Marxist Concepts in Media

Neo-Marxist Concepts In The Rings of Power

The series The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power available on Amazon Prime could be an example of the Neo-Marxist perspective discussed by Sellnow (2010) where the wealth and power of white leaders (almost exclusively white male elves) are more important than the poor, weak, working class of “men” or other races. The lower class of men and elves are considered dispensable. 

In Sellnow’s “Marxist Perspective” he discusses how Neo-Marxist or “critical rhetoric” in popular culture reinforces the status quo.  This is depicted in the fact that there are basically only two heroines in the story, Elfan warrior Galadriel who is the Commander of the Northern Armies and Miriel who is Queen Regent of a city of men.  Miriel becomes blind when fighting in a war and Galadriel is cast off for being obsessed with finding traces of Sauron, her brother's killer and later returns to keep seeking him.  Both are often portrayed as inept, gullible, too trusting, and unsuccessful in their charges and are either sent off or dethroned and replaced by more conniving male figures.  To be seen as influential, they have to practically reject the natural feminine, nurturing ways of womanhood and take on the typical male qualities of warrior, killer, fighter, mountain tracker, commander, etc.  Even when doing this, neither woman seems able to achieve their desired results and are unsuccessful or bring out some type of destruction on their kingdoms, while ruthless male figures replace or take advantage of their so-called incompetence.  Any gentleness is seen as a sign of weakness rather than valor.  

In the following clip, Halbrand, a man who pretended to be someone he was not, has hoodwinked Commander Galadriel and reveals his true self, calling out her inherent gullibility as the cause of why she was so easy to manipulate and turns the blame on her for his infiltration and deception. Depicting the hegemonic ideology that women are ignorant and blind while men see everything and will ultimately put them in their place.

In the next clip, the deceiver Halbrand asks Celebrimbor to make rings for men and seeks to expand the “status quo” of the movie to spread the power to the “less than” rather than letting elves be the only ones with power. However, Celbrimbor expresses the dominant narrative that men are considered weak, coveters, and less than, while Halbrand (Sauron).  (Note: Halbrand has caused the Drafts hardship to ensure he can gain control of their resources, although elitist behavior.)  He predicts the fall of all civilizations claiming his solution is the only thing that will work… without revealing that his solution is what causes the downfall of middle earth and the world. 

Halbrand transforms in front of Annatar to “look more like the status quo”.  His hair is made blonde, his ears spiked like the influential Elvan rulers around him, even his clothing is transformed to depict wealth and status. The proFlattery, praise, feeding into Celebrimbor’s desire to be influential and revered.   The producers even go to the point of making Sauron (aka Annatar aka Halbran) look like what is depicted in Christianity as the coming of Christ, as if mocking Christianity - which seems to encompass the typical Marxist ideology.  The transformed Sauron pretends to be so humble but it’s all to weasel into the heart of Celebrimbor to get him to do his bidding and gain control over him.

 

In this clip, showing the distinction of classes between “us” and “them” and how “their own kind” should be providing for them, plays into the Neo-Marxist view that the wealthy and powerful don’t care about the lower class and those in need. Annatar acts as if he cares about men, but what he cares about is gaining control over the world and having them under the power and influence of his own power which poisons the rings. 

 

What other depictions of Neo-Marxist ideology can you identify in The Rings of Power? Can you find examples in text and media where women can be both powerful and influential while retaining soft, graceful, and feminine qualities rather than adopting violent, controlling, and manipulative characteristics historically attributed to males?

References:

Menace Boy. (2022, October 15). Menace Boy Sauron reveal | Halbrand is Sauron | The Lord of the Rings The Rings of Power episode 8 ending [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nem9U_cB8ho

Prime Video. (2024, September 18). Annatar will make the nine himself | The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hx70ETwFLk

Prime Video. (2024, September 5). Celebrimbor sides with Annatar | The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y19PbUky0AI

Prime Video. (2024, September 5). Halbrand reveals his plans to Celebrimbor | The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power | Prime Video [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SQTeVRvweM

Sellnow, D. (2010). The Rhetorical Power of Popular Culture: Considering Mediated Texts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hegemony in Media: Loudermilk

To some level all marketing, social media, and news services are spreading hegemony. Hegemony is defined by Pomerance and Sakeris as “the privileging of a dominant group's ideology over that of other groups” (Pomerance, Sakeris, 2003, p. 20). There are many examples of scenarios where there is an ideal social norm and people being shamed or looked down upon for not meeting them. An example of this is in the tv drama series Loudermilk where the main character Sam Loudermilk is a recovering alcoholic who leads a substance abuse group as a counselor. This show demonstrates hegemony with the way they portray people who suffer from addiction. 

Generally speaking, the hegemony view of people who are addicted to substances is as less than or as a lost cause. The show Loudermilk follows the story of a man named Sam who is struggling to resist the urge to drink continually as he goes through his everyday life. Everyday challenges that we face (for the most part) do not have the same life-changing impacts that someone who struggles with addiction does. Whether hanging out with a friend who uses substances or walking past the local drop stop, there are constant reminders of the mistakes you have made in the past. The show early on portrays Sam as a man who is trying his best but seems to be a lost cause.

In the show, Sam has a roommate who is supposed to be a success story. They show that his roommate who “has it all figured out” actually never recovered from alcoholism and has been secretly drinking the whole time. The main character Sam finds out later in the second season that this man who has been his idol, coach, and mentor is not a success story. There is then a downward spiral which is in line with the hegemony view that he is a lost cause. Do you feel that addicts can truly recover and reintegrate to play a positive role society?

New Girl: Breaking and Reinforcing Stereotypes

    New Girl is a TV show that came out in 2011 and ran until 2018. Starring Zoey Deschanel, as a fun and quirky teacher living in a loft apartment with three men she met on the internet. This show is honestly one of my favorite TV shows ever, but when I was reading this week about Marxism and hegemony, and how TV shows can push social norms onto the viewer I immediately thought of this show. I do think that New Girl in some ways doesn't always have storylines that follow the “status quo.” But other storylines follow exact gender norms and other living expectations that a viewer would expect to be pushed.

    For example, some things that happen in the show are the fact that they have Jess, Zoey Deschanel, a young woman living in a loft apartment with three men she had never met before. This is one of the things that makes this show interesting. Because yes, Jess does live with three men, which is not traditional. But when she starts living there it is very obvious that the traditional gender norms come into play with her being there. Jess is very feminine, and girly and this is never really challenged in the show. With the other men living there, some of them being more “ladies men”, and some of them being portrayed as a slob or messy frequently. All five main characters are heterosexual and go in and out of those traditional male and female relationships for the whole seven seasons.

    Other aspects of the show push a more traditional living situation. All five main characters have seemingly normal jobs, for example, a teacher, a bartender, marketing, a police officer, and the least traditional a model. These are all portrayed as very middle class, but almost never talked about struggling basic needs for money. They do make fun of the bartender quite often, but he is never really portrayed as struggling for money, like making rent. Another aspect about this show that is super interesting to me is it has the same friendship and community of the TV show Friends. Which might be why I like it so much. New Girl portrays this friend group as the “nuclear family” of the show, and then there are many secondary characters that come in and out and some stay the whole show. These characters add to the friend group, but there is always an overarching “family” with the five main characters. The show promotes the idea that life fulfillment comes from close friends, who support each other through everything. They are all very supportive of each other, and not typically tearing one another down.

 

How Marxism was Represented in Talladega Nights

One of my favorite movies is Talladega Nights, released in 2006 with Will Ferrell and John Reilly as the main characters. The movie portrays accession and how a quick climb to fame can affect one’s perception of themselves. What I mean by that is people who make a fast accession to fame can be unaware of their power and what it will do to their egos. Early in the movie, we see a young Ricky Bobby at school for career day when his drunk father, a failed professional racer, drives onto the school's grass and starts talking about an explicit and rockstar-esque lifestyle in an elementary school classroom. After being escorted out by school officials, Ricky’s father tells him to remember, “If you ain’t first, your last!” Which is a motto that he had lived by for quite some time. 

The movie advances to his early 20s, where he is a pit crew member for a NASCAR team. After coming in multiple laps down, the driver essentially forfeits the race, enabling Ricky to finish the race that he finished third in after overcoming a multiple-lap deficit to the cars on the lead lap; this begins Ricky’s accession to stardom. 

This star lifestyle was carried over to his two sons, whom we were first introduced to at the family dinner table afterward. Early on, you can tell they are pampered and given whatever they want as they talk about their day. His youngest son starts talking about pranks he pulled on his teacher and the vulgar, followed by Ricky’s oldest son talking about cruel pranks on his grandfather and neighbors. Once the grandfather responds, the entire family targets him for being upset, and Ricky says they can talk to him and do whatever they want because they are his sons. 

I mention his sons because they go through significant character development, as well as Ricky’s character development after getting in a bad wreck that had him out of races for quite some time. This led to him moving back into his mom’s house with the boys, where they could see structure, be punished, and go to church because their grandma would not deal with delinquents. This leads me to a scene where their grandmother drops “granny law.”  

Later in the movie, the boys are seen in the church choir and many other positive activities compared to what they were doing before the “granny law” scene. We can see the boys descend from money, which creates more structure and less freedom because they need it tremendously. However, this helped them morally and ethically to become upstanding young men. This is a prime example of Marxist themes as Ricky and his boys could see each social class's good, bad, and ugly.

Neo-Marxism and the Class Structure

 One of my favorite TV shows of all time, if not my favorite of all time is called Turn: Washington's Spies. The show is about the first ever American spy ring during the Revolutionary war. When looking at the show through a neo-Marxist perspective, the show reinforces the ideology of class structure. 

Sellnow states that "A neo-Marxist perspective helps expose how material conditions and economic practices shape dominant ideology regarding taken-for-granted assumptions about who '' ought to be'' and "ought not to be" empowered." The show follows several different people, all of which are in different classes. The main character is a poor farmer, his father is a wealthy judge, other main characters are soldiers, and the final main character works in a pub. My question I would like to pose is, Do people today still treat people differently based on their class?

Throughout the show we can see the neo-Marxist ideology that reinforces the class structure. The main character is usually treated below everyone because of his profession and his poor wealth. However, he is also treated differently when with his father who is treated with more respect and has more influence over people because of his wealth and his political profession. The soldiers who are lower ranks are treated differently than those with higher ranks, and usually those with higher ranks talk down to the soldiers that have lower ranks. 

In todays world, there is still a class structure, and we can see it. There is the upper class, middle upper class, middle class, and lower class. Just as in the show and following the ideology of class structure, the people in these classes are treated differently based on what class they are in, their profession, what they wear, what they drive, etc... There are many different things that people look at and based on that they could place you into a class structure and based on that, you could be treated differently. So does the class structure today still have that trickle down effect?

Marxism in This is England and why Shaun wants Doc Martens

While there are many examples of Marxism in pop-culture, I recently re-watched This Is England, directed by Shane Meadows, and thought it would be a great example to analyze through this lens. 

This British classic takes place in (you guessed it) England in 1983. During this time, Margaret Thatcher reigned in England and her ideology “Thatcherism” was on the rise. The country was facing economic hardships which meant unemployment was rising, industries were collapsing, and the entire country was being affected by Thatcher’s conservative policies. 

The film illustrates the struggles of the working class through the lens of a 12 year-old boy named Shaun. As if growing up in a broken society wasn’t bad enough, Shaun is also navigating life after the loss of his father in the Falkland War. This tragedy forces Shaun and his mother into the lower class and leads Shaun to feelings of alienation.

The reality of growing up in this community is harsh, and the film vividly captures the economic realities facing the working class at the time. Because of his social class, Shaun is constantly picked on at school for his baggy trousers and beat-up shoes. 

One of the Marxist theories present in the film is the role of consumerism in shaping the lives of the characters, especially Shaun. As he is struggling for a place to belong, he is befriended by a group of young adults who influence him into joining their skinhead gang. Skinheads were popular in England during this time because of their anti-authoritarian beliefs and working class pride (but let's be honest, the iconic fashion too).

Though the film primarily focuses on the social and political climate, the influence of material culture and the commodities of youth identity is evident. The fashion, shaved heads, and Doc Martens for instance, become much more than what they seem. They symbolize group membership, and act as a commodity in itself:

In Popular Culture: A Reader (edited by Omayra Zaragoza Cruz and Raiford Guins), Karl Marx’s Idea of commodity fetishism is explored and analyzed with a modern approach. These material items are not just bought because of their purpose, but for the cultural weight and status they represent. Shaun doesn’t just want Doc Martens because they’re durable– he wants them because they symbolize a social power and identity. 

I will be honest, watching this movie in high school influenced me into begging my parents for Doc Martens too… What was the last thing you purchased because of its commodity?

Marxism in this Three-Dimensional Animated Film

 

We have seen films that we easily spot Marxism on some of its scenes. We watched many cartoon films before, and seen three-dimensional (3D) animated films. Do you think Disney and DreamWorks cartoons and 3D animated films are just for fun to watch films? Well understand that there are cartoon films and 3D animated films from Disney and DreamWorks that may have scenes and storylines that are clearly associated with Marxism.

Shrek (2001) movie poster (IMDb, 2001).

Shrek (2001), by DreamWorks, is one of my favorite 3D animated movies that I have seen before. I chose this three-dimensional animated film for my analysis because this film is a best example of a film where some scenes are clearly associated with Marxism.

Sellnow (2010) describes Marxist perspectives focus on oppression and empowerment based on ethnicity, gender, and economic practices. I watched the scene where the Lord Farquaad’s army employs human villagers (which I see them as the lower class in the film) captures fairytale characters so they can get paid with coins.

Flying talking donkey scene (Ricknee 4ever, 2023)

This scene above defines Marxism because human characters believe fairytale characters are bad characters. I clarify that their belief towards fairytale characters associate with hegemony.

Lord Farquaad and gingerbread man scene (Ricknee 4ever, 2023)

This scene above where Lord Farquaad torturing gingerbread man. According to Sellnow (2010), hegemony is “privileging of a dominant cultural group’s ideology over that of other groups (p. 117). On the video above, Lord Farquaad says that gingerbread man is a trash to his surroundings. Just because gingerbread man is a fairytale mean a bad creature? Farquaad would say yes, however, I definitely say no. 

Sellnow (2010) defines that preferred reading “reinforces the status quo ideology about empowerment by proposing taken-for-granted assumptions as common sense” (p. 119). I noticed that the human characters in the movie believe that fairytale characters including Shrek, are not the same class and powerful as them. Another example is the video below showing Princess Fiona telling Shrek he is not powerful as the King.

 

Shrek forest scene (Ricknee 4ever, 2023)

Princess Fiona believes Shrek is not powerful as Farquaad? Oppositional reading would explain Shrek is powerful. Oppositional reading focuses on challenging the dominant ideology with regards to beliefs that are taken-for-granted about empowerment (Sellnow, 2010). Oppositional reading helped me learn that certain movie characters are misjudged because the one group of characters assume that the lower-class character means weaker character. However, oppositional reading clarifies that lower-class characters can be a hero on the movie. Shrek is the best example.

Overall, my analysis of Marxism in Shrek (2001) reveals that characters judge other characters based on their class, ethnicity, and gender.

Questions:

1.       If you have watched Shrek (2001) movie, what are the Marxism scenes you noticed that I did not discussed in this blog?

2.       What other cartoons and 3D animated films that you watched that have Marxism scenes similar to Shrek (2001) movie?

---

References:

Adamson, A. & Jenson, V. (Directors). (2001). Shrek [Film]. Dreamworks Pictures.

IMDb. (2001, May 18). Shrek. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126029/

Ricknee 4Ever. (2023, July 24). Shrek (2001) Flying Talking Donkey Scene [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hanVpkY5u0

Ricknee 4Ever. (2023b, October 13). Shrek (2001) Forest Scene [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7IS_3UY-a4

Ricknee 4Ever. (2023a, July 7). Shrek (2001) Meet Lord Farquaad Scene [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dzeg-2Wa0c

Sellnow, D. (2010). The Rhetorical Power of Popular Culture: Considering Mediated Texts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.