Capital/Capitalism as a Social force

(image courtesy of altrapoint.com)

I am doing this post in order to briefly explain why I constantly make reference to the  capitalist mode of production in my analysis of films and various events. The primary reason for this is that Capitalism, which is the most influential mode of economic production in the 21^st century, becomes a social force as a result by conditioning attitudes and responses by individuals within bourgeois society. Capitalism involves the exploitation of the members of the working class which subsists solely on their labour power in order to provide surplus value/unpaid labour time/profit for those few that own the means of production or capital such as the raw materials the machinery, infrastructure and the means to pay the wages of the workers/subsistence. This mode of production emphasizes high levels of labour productivity with the aid of advanced technology in order to produce as much commodities as possible for sale in the market. In America one cannot analyze films without making some reference, however scant, to capital as a social force. In some cases capital may be a secondary factor with the political aspect taking precedence however it is there in the context. One cannot understand America without having some basic understanding of capitalism. I am clearly revealing the influence of Karl Marx who stated that the mode of economic production conditions social relations.

I differ from a lot of critics on this basis for they emphasize the artistic aspect of a particular film without emphasizing its economic foundations. Idealism runs triumphant with some critics because they berate the filmmakers for not aspiring to a particular ideal associated with filmmaking. This ideal may be reflected in how we see the world based on class orientation or social background. The reality is that most films are conditioned by a particular perspective which is rooted in the mode of economic production and the various class tensions that arise from this mode of economic production. In my review of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre I challenged Roger Ebert who emphasized that film was primarily about character with the gold being a secondary factor whereas I emphasized that the dogged pursuit of gold in this film made it the focal point of the film which influenced the position taken by the characters. Without the material forces to influence the direction of characters then people normally appear insane in pursuit of a dogmatic virtue which in turns only estranges them from the socioeconomic forces at play. Criticism has also been made into a sphere of idealism as it becomes virtually opposed to the sphere of action or the people of action that engage with the material forces of production.

I admit that sometimes I have fallen into that trap and criticized films on the basis of triumphant idealistic visions of the greatness that the film could aspire to etc. This occurs when one judges based on the performance of other films in the past. Filmmaking is a difficult venture and it is difficult to get the production team working in a unified direction particularly as you intend to sell it as a commodity for consumption in the market. The more successful you are in the market the better your prospects and this is why I believe that some balance must be maintained between the integrity of workmanship and the desire to make it a lasting work of art. Most filmmakers would like to make a classic and some get carried away by the artistic element forgetting that it must be consumed by an average person. This is why the mode of producing the film becomes important i.e. the techniques involved in getting across a particular film. The fact that something has to be produced in a particular way in order to make it palatable suggests the mode of production is at work regardless of the fanciful elements on display. You need a well delineated script a director that manages the camera in order to capture the essence of the story, a good editor which will make the visual elements stand out etc.

In the modern day these production techniques are conditioned by the fact that filmmakers operate within a capitalist sphere where they are compelled to produce for consumption in the market.  Some critics must acknowledge this when critiquing a film. It is not just about the ideal associated with filmmaking and what makes it great but who it is catered for in the market. Not every film will be considered great on this basis but will be considered a success if it does well in the market which means that it conforms to the ideological basis of a particular group in society. No film can be universal on this basis for a film like The Tree of Life will not resonate with the individual more concerned with being entertained but will resonate with the individual that cherishes fanciful philosophical ideals about the origins of life. The best films manage to create that balance between entertainment and the artistic element which normally emphasizes the grand philosophical element. The great films makes these two elements blend seamlessly. On the one hand you have the individual within a particular sphere of society however how that individual sees the world or interacts with it becomes the basis for his outlook which can be either positive or negative. The interactions of the individual are influenced by the ideological sphere in which he or she was conditioned by which is in turn determined by the material forces of production. In Taxi Driver (see my review) it is clear that Travis (Robert Deniro) is hell bent on confronting the social decay prevalent in capitalist society on the basis of ideals normally associated with the petty bourgeois/middle class who are the grand harmonizers within a capitalist society.

  Most of the great films that I review have some connection with the social sphere by emphasizing the mode of production within which we reside. The films I consider great emphasize this material element and have the individual react positively or negatively. My recently concluded modes of urban alienation series was one example where the material forces associated with capital compel the characters to act in a particular way either by embracing their circumstances or seeking to challenge them through some form of extraordinary endeavour. These films are also artistic in their own way because the perspective of individuals differ based on their conditioning and so they see the world a particular way and we are meant to see it as they would. There are cases when the filmmakers create an environment for us to inhabit but in fact it would not make sense if the characters themselves did not see this world in the same way. The challenge for the character(s) is whether or not they can expand how they see the world and challenge their perspective. It is difficult when you are conditioned by your social background.

When I review a great film I have been accused of making it too long. I admit this but I feel compelled to highlight the material forces behind the scenes in order to make the review more comprehensive. The material forces are normally associated with capitalism. This is not to say that capitalism is the only major social force. There are other modes of production that influence how people see the world. The feudal and  peasant based economies for instance influences how people relate to landed property. The slave economy is also tied into landed property with the slaves becoming a major social element in society and influencing the mode of interaction within society and the mode of economic production that underpins these interactions. See Spartacus (1960). Capital is the emphasis here because it is the economic production that influences how we interact with the world in the present day and this was as a result of the bourgeois revolution that first occurred in England and has now spread throughout the world. It is also the most advanced mode of production in history which emphasizes the increased development of technology in order to enhance labour productivity to produce commodities for sale in the market. When you watch a film today you see capitalism at work for if you simply trace the evolution of film you will see the various technological improvements. There can be no doubt on this basis that you are witnessing capitalism at work. The previous modes of production were stifled by triumphal idealism which is why the levels of labour productivity was low and technological improvements took years to come on stream.

This was just a brief discussion emphasizing why capitalism is at the core of my analysis when it comes to my film reviews.