Art and Money in Movies

Here is a draft of the article I have written about how business is portrayed in film.
In general, films reflect the struggle between artists and capitalists. Filmmakers are not anti-business, but they like what they see as the creative side of business, not the constraints capitalists place on creativity. My first few posts list categories of films based on the article. More recent posts follow up on some points in the article, including those raised by visitors and by current events and films. I also devote some posts to specific films. Thanks to The Internet Movie Database for the links. By the way, that guy on the left is not me.

The evil that business does.

Films showing business as destructive or evil

Erin Brockovich (2000)
Civil Action (2000)
The Insider (1999)
China Syndrome (1979)
Silkwood (1983)

The cold-hearted capitalist

Money has no soul.

Dinner at Eight (1933)
This Gun for Hire (1942)
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
Force of Evil (1948)
I Walk Alone (1948)
The Wages of Fear (1953)
Executive Suite (1954)
Atlantic City (1980)
Aliens (1986)
Wall Street (1987)
Other People’s Money (1991)
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
Titanic (1997)
The Perfect Storm (2000)
Sabrina (1954).
The Tall T (1957)

Employees and bosses

Films showing employees' struggle to preserve their souls.

Double Indemnity (1944)
The Big Clock (1948)
The Big Carnival (aka Ace in the Hole) (1951)
The Big Knife (1955)
The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (1956)
Patterns (1956)
The Apartment (1960)
Save the Tiger (1973)
Glengarry Glen Ross (1993)
Disclosure (1994)
The Insider (1999)
Quiz Show (1994).
Boiler Room (2000)
Office Space (1999).

Shareholders vs. managers

Is capital the enemy?

Solid Gold Cadillac (1956)
Wall Street (1987)
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)

The good business

According to Hollywood, some business is actually good. The characteristics of the good firm, like those of bad firms, suggest filmmakers' preference for art over money. In these firms, capital takes a back seat to, or lives in harmony with, workers or artists.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)
Executive Suite
Charley Varrick (1973)
Heaven Can Wait (1978)
Tucker: The Man and His Dream (1988)
Do the Right Thing (1989)
You’ve Got Mail (1998)
Cast Away (2000)
Jerry Maguire (1996)


The bad artist.

Films' view of artists depends on whether they are selling out to the capitalists.

Sullivan's Travels (1941)
Sunset Blvd. (1950)
Ace in the Hole (1951)
All the President's Men (1976)
Year of Living Dangerously (1982)
Pale Rider (1985)
Eight Men Out (1988)
Barton Fink (1991)
Big Night (1996)
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
The Insider (1999)
Any Given Sunday (1999)
The Replacements (2000)
Quiz Show
Fistful of Dollars (1964)
For a Few Dollars More (1965)
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
Seven Samurai (1954)
The Player (1992)

Wealth-creation vs. Zero-Sum

Business is often viewed as a “zero sum game,” in which money into one pocket necessarily comes from another.

Rogue Trader (1999)
Trading Places (1983)

Some questions about business in films

Here are some of the top questions I've gotten from visitors and readers in the couple of months since I first posted my blog and article. I've attempted to respond to all of these points in my article, but I'm sure many will have their own ideas:

1. Are filmmakers really different from other artists? Artists in general might be expected to rebel at the constraints on their creative spirit imposed by markets in general, and capital markets in particular.

2. Are big-budget films likely to be more, or less, anti-capital than smaller, independent films?

3. Has films' attitude toward business changed over time? For example, are films less anti-business now than they use to be as big films increasingly are made by large conglomerates?

How do current films deal with business?

My article and blog range through movie history, in no particular order. I tend not to see movies until they appear on DVD or cable. This means that I'm lagging the most recent trends. What do you, my visitors, think about the current crop of holiday movies? I don't see an obvious trend, except that business doesn't seem to play a very large role. But possibly there are some less obvious examples. For example, Matrix Revolutions (and, for that matter, the whole Matrix series) would seem to be a comment on increasing "corporate" control of our consciousness. What do you think?

Forbes survey

Forbes’ story on “The Ten Greatest Business Movies” and related stories on Forbes.com, says a lot about films’ attitude toward business. The top ten were: Citizen Kane, The Godfather: Part II, It's a WonderfulLife, The Godfather, Network, The Insider, Glengarry Glen Ross, Wall Street, Tin Men, Modern Times. I discuss these films in the latest version of my article.

This film list provides new fodder for my theory. My thesis, again, is that, while films usually portray business in a bad light, they do not really say that business is bad. After all, the films most of us see are produced by big businesses.

More precisely, films are made by people working in these businesses. Filmmakers see themselves as artists, the latest in a long line from cave painters through Michelangelo. Yet, unlike many artists, filmmakers’ art is so costly that films cannot get made without lots of money. Filmmakers must get this money from capitalists, who, in turn, must sell tickets. Because film artists resent their shackles, they often show struggling workers, greedy capitalists, and heroic artists. “Good” businesses are those where the artistic types have the upper hand, and bad businesses are those where the artists have lost.

In other words, films see firms from the cramped perspective of the assembly line or the cubicle. From way out in Hollywood, firms often seem like beehives or rabbit warrens, unfit for human habitation. We don’t see what businesses actually do – create social wealth and meaningful jobs, and provide means for all of our ends, from writing articles to. . . making movies. In fact, businesses couldn’t succeed in the long run if they ignored the needs of their workers and customers.

A companion Forbes article discussing the making of a television movie about Enron suggests that the medium is the message. In other words, films have to approach business as they do to make money. For example, the audience identifies most easily with the underdog, so the Forbes articles says that the Enron movie will tell the story from the perspective of a young worker fresh out of business school – “a rat’s eye view of the Titanic.”

But this can’t be the whole story. Film is a remarkably flexible medium that can tell any story – from the lowly assembly line worker in Modern Times to the rich and powerful Charles Foster Kane. If it can describe the intricacies of the mob customs and practices in the Godfather and many other movies, it can describe the intricacies of doing business. Indeed, many films do this, from salesmen in Glengarry Glen Ross and Tin Men, to currency trading in Rogue Trader and securities trading in Wall Street and Boiler Room. Even the package delivery business had its day in Cast Away.

True, it helps to move things along if people are getting killed, but that isn’t essential to a great and popular movie. Of the Forbes top ten business movies, killings are featured only in the two Godfather films. If you want drama, it doesn’t have to be worker vs. boss – it could be a businessman building a business from scratch as in Citizen Kane.

Back to the top ten list and what it reveals. Two deal with the artist’s role as social conscience. In Network, an anchorman breaks out of the capitalist straightjacket the network has him in, while in The Insider the CBS people do not always act so courageously. Six of the ten films deal with oppressed or morally challenged workers – the two just discussed plus Modern Times, Tin Men, Glengarry Glen Ross, and Wall Street.

Although Citizen Kane and the Godfather movies might be seen as the rare films that show what it takes to build a business, they don’t paint a pretty picture. The ingredients don’t include insight and creativity, and the result isn’t a better society. Kane inherits his money and his first newspaper. He builds his fame and greater wealth on dubious yellow journalism, along the way acquiring megalomania, and losing all of his friends. The oppressed worker in his firm, his long-time friend played by Joseph Cotton, gets to make a last stand against his boss by panning Kane’s girlfriend’s opera debut.

In the Godfather movies the formula for success includes murder and, in the case of the family’s brush with the film business, the severed head of a race horse. Most notably, in a move echoed more recently by The Sopranos, these films suggest important parallels between the Corleones’ businesses and the legitimate business they hope to be, except that the mob “firms” are more family-friendly, principled and exciting places to work.

Only It’s a Wonderful Life holds out some real hope for business on screen. Made by Frank Capra, one of Hollywood’s rare Republicans, Wonderful Life is about a socially responsible bank executive who does good for society. But Stewart is good not necessarily as a businessman, but as a person who happens to be a businessman.

Films’ treatment of business has significant social implications. Movies are very influential. They might explain why people are so ready to accept more business regulation whenever anything goes wrong, despite the fact that we know that legislators and regulators are also flawed. After decades of business-unfriendly movies, we assume that business cannot be trusted.

To provide a mechanism for thinking about these issues, I propose an alternative to the Forbes poll – a poll of the most, and least, business friendly movies. FWIW, my nominee for the most business-friendly movie is Other People’s Money. For the least, Glengarry Glen Ross.

My top almost 10 lists

Here's my response to Forbes list of top ten business films: the 8 most business-friendly films, and the 10 least business-friendly, both in alphabetical order. Why only 8 of the former? Couldn't think of any more in that category, and I had to stretch to think of 8. I had plenty in the second camp. The films are discussed in my article, linked in the "about" space on the left panel. Any questions?

Most business friendly

Cast Away
Do the Right Thing
Executive Suite
It's a Wonderful Life
Other People's Money
One Two Three
Solid Gold Cadillac
You've Got Mail

Least business friendly

China Syndrome
Erin Brockovich
Glengarry Glen Ross
The Hudsucker Proxy
The Insider
Quiz Show
Roger and Me
Save the Tiger
Silkwood
Wall Street

Why focus on American films?

Many non-U.S. films deal with the theme I highlight – the relationship between capital and labor. I discuss the French film Wages of Fear (1953) in my paper as a good example of a cold-hearted capitalist, sending workers down a rough mountain road with a truckload of nitroglycerin.

The British film I’m All Right Jack (1959) is one of the most cynical satires on the labor-management relationship ever made in any country. In that film, everybody is bad – from the evil capitalist Tracepurcel (Dennis Price) who plans on a strike to make a killing on an Arab arms deal, to Fred Kite (Peter Sellers), the shop steward who is always more than ready to get a strike going.

But, as I say in the paper: “this article focuses on peculiarly American causes and effects.” Every culture has peculiarities that are reflected in its films. Most importantly, the subject of my paper is the resentment of the artist in a capital-dominated industry.

One would expect at least two types of differences in countries where films are less capital-intensive or government plays a bigger role in funding. Artists who are less bound to the market are less likely to resent its constraints, but more likely to be contemptuous of it. Obviously these factors cut in opposite ways, but I am guessing that the first dominates.

In any event, we see only a subset of films made in other countries. This is not a random sample, but rather films made for the export market. Thus, I do not feel comfortable making generalizations about films from other countries.

Comments?

Film of the day: The Fugitive

I’m going to try to do an occasional (daily?) feature on films about business.

Today’s feature is The Fugitive (1993). I choose this because it shows how unexpectedly the themes in my paper can pop up. [Spoiler] In the film version of the famous TV series, the one-armed man who killed Kimble’s (Harrison Ford’s) wife works for a drug company that sought to cover forged test results in pursuit of obscene profits. There is a scene where the U.S. Marshall pursuing Kimble (Tommy Lee Jones) comments on the obscene profits of drug companies. All of this is so striking because it seems so superfluous to the plot, the dramatic tension, character, or anything else. I would have been surprised to see similar things in the advertising-supported network television show on which the movie was based (or now, for that matter).

Markets and "taste"

God of the machine makes a good observation about the Forbes list and my take on it – that Hollywood sees the “bad” business as producing schlock. This reinforces my point that filmmakers see themselves as artists beleaguered by the capitalists. Godofthemachine also correctly observes that Hollywood misunderstands and underestimates the power of markets to sort the schlock from the quality, so that quality can produce profits after all. So far so good.

But gotm makes another point that I question: “Bad art makes more money than good art, in general because bad taste is more prevalent than good taste, and in the specific case of movies because the audience for them is overwhelmingly young, and the taste of the average adolescent is even worse than that of the average adult. These are depressing facts if you work in the taste business.”

There are two things wrong with this statement, in my view. First, markets are not necessarily antithetical to culture and taste, as Tyler Cowen usefully shows in his In Praise of Commercial Culture. Even filmmakers recognize this, as in the examples gotm cites, Executive Suite, Tucker and Sabrina.

In Executive Suite, the Holden character defeats the short-sighted Frederick March character by arguing that quality does produce profit in the long run, exactly what the filmmakers would like to argue to their moneymen. Tucker was brought down, not by markets, but by government in league with politically powerful competitors. More about Sabrina in a minute.

Second, and more importantly, markets are useful because they give people what they want, even if the elites would prefer to live in a world where the public only gets what they, the elites, want. The William Holden character in Executive Suite was wrong in believing, not that quality sells, but that a world in which schlock also sells is somehow a bad one.

In Holden’s dramatic scene, he easily smashes the cheap “KF” line chair that Frederick March wants to sell. Surely, he argues, the Treadway company would not want to be known for such a product, and its workers would be ashamed to make it. But what’s so wrong with making furniture, or anything else, that people who don’t make a lot of money can buy? I’m struck by this every time I go to Wal-Mart or Las Vegas. The elites, including the filmmakers, may look down at this end of the market, but I see a kind of beauty in markets that can serve a variety of tastes. As did the Humphrey Bogart character in Sabrina when he extolled the beneficial effects of business to his brother, played by William Holden (another love letter to business by Billy Wilder, who in his early life saw what many Americans have not -- just how bad the world was outside the “crass” American culture where elites had all the power).

Do movies bash government?

Kaimi Wenger suggests that films may balance their negative view of business with an equally negative view of government. He mentions Dr. Strangelove (1964), The Manchurian Candidate (1962), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975); All the President's Men (1976); The Way We Were (1973).

I present the contrary view in my article that the government is the heavy mainly in the post-Watergate era (e.g., All the President’s Men and The Parallax View (1974)), and then often the point seems to be to show the crusading and virtuous artist, usually a journalist, at work. To these we might add the most entertaining of all – Capricorn One (1978) (another crusading journalist film; this time the mission to Mars is a hoax).

Films dealing with government are of many kinds – the U.S. government as the good guy, as in many war and spy films; the right wing as the bad guys (Manchurian Candidate); politicians can’t be trusted (The Candidate (1972)); the government isn’t doing enough to stop evil business (Erin Brockovich); or the government as incompetent (Dr. Strangelove).

The absence of a consistent theme is not surprising, since the government is us, for good or bad. People who work for the government are mostly like us. At least, in a democracy, we select and are responsible for them. The capitalists, on the other hand, are not like us – they’re rich. In the popular view, which ignores capital markets, we have no role in selecting them.

This comparison between the portrayals of business and government is important. An implication of the negative portrayal of business is that government should do something about it. That's acceptable as long as government is viewed as good, or at least benign.

A New Year's message

In the philosophical vein that some of us associate with The New Year, I offer some answers to a couple of burning questions.

First, why does it matter what movies say about business?

Answer:

(1) Capitalism is a major force for good in the world today, liberating people by giving them the means to decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives.

(2) The dark side of capitalism is that it doesn’t work for everybody. But the freedom to win necessarily entails the freedom to lose. Many people don’t understand this.

(3) The great businesses focus on long-term profit maximization, not the betterment of humanity as seen by managers whose sole credential for recognizing same is a b-school course on corporate social responsibility. Many people don’t understand this.

(4) When, year after year, some of our most popular films and non-advertising-supported cable television shows hammer home the message that unalloyed capitalism is bad, this accords with the intuitions of many workers, consumers and even managers, and makes over-regulation of business politically palatable.

(5) Knowledge is power. Recognizing this theme and removing its artistic wrapping reduces its effect. It would be even better, but possibly too much to hope for, if some films presented a different message.

Next question: Why don't I blog about other things?

Answer: Because plenty of other people do, but nobody, as far as I know, is writing about this.

There you have it. Happy New Year!

Films we don't see very often

A resourceful entrepreneur builds a successful business from the ground up, overcoming market skepticism, government opposition and personal adversity, eventually providing jobs and wealth.

While we do see them occasionally, there's usually something wrong with the entrepreneur (e.g., can get money but not love). Or the story is only a sidelight to the main action.

Some examples follow (any others?). Note that only one shows the hero-entrepreneur in his full glory, and in it evil corporations brought the hero down. Also, all but two were based directly on well-known non-film sources.

Gone with the Wind (1939).
Bright Leaf (1950).
Giant (1956).
Citizen Kane (1941).
The Magnificent Ambersons (1942).
Tucker: The Man and His Dream (1988).

Film of the day: The Godfather

The Godfather (1972) and The Godfather: Part II (1974) might seem like movies about crime, but they are actually films about business and capitalism.

Robert Evans, producer of The Godfather, has said (The Kid Stays in the Picture, 2002), that though he wanted Coppola for the movie just because he was Italian (and therefore presumably could bring authenticity), Coppola did not want to do an “Italian” movie that emphasized the mob. Rather, he wanted to do a movie about “the story of capitalism in America.”

The Godfather was, indeed, the first film that showed the mob as genuine protagonists, basically like everybody else, including business people, except for the minor point that they killed people. The Corleone family moves from Vito’s sole proprietorship stage, built on personal relationships and trust, to Michael’s coldly efficient capital-driven model.

Coppola’s less-than-favorable view of capitalism and how it ultimately distorts the creative process is on display elsewhere. Tucker: The Man and His Dream (1988) is really about Coppola's efforts to make his own films without interference from money men like Evans, and build his own studio. In The Conversation (1974), Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) does an unsavory eavesdropping job for a shadowy businessman called "The Director" (Robert Duvall), but gets in trouble when he doesn't stick to his assigned task.

Coppola got his point about capital across in The Godfather although that was far from Evans’ mind. As I argue in my article, the money people cut the filmmakers slack about the message as long as the message doesn't get in the way of making money.

Film of the day: Pretty Woman

Pretty Woman (1990) might be the clearest of the film condemnations of the cold-hearted capitalist. Edward Lewis (Richard Gere) is, at least at the beginning, an icy takeover specialist, a la Larry (the Liquidator) Garfield in Other People’s Money (released as a film the following year, but already a popular play) and Gordon Gekko in Wall Street. He has no time for his girlfriend, or even to wait for the valet to get his own car, so he takes his lawyer’s (Phil Stuckey, played by Jason Alexander) Lotus, and gets lost on Hollywood Blvd. There he tries to get directions from Vivian Ward (Julia Roberts), a hooker who charges even for this service.

We already have met Vivian, and know she’s a good sort who really needs the money because her roommate has spent the rent on drugs. We also know that she has to fend for herself – she doesn’t want a pimp to run her life.

Vivian ends up staying the night in Edward’s palatial penthouse hotel room, and then the week with Edward, who “rents” her to fill a female slot in his life without the complications that Edward has been getting from his non-paid girlfriends and ex-wife. So Vivian wants to be an independent contractor rather than an employee, while Edward is looking for an employee to replace the independent women he has had to deal with. They negotiate this like business transaction it is – she offers $4,000, he counters with $2,000, and they settle for $3,000 (the original working title of the film).

During this week, Edward is trying to buy a piece of Long Beach from its owner, Jim Morse (Ralph Bellamy) to turn into a residential development. The problem is that the property already has a shipbuilding factory with employees who would be thrown out of work. Edward, being a cold-hearted capitalist, doesn’t care about the employees. Morse is hoping to get a Navy ship order from the government, but Edward has used his contact with Senator Adams (Stacey Keach Sr) to find out that this is buried in appropriations.

Edward has dinner with Morse and his grandson during which he makes his liquidation plan clear, to their chagrin and strong opposition. Morse points out that Edward’s father, though also a capitalist, was a better person.

Edward describes to Vivian what he does as not actually making or building anything, just buying property and selling it. She says that it’s like stealing cars and selling them for parts, except that it’s legal. As in other films (see The Godfather) crime is no different from legal business.

During this week, Vivian proceeds to remake Edward in her fun-loving image. At breakfast, the morning after the pickup, Edward is such a remarkably uptight capitalist that he complains about Vivian sitting on his fax on the table right in front of him rather than further away in a chair. He almost kicks her out the night before because he thinks she has drugs in the bathroom (it’s really dental floss!). Vivian, meanwhile, is a fun-loving frolic. (An unusual aspect of the film is that we see televisions playing the actresses on whom Julia Roberts seems to have modeled her performances – Lucille Ball in I Love Lucy and Audrey Hepburn in Charade (1963), opposite Cary Grant).

The film’s characters are firmly placed in categories that should sound familiar to readers of my article. Edward and his lawyer Phil are cold-hearted capitalists, just as are the pimps that Vivian refuses to entangle herself with. (Although in this film, the capitalist actually comes out looking better than the lawyer. This is signaled early in the film when Vivian says that Edward looks like a lawyer because he has that “sharp useless look” lawyers have.) Morse and his grandson are capitalists of the worker-friendly sort. The others are the workers who must slave for the capitalists – Vivian and her roommate and fellow prostitute, Barney Thompson (Hector Elizondo), the hotel manager who must keep his prized guest and his guest’s whore happy, and the sales people in the dress shop where Edward buys clothes for Vivian. (Edward says “stores are never nice to people, they’re nice to credit cards.”)

Although Edward likes to compare himself with Vivian – he says “You and I are such similar creatures – we both screw people for money,” tells Phil that Vivian is “in sales,” and describes her turf on Hollywood Blvd as her “office” – in fact they’re obviously very different, since one is the capitalist and the other is the worker.

Eventually, though, Vivian turns Edward into a capitalist of the good, worker-friendly, sort. After a few days with Vivian he’s remembering his creative self – playing the piano, playing with blocks. He tells Phil, “You know what’s wrong with us – we don’t make anything.” Phil responds that they make money, but that’s obviously not good enough.

Moreover, we even find out why Edward was such a cold-hearted capitalist – he hated his father, who left Edward’s mother. That’s why Edward bought his first company – to throw his father out of a job. Apparently he went on getting back at his father by destroying other companies and jobs. Then he was estranged from his father, and his father died. Now he sees old Morse as his father, and an opportunity to make up for all the bad things he did in his life.

Eventually Edward offers a real romantic relationship to Vivian, and helps Morse get his defense contract to build ships. Edward says it was “a business decision.” Vivian says, “it was good.” Edward says, “it felt good.”

But Phil, who thinks it’s enough to make money, is left as the unreconstructed cold-hearted capitalist. He can’t think of Vivian as anything other than a hooker, and makes a repulsive attempt to rape her when they are alone in Edward’s hotel room.

It is no secret who the audience is supposed to like – elegantly handsome Richard Gere (Tibetan activist, once voted “Sexiest Man Alive”), or Phil, played by bald, short (four inches shorter than Julia Roberts) Jason Alexander, one of the few people less sexy than Danny De Vito, and who went on to play nerdy George on Seinfeld.

Not that the audience ever had a real choice, since cute, perky Audrey Hepburn/Lucille Ball/Julia Roberts is making the real decisions. The cold-hearted capitalists are one-dimensional clowns, while the workers and the reformed warm-hearted capitalists are all beautiful people.

If the film left us any room to think, we might ask whether the original Edward and Phil really were such bad people. If the Long Beach property is worth more as a residential development than as a shipyard, then this does say something about whether society is better off if Edward buys it. This seems even more obvious here than in Wall Street and Other People’s Money, since the competing use isn’t even provided by the market, but rather by the government. We have regressed in industrial history from cable (Other People’s Money) and airplanes (Wall Street) to boats. During this late-80’s period, Hollywood sees the government as better than business even when it is building destroyers.

Finally, the attitudes on display in this film are more obviously those of the artist behind the film than they may be in other projects. The artist in question was a previously struggling writer, J.F. Lawton, who had previously made one film, Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death (1989), and obviously was fairly far down on the artist/capitalist food chain when Pretty Woman came along (he went on to write Under Siege).

A side trip into academia

I have tried not to be too academic in my article or blog, but just so I don't appear too ignorant, I thought I'd mention that I'm aware that there's a lot of writing on law and film as a subset of law and literature. I don’t discuss any of it in my article yet, but plan to. I have been trying to get a handle on how it relates to my particular concerns.

Some of this work plainly does not. For example, there is work on how lawyers’ arguments to juries have followed the structure of cinematic narrative (see Philip N. Meyer, "Desperate for Love": Cinematic Influences Upon a Defendant's Closing Argument to a Jury, 18 Vermont Law Review 721 (1994)). (See also Theodore Dreiser, American Tragedy.) But it does not relate to my work, which attempts to show how film creates a public image of business. Nor does work that attempts to use art, including film, to demonstrate themes in law school and law practice. There, film is more like a blackboard than a force in itself.

Closer to my work, there is much writing on how various topics have been portrayed in film, most importantly, law and the legal profession: John Denvir (ed.), Legal Reelism: Movies as Legal Texts (1996); Bergman and Asimow, Reel Justice: The Courtroom Goes To The Movies (1996); The Lawyer in Popular Culture: A Bibliography, available at http://www.law.utexas.edu/lpop/lpopbib2.htm; Michael Asimow, Bad Lawyers in the Movies, 24 Nova Law Review 533 (2000). The latter harks to the data-driven approach advocated by Anthony Chase, Toward a Legal Theory of Popular Culture, 1986 Wisc. L. Rev. 527 (1986).

Most of this work merely shows that social attitudes show up in film, as they do in other art forms. There is nothing special about film (though Asimow does argue that film shows lawyers more negatively than television because of the latter’s need to develop sympathetic recurring characters). My theory shows how movies’ message arises from the peculiarities of the film industry. This suggests that film influences attitudes rather than vice versa. Moreover, films’ approach to business cannot necessarily be attributed to the inherent shortcomings of business.

Ironically, while much of the film/narrative writing shows how film perpetuates oppression (e.g., by suggesting the inferiority of women or racial minorities, or understating the horrors of prisons or the death penalty), my article shows how film overstates the evil of the supposed oppressor – that is, the large corporation. Maybe it’s the beginning of a critical legal studies for the right.

Film of the day: El Mariachi

El Mariachi (1992) interests me because it was such a landmark of independent filmmaking – made as virtually a one-man effort for $7,000 by a 24-year-old Texan (Robert Rodriguez) (plus $200,000 post-production), it made over $2 million. (Though the film was made in Mexico and in Spanish, I’m counting it as an American film because made by an American who has since spent his career in the US film industry).

A question I raise in my paper is whether a filmmaker’s ability to work for little money without capitalists looking over his shoulder is likely to affect his view of capitalists. I see this as an important issue because digital filmmaking and Internet distribution might actually make these working conditions a realistic possibility.

On the evidence of this film, it seems the answer is that the new economics of filmmaking might affect part, but not all, of the message. In the film, the eponymous hero (Carlos Gallardo) just wants to travel from town to town to sing his simple poetry accompanied by his acoustic guitar. But the capitalists (i.e., the bar owners) prefer one-man electrified bands and their tacky contemporary music.

This may be more a comment about modern tastes than about capital. But, after all, the problem with capital constraints is that they force obedience to these tastes.

El Mariachi ultimately loses his love, his guitar, and his ability to make music because of a vicious drug lord. Our hero takes his dead girlfriend’s motorcycle (given her by the drug lord) and takes off down the road, bent for a life of violence.

In the film there are two guitar cases. One holds el Mariachi's guitar, the other holds guns. When the powers that be take the art, the artist is left only with violence. So it’s hard to make art in this world – maybe not because of capitalists, but always because of their close kin, the rich and powerful.

Ironically, after his success with this film, Rodriguez was able to get lots of money to make movies. He went on to make violent John Woo-type films – Desperados (1995) and Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003), and From Dusk to Dawn (1996), a vampire western.

Another film of the day: Martha, Inc.: The Story of Martha Stewart

I wanted to see the tv movie Martha, Inc.: The Story of Martha Stewart (2003) because, given the currency of the Martha Stewart trial, I was thinking about the effect of film in shaping public policy toward business.

But the film also provided some insight into how television films differ from theatrical releases in their view of business. My theory is that capitalists tend to be treated better in television films because tv filmmakers can’t make the people they sell ads to look too bad.

Indeed, this film is not really about the evils of business. In fact, it’s a rare film that actually takes a close look at the painstaking building of a business, and shows that this storyline can have dramatic potential.

Sure, it’s not a flattering portrait of Martha Stewart. But rather than indicting business, it criticizes Martha on the soap opera level – as a helpless prisoner of her obsessive need for perfection, who did it all to impress her cold, perfectionist father. She asks, “Why is being successful suddenly a bad thing. . .” Answer: she committed the television sin of a woman forsaking her husband and family.

Here it isn’t the capitalists who are evil. Rather, they are helpless at the onslaught of a relentless sole proprietor – the sort of independent business person that filmmakers usually love.

As for shaping public policy, if the Martha Stewart jurors saw this movie, I’m not sure whether they would conclude that Martha is the sort of driven person who would lie to save her business, or simply feel sorry for her.

A postscript: The World of the Future

From Star Trek: First Contact (1996)--

Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart): In the 24th century, men won’t work for money, they will work for the good of society.

Dr. Zefram Cochrane (James Cromwell), inventor of a warp drive in the 21st century that saves humanity: I didn’t do this to make history, I did it to make money.

A mixed message. Is this attributable to the television origins of this film, and to the fact that its writers, Roddenberry and Berman, also wrote for the television show? Or is it just intended to show how much man has progressed in 300 years?

Movie of the day: Robocop

With all the talk of Passion of the Christ, we must remember that it’s been done before. I mean, of course, Robocop. I discuss it here because the film (directed very cannily by Dutch director Paul Verhoeven, who gave us Soldier of Orange), stripped of its religious trappings, is at heart a parable about the evils of business.

The film presents the ultimate business dystopia. Society is breaking down, and business is at least partly to blame. It has abandoned Motor City, leaving an empty hulk of an automobile plant and a vat of very vile sludge. It has created a mindless commercial culture. Anchor androids smilingly deliver news of horrible catastrophes (Star Wars lasers run amuck, killing a hundred people in Santa Barbara, home of two ex-presidents). A grotesquely tacky vaudeville character seems always to be on the television endlessly repeating “I’ll buy that for a dollar” to canned laughers who never weary of it. Advertisers hawk the latest ugly American car, the subtly named SUX 6000 (which does look disturbingly like a current version of the Chevy Monte Carlo). It’s a world only P.K. Dick could love (and in fact he wrote the story for Total Recall, Verhoeven’s next movie, with similar anti-consumerist images).

Government is too weak to do anything about this. It can’t put criminals in jail because scummy lawyers bleat about civil liberties. Taxpayers won’t or can’t pay the cops, so they’re not there when they’re needed and are outgunned by the bad guys. So government needs to call in the evil corporations to bail it out. The corporations have already replaced the non-profits – artificial heart transplants are advertised like breakfast cereal.

Omni Consumer Products (OCP) operates the Detroit police department. The CEO is the Old Man (Dan O’Herlihy), an older, more traditional, businessman who still cares a little about humans. But the real boss is the colorfully named Dick Jones (Ronny Cox), a ruthless business jerk in the modern mold. Jones plans to replace the human element in law enforcement with a really scary robot, the ED 209. But ED has to be sidelined when it suffers a little glitch and turns a junior executive into smoking rubble in the board room. Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer), a slimy up and comer, has his own plan: turn a dead human cop into a cyborg. Jones and his ED 209 are pushed aside, waiting their turn.

So in addition to all the religion, we have the devolution of the firm, from the vaguely human Old Man and his human cops, to the merely slimy Morton and his partly human cop, to the nonhuman Jones and his completely metal toy.

Good cop Murphy (Peter Weller) is slowly slaughtered by mean mobster Boddicker (Kurtwood Smith), who even nails a bullet in the suffering cop’s hand. OCP resurrects Murphy as software in shiny Robocop. Robocop is part human and part savior, but to OCP he’s “just product.” OCP would rather the human part were just programming, but unfortunately it won’t stay in its place. After he is recognized by Officer Anne Lewis (Mary Magdalen?), Murphy’s former partner, Robo becomes human again.

We ultimately learn that Jones and Boddicker are partners: Jones and OCP are going to create a huge construction project, Boddicker will supply vice to the workforce, and ED 209 will provide the muscle to pull it all together. It will be the apotheosis of the integrated firm, running everything from crime to enforcement.

Clearly mankind must be saved by keeping humans in control. Robocop takes his helmet and visor off and becomes Murphy again. Robocop and Anne then defeat ED 209 and its evil creator Jones. The good guys win by taking the inhumanity out of the corporation and restoring the Old Man to power. Jones has had Robocop programmed with Directive 4: he cannot harm an officer of OCP. In a kind of benignly hostile takeover, the Old Man fires Jones as an officer so Robocop can kill him.