|
ART AND MONEY IN MOVIES
by Larry E. Ribstein
American movies often seem to be hostile to business. For example,
in the popular film Erin Brockovich, we see PG & E
poisoning people and then lying about it. As many commentators
have pointed out, the truth in that film was much murkier than
the filmmakers let on. This perspective is common. Think of
the popular film from the year before Erin Brockovich,
The Insider, which featured two common themes - the social
harm of large corporations, and their suppression of workers
who try to rise above corporate morality. Or for an even darker
view, consider Glengarry Glen Ross. Moreover, we rarely
see the other side of the story - business as a provider of beneficial
jobs and products. Films like Other People's Money, or
at least Danny DeVito's speech to the shareholders in that movie,
are rare. The bias is especially hard to explain when one considers
that it appears in films, like Erin Brockovich, that are
made and distributed by large conglomerates.
I have written an article
that attempts to solve this puzzle by analyzing a significant
number of films that deal directly or indirectly with business.
I conclude that filmmakers are not anti-business but anti-capital.
In other words, the artists who make films want a bigger piece
of the pie and, more importantly, bridle at the restrictions
that the money guys place on their creativity. One piece of
evidence supporting this hypothesis is that worker-owned or controlled
firms (e.g., the law firm in Erin Brockovich) pass movie
muster, even if these worker-friendly firms are of the bank-robbing
variety. The capitalists in control let their workers get away
with this subversive message because they do not care what their
films say as long as they're making money.
This negative view of capital from the narrow artist's perspective
is taking a toll on the general reputation of business and, more
important, fuels populist sentiment for more regulation. My
thesis supports letting firms speak in their own defense - that
is, dropping or relaxing "commercial speech" limits
on the First Amendment. It also suggests that movies' message
might change if artists become less constrained by capital, as
by the digital revolution that could drastically lowers production
costs.
Of course, it may be that there is no bias - that business really
is bad. But if you believe that, maybe you're watching too many
movies. If you would like to pursue this subject, I invite you
to view my blog.
Posted November 13, 2003
|
