I was at odds with myself while reading the various points about the two schools of thought regarding the culture industry. I feel like the Frankfurt school has an overly pessimistic view of humanity and its entertainment, though I do admit that I agree to an extent that a LOT of our entertainment is shallow, formulaic, and really only gets produced to make money. But on the other hand, I do believe that humanity has created beautiful, meaningful things that provide enrichment and encourage further creativity in the masses.
An example that aligns more with the Frankfurt school is an infamous memo by Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner:
"We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective."
Yikes, right? I mean, we all know that a company must make money to exist, but it kind of feels like the quality family entertainment was only created to make us get out our wallets, and may even diminish one’s own remembered experience of enjoying the movie. Interestingly though, while Eisner was CEO, Disney released new classic after new classic for a number of years. So, again, I’m at odds with myself in deciding where I land with the Frankfurt School - quality and meaningful art was created, but not for the sake of art, but for the sake of money.
On the other hand, I do believe that people in the business of making money for corporations can also authentically want to create meaningful content for the masses. I doubt that the director of The Lion King thought “Well, the movie is stupid, but it will bring a profit…” I believe that the aura of authentic content can inspire others and lead to new and fun entertainment. An example of this is the use of classical music in advertising. We tend to associate classical music with intelligence and high class, so it is funny when commercials set regular items to grand classical music, such as was mentioned in our readings. I remember "Ode to Joy" in a commercial for Blockbuster or some other rental store where a choir sang the word "Movies" to the epic music, and other ads for both pork and beef that use classical music. (Pork gets the more classy treatment and beef is more adventurous, because obviously!)
This trend even got a little meta, with DeBeers jewelry producing commercials with an allegretto quartet akin to Vivaldi. The "classical music" though, was written in the 90s, creating a kind of ironic, but lovely, new song. That song in itself has been covered by all sorts of music acts since then and has become something of a modern classic itself.
What are some popular movies or music that you think are examples of studio money-makers but that still feel authentic and important? What makes you think so? (And there are no wrong answers!)
I enjoyed your post immensely. I, too, find myself confused as to where I land with the two schools of thought regarding the culture industry. I can’t help but think that acting, drama, and the desire to make something artful and meaningful play an equally significant role in movie making as does making money. Obviously, money goes into producing a movie and that money needs to be recouped. Movie making enterprises need to do more than break even and it is understandable that they seek to get a return on their investment (ROI). That being stated, to appeal to the masses and put out garbage assumes that as individuals, we in the masses will pay money for anything.
ReplyDeleteI think movie makers know that as consumers, we have at least a decent amount of intelligence and desire for artful quality.
Many movies that have been made and released prove this point, in my opinion. An example is Shawshank Redemption, one of my all-time favorite movies. This movie was considered to be a disappointment when it comes to the amount of money it made. However, it is now considered a classic and has received critical acclaim. Prison dramas were known to not be so profitable, but the movie was produced, nonetheless. Could it be that the message of the movie and getting that out among the masses was a notable and driving motive for making this movie? The movie is a resounding testament to hope and friendship, which humanity needs. Maybe “Hollywood” cared about this?
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies". "Get busy living or get busy dying".
Ok, first, as an aside, I was a teen in the 90s, and I remember that De Beers commercial! I LOVED it, and it definitely struck a chord (no pun intended) with me.
ReplyDeleteI was young and in love with love, and that galloping, twitterpated music released all the feel-good chemicals in my brain. Whenever that commercial came on the television, I would tell everyone in the house to hush, so I could enjoy it thoroughly and without distraction. Affective advertising.
Now on to your larger point – is the entertainment industry all about art, or money? As someone who has worked in the entertainment industry for most of her adult life, I can say with assuredness, it is both. Certainly there are cookie cutter films, shows, music, etc., made quickly and hastily and only to make a profit, and they HAVE TO make a profit, because spending a gazillion dollars to produce a product that doesn’t generate any revenue is not a good business model. And soon that business will cease to exist.
But having worked with many writers, actors, producers, I can attest that there are MANY people within the entertainment industry who are driven by story, by craft, by the impetus to CREATE.
Sure, the system dictates that products like film and television shows need to conform to certain standards and ideals. But there are rule-breakers who shake things up (Quentin Tarantino comes to mind – his stuff was DIFFERENT when it first hit the entertainment scene).
And while most people don’t scoff at making large sums of money, the vaaaast majority of folks in the entertainment industry are not raking it in. Most are “starving artists,” doing what they do for the love of their art. And because they can’t NOT do it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou are speaking my language right now, because I have a lot of thoughts about the Disney company and their cash grab films, and their classics. I have actually worked for the Disney company a couple of times and it is so interesting to be on the inside and get a little more insight on how the company works. They have always relied on nostalgia and reputation for revenue, and if they continue to pump out garbage films they will not be able to count on those things in the coming decades. What is wild to me, is that when Disney takes a chance on something a little weird and experimental, they can come up with some seriously fun plots and characters. I want to use Ratatouille as an example because the premise is absolutely insane, and at the time the merchandise element of it was tricky. Disney didn't think anyone would just be buying rat figurines. I did just return from home goods with a soup bowl with Remy on it though so say what you will. My main point is that if Disney and other companies focused more on making quality, thought out content, the money will come and will continue to come for a long time. It is true that the masses can be fickle, but time will tell what really had the chops to stand out.
ReplyDelete