand and the spotlight, alone at the forefront of the stage. Does this represent a character who was singularly more important than the rest, or was it a character who was simply more liked that the rest of the individual characters? Is it possible that that empty spotlight represents the inability to comment on politics and the government due to recent mandates and restrictions of freedom of speech, or perhaps these characters originate in a country where the government is oppressive in all aspects of media. Although, the empty spot light is undefined in the picture as to its purpose, we again associate many different ideas attributes in which formalism would promptly point out as false. Indeed, the empty spotlight only represents the one human voice of all the characters who has passed on.
Works Cited
Murray, Penelope and T.S. Dorsch. Classical Literary Criticism. London: Penguin Books LTD., 1965.
Van Citters, Darryl. Speechless. 1993. Lithograph Reprint.
< http://www.animationartwork.com/artwork/sku10019 >
Nine characters have gathered to give their respects for a person who has either passed or can no longer perform. As the nine characters have come together on stage, with the backdrop of an elegant curtain scene behind them, representing the finale of a performance, none are able to speak and deliver their eulogy. Possibly they realize that they no longer have the ability, or they are too overcome by grief, regardless they find themselves speechless, and none of them attempts to approach the solitary microphone only a few feet away from them. They pay their respects, and mourn in silence.
Formally Animated: An Formalistic Approach to “Speechless”
Arguably, art is a representation of life, through the eyes of the artist. Artistic expression is represented in an abundance of forms, and although some may be considered intellectually inferior, they nonetheless can carry the same depth and emotional impact. Comic strips, animated film, cartoon, all can symbolically represent humanity in life lessons, political and economic dilemmas, and yet still provide pleasurable entertainment for the viewer. It must be clear however, that the intent of such art, is sometimes blurred by conceptions which we associate to it’s intent. What we associate may not necessarily fit the original intent of that piece. By using the school of Formalism, we can identify when these association are made incorrectly, in regard to original intent.
Before we can identify when associations are incorrectly made, we must recognize how we make these associations. Looking at the picture above “Speechless,” the event which has taken place is clear. There are various animated characters, in mourning, possibly over another character which has passed on. One of the most notable aspects of this picture, is the difference in the characters themselves. A closer view, grants us a representation of each character, or symbolically who or what group of people each character represents. Notably, these differences are distinct, by immediate comparison to the rest of the characters which surround them. For example, Speedy Gonzalez. If we were not privy to the information of the name of the character, most individuals would look at Gonzalez and recognize that he represents the Mexican, or a South American race. The small stature, darker brown complexion, and obvious use of certain cultural attire would immediately associate cultural traits of a Latin American ethnicity. This is heightened, as one of the characters that towers over Gonzalez is Foghorn Leghorn, who can arguably represent the White race of a Southern Origin. It is in light of these contrasts that their differences become obvious.
Although the characters image grants us an idea of where they may originate from, it is indeed our association that we attach to the characters behavior and the manner in which we expect them to act that is also notable. Viktor Shklovsky would argue that it is “habitualizaton” which blurs character, which becomes a symbol to us, and which “fades and does not leave even a first impression,’’ because we have associated our own ideas to that symbol (15).
Reviewing the picture again, we are granted with the microphone stand and the spotlight, alone at the forefront of the stage. Does this represent a character who was singularly more important than the rest, or was it a character who was simply more liked that the rest of the individual characters? Is it possible that that empty spotlight represents the inability to comment on politics and the government due to recent mandates and restrictions of freedom of speech, or perhaps these characters originate in a country where the government is oppressive in all aspects of media. Although, the empty spot light is undefined in the picture as to its purpose, we again associate many different ideas attributes in which formalism would promptly point out as false. Indeed, the empty spotlight only represents the one human voice of all the characters who has passed on.
Works Cited
Murray, Penelope and T.S. Dorsch. Classical Literary Criticism. London: Penguin Books LTD., 1965.
Van Citters, Darryl. Speechless. 1993. Lithograph Reprint.
< http://www.animationartwork.com/artwork/sku10019 >
Analysis One
Philosophy or Poetry: A Classical Struggle between Censorship and Free Art
Although both Plato and Aristotle are both part of the classical school of literary criticism, both individuals seem to have almost opposing views in poetry and the various arts associated in literature. In the short film, “Goodbye to the Normals, ” “Magnus” is a child displays almost mature adult behavior in his interaction with his parents as he decides to leave home (Smith). The singularly disturbing, yet also comical side of this event is that the child is clearly very young, prepubescent in fact. But his vocabulary and behavior could be considered deplorable by a parent’s standards. Should this form of artwork be censored in order to develop proper behavior and a singularly uniform foundation from which children should not have any other form of exposure, so as to prevent corruption?
Although the interaction with Magnus and his parents is fictional and meant for comedic purposes, such exposure to children and even young adults is questionable, as they could very possibly attempt to imitate such behavior. It is Plato’s firm argument that if poetry is not properly censored and monitored, an individual or group would be influence by their passions and emotions to control their behavior, or contrarily, lose their overall control. “If you allow the sweetened muse of lyric or epic, pleasure and pain will rule in the city instead of custom and…rational principles (Murray 54). Plato’s argument is that a child “cannot distinguish between what is allegorical and what is not,” therefore any media with a potential negative message must be censored (Murray 17). Indeed, certain language used by the child and behavior, such as calling his father’s statements, “ridiculous” and shortly questioning his mother, “is that what I asked you” would be unfathomable in a child so young (Smith).
However we must also consider its comedic contribution, as such behavior although deplorable, is outright unheard of, and very effective in its humor. Aristotle’s argument in favor of such art, would clearly state that the “history of comedy…is obscure, because it was not taken seriously” (Murray 63). Furthermore “comedy represents the worse types of people…not in the sense that it embraces any and every kind of badness, but in the sense that the ridiculous is a species of ugliness or badness” (Murray 63). Through tragedy and comedy, all of which are forms of poetry, individuals can find a release for emotions in a healthy manner, and with proper guidance it should not affect the morality of the individual. It is human nature to mimic; humans have an “instinct to enjoy works of imitation…as learning is a very great pleasure…they enjoy seeing images because they learn as they look at them” (Murray 60-61). Not only would this clip provide dark humor, but it could also be appreciated as therapeutic.
Indeed, if Plato represents a system of rigid philosophy, and Aristotle represents a school of open poetry, then perhaps the only accord, which can be reached, is upon“[a continuing] ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry.” No stalemate can be reached, as long as different levels of media are present in society, and enlightenment, pleasure, and entertainment are sought by the masses (Murray 55).
Works Cited
Murray, Penelope and T.S. Dorsch. Classical Literary Criticism. London: Penguin Books LTD.,1965.
Goodbye to the Normals. Dir. Jim Field Smith. Perf. Alfie Field, Steve Furst, and Juliet Cowan. Idiot Lamp Films, 2006. Short Film. 16 July 2009 < http://goodbyetothenormals.com
Although both Plato and Aristotle are both part of the classical school of literary criticism, both individuals seem to have almost opposing views in poetry and the various arts associated in literature. In the short film, “Goodbye to the Normals, ” “Magnus” is a child displays almost mature adult behavior in his interaction with his parents as he decides to leave home (Smith). The singularly disturbing, yet also comical side of this event is that the child is clearly very young, prepubescent in fact. But his vocabulary and behavior could be considered deplorable by a parent’s standards. Should this form of artwork be censored in order to develop proper behavior and a singularly uniform foundation from which children should not have any other form of exposure, so as to prevent corruption?
Although the interaction with Magnus and his parents is fictional and meant for comedic purposes, such exposure to children and even young adults is questionable, as they could very possibly attempt to imitate such behavior. It is Plato’s firm argument that if poetry is not properly censored and monitored, an individual or group would be influence by their passions and emotions to control their behavior, or contrarily, lose their overall control. “If you allow the sweetened muse of lyric or epic, pleasure and pain will rule in the city instead of custom and…rational principles (Murray 54). Plato’s argument is that a child “cannot distinguish between what is allegorical and what is not,” therefore any media with a potential negative message must be censored (Murray 17). Indeed, certain language used by the child and behavior, such as calling his father’s statements, “ridiculous” and shortly questioning his mother, “is that what I asked you” would be unfathomable in a child so young (Smith).
However we must also consider its comedic contribution, as such behavior although deplorable, is outright unheard of, and very effective in its humor. Aristotle’s argument in favor of such art, would clearly state that the “history of comedy…is obscure, because it was not taken seriously” (Murray 63). Furthermore “comedy represents the worse types of people…not in the sense that it embraces any and every kind of badness, but in the sense that the ridiculous is a species of ugliness or badness” (Murray 63). Through tragedy and comedy, all of which are forms of poetry, individuals can find a release for emotions in a healthy manner, and with proper guidance it should not affect the morality of the individual. It is human nature to mimic; humans have an “instinct to enjoy works of imitation…as learning is a very great pleasure…they enjoy seeing images because they learn as they look at them” (Murray 60-61). Not only would this clip provide dark humor, but it could also be appreciated as therapeutic.
Indeed, if Plato represents a system of rigid philosophy, and Aristotle represents a school of open poetry, then perhaps the only accord, which can be reached, is upon“[a continuing] ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry.” No stalemate can be reached, as long as different levels of media are present in society, and enlightenment, pleasure, and entertainment are sought by the masses (Murray 55).
Works Cited
Murray, Penelope and T.S. Dorsch. Classical Literary Criticism. London: Penguin Books LTD.,1965.
Goodbye to the Normals. Dir. Jim Field Smith. Perf. Alfie Field, Steve Furst, and Juliet Cowan. Idiot Lamp Films, 2006. Short Film. 16 July 2009 < http://goodbyetothenormals.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
