The Culture Industry

In my research I have been reading a lot about The Frankfurt School, a group of neo-marxist theorists, and Theodor Adorno's theories of The Culture Industry.

Adorno described the Culture Industry as essentially a form of brain-washing of the masses by the current regime, capitalism. The aim, according to him, is to discourage any reactionary action by the masses that may pose a threat to them. Standardization plays a large part in this, by controlling all media and making sure everything is uniform and supports their interests they can keep the masses in line. Pseudo-Individualization also plays a large roll, by presenting the masses with the illusion of a choice and the illusion of free-will. For example the choice between two political parties that are exactly the same, it isn't really free-will, it is still under control.

I've summarized the theories extremely briefly and haven't really done them any justice but that's the basic idea, or at least as far as I know. Honestly I'm kind of inclined to agree somewhat, it is easy for me to see the illusion of a choice and of free-will in modern society. However, then Adorno goes to apply his theories to popular music and it all becomes very clear that his theories are very much based on his own, quite frankly, elitist opinions on the subject.

Adorno comes to popular music from the point of view of the 'enlightened intellectual' who holds western classical music and avant-garde music as the best music can offer. He begins to talk about popular music as regressive thinking and as a form of 'false needs' put upon people by society. He describes how interchangeable segments of popular music is and views it as a sign that it is less than the music he loves. Basically his point seemed to be that society is dumbing down the public through the media so as to keep them in line, but as I've already stated his ideas are very much founded upon his own opinions.

There were a number of critiques of Adorno and The Frankfurt School's theories, with a number of good points. For example Gendron points out that Adorno neglects the difference between the functional and the textural. For example the difference between a washing machine and popular music, one is there the fulfill a basic function while the other is very subjective. He also neglects the various different musical genres of popular music, many which differ greatly from one another. It was even pointed out that standardization may occur not because of a ruling society attempting to keep control but rather because of the demands of the consuming masses. One of the key criticisms of Adorno and The Frankfurt School's idea is that they do not attempt to prove any of there ideas with empirical evidence, many of there ideas can't be proven with empirical evidence, and from my point of view if you can't back up your point with evidence your probably wrong.

I think I will argue against Adorno, I wish to make the point that both intellectual films, films that challenge and provoke thought, and entertainment films, films that are there purely for enjoyment purposes, both have there place and neither is more or less than the other.

I also wish to make the point that neither is the true problem with cinema, as I see it, the true problem are films that are made not to entertain nor to provoke thought but to make a profit. I think that this is destructive to cinema, because it encourages lazy film making and creates a system where the trailers, ticket sales and marketing campaigns are more important than the film itself or the audience's experience. For example, as Kevin Smith pointed out, after making Clerks 2 and after being hounded by the people funding the film to keep it on budget, they then revealed to him that they intended to spend twice the budget of the movie on advertising.

Distribution and Profits

I'm going to looking into is the cinema experience dying? Does it need a new method of distribution? I think that the decline of the cinema going experience is a symptom of a wider problem of people caring more about film as a means to gain a profit than film as either art or entertainment.

Below is a radio interview with Director Kevin Smith, where her explains his reason of self-distributing his film Red State via touring rather than conventional distribution. 

It is important to make it clear that I do not intend to argue the difference or compare films that challenge and provoke thought or films that entertain. What I am looking into is the idea that making films for profit rather than to make a good film is destroying cinema. 

Below is a review of the Adam Sandler film Jack and Jill by Red Letter Media. I think that some of the points they make are relevant to this topic despite this not being an academic source. 

I will look again into post-modernism and will look into some of the books I've looked into before. 

"We are the music makers..."

I've decided to make a list of questions I could look into as part of this research:

1. Is Modern Cinema Stagnating?
   • Look into ' The Hero's Tale' and how often it is used. eg Star Wars etc
   • Look into the amount of Remakes, reboots and sequels.
   
   
2. Does Cinema need a new method of Distributing?
   • Look into decline of the 'Cinema Experience'
   • Look into how the music industry adopted downloading music for their own uses.
   • Look into how live music tours and festivals brings in more money than album sales and compare to Kevin Smith touring Red State. Could this be the future?
   
   
3. Can film be more than simply entertainment? Can it change the world?
   • Look into propaganda films and how film can be used to influence the attitude of a nation. Nazi Germany or Cold War America perhaps?

"What do you believe in?"

I've finally got something I believe in that I can argue, an it is very relevant to my research. I believe that the treating of film as a business strangles the art form, it punishes creativity and rewards the mass-production of bland and mediocre films. I believe film is a beautiful and powerful art form, but it has been raped by people who only care about profit and have no care for art. 

Below is a video of Ken Loach's speech at London Film Festival 2010. I have to admit I haven't seen any of his films but I watched this after having him recommended to me by a friend. In his speech he describes how he believes that being a film maker is a privilege and as such comes with certain responsibilities. He makes a number a great points regarding the American dominance of British cinema, the control of corporations over cinemas and how television kills creativity, as well as other such issues. 

And here are two articles, from 2006, regarding the "Era of the Sequel" and the battle between film as a business and as an art form. Rather interesting and worth a read but a tad short and not much to them.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2006/the-era-of-the-sequel-part-1/

http://www.firstshowing.net/2006/business-vs-art-in-film-irony-and-the-independents-part-2/

Spectacle is not the problem; mediocrity is.

Firstly I would sum-up where I am with this dissertation. A while back I changed my focus from how symbolism is used to portray meaning in film, I did this because I felt that I had nothing to say on the subject and had lost interest in it. I have moved my subject on to something I find more interesting, though it does still have to do with meaning in film. Now I'm am looking at what is an intellegent film?', what makes it intellegent? and how does compare to other films, most notably 'spectacle film'?

URL: http://blog.cinemaautopsy.com/2010/12/21/spectacle-is-not-the-problem-mediocrity-is/  01/01/2013

In this article the writer argues a number of interesting points regarding 'spectacle films'. The main and most interesting point is that Spectacle film is not 'the problem', rather 'the problem' is mediocrity.

"In terms of how we relate to popular culture now, I do not believe that spectacle is the problem. Instead, mediocrity is the problem and mediocrity intrudes upon all forms of cinema. A loud, noisy, big budget special-effects driven action extravaganza may draw more attention to itself when it succumbs to mediocrity but this doesn’t mean that all spectacle films are bad and it doesn’t mean that it is not a problem other films face. As an exercise, try to think of how many comedies, romances, dramas, thrillers or family films that you’ve seen over the past decade that were worth your time and money as opposed to how many were completely disposable. Genuinely good films are in the minority, however, that’s nothing particularly new or revelatory." 

To illustrate this point the writer compares James Cameron's Avatar to Michael Bay's Transformers. Avatar is an example of a decent 'spectacle' film and Transformer is an example of a mediocre film. The reasoning being that although Avatar doesn't have the most complex and intellectually deep story, or even the most original,

 "what of the story at the heart of Avatar, which even I’ll admit is little more than Pocahontas in Space."

, However it is still a story. complete with character arcs and a topical, if not a bit heavy handed, message. Avatar is a well crafted film that uses amazing visuals and a new telling of age old story to entertain audiences and share a topical message. 

"The story is a simple one but I don’t think it’s fair to assume that it’s therefore a stupid one. It certainly isn’t any more simplistic that the much-loved original Star Wars films. At it’s worstAvatar is a white-man-leads-the-natives-and-saves-the-day film, however, at its best it is an archetypal hero’s quest story were the villains are a militarised corporation who feel that destroying an indigenous culture and their environment is an acceptable action to take in order to pursue profits."

Transformers on the other hand uses spectacle not to convey a message or story, but uses it instead of a story and message. 

"The problem with Transformers is that the spectacle is rubbish – it creates the pretence of excitement by distracting the audience with a constant bombardment of sound and motion, and most significantly, through the incredibly rapid editing (a trademark of Bay’s) that prevents the audience from ever latching on to anything that is happening.Transformers is an action film where it is impossible to follow the action. However, you are made to feel that you should be excited because the music swells and the editing quickens to inform you so." 

I certainly can see the writer's point, it is true that I enjoy a good number of 'spectacle' films, however to me the idea of a film, like Avatar, without much story and only a vague message does feel sort of hollow. Yes, the visuals are amazing and the film is certainly a fun ride but none the less I still think that story is key to a truly great film and without a good original story, it's hard to be anything more than simply a good film, rather than a great one. I have nothing really against Avatar but there's a reason I haven't watched it since I saw it in the cinema. 

I like the term 'Specacle film', I think it is very appropriate term to use to describe films like Avatar or Jurassic Park, films that send the audience on a fun rollercoaster but never really make them think. They're films that are there to entertain, not challenge or get people thinking. It has it's place I guess but I can't help but think that film can be more that just hollow spectacle. To me spectacle is a tool, a means to an end, but in these films spectacle is the end.