Horkheimer and Adorno have a little too much time on their hands I think. Yes they do bring up a valid point about the way society does nothing but repeat ideas that work until they are dead. This is why we have Die hard 4 coming out. This is why we have Indiana Jones 4 coming out even though Harrisson Ford doesn’t even remember doing the first three. Yet, by calling the movie audience victims, I feel that these two crumb bumbs have crossed the line.
Movies to me are a very strong outlet for expression. I have been filming and acting since I was 12 and these two guys are just like the drunk ones I find myself arguing at parties. Yes, it is true, television and film are nothing but instruments controlled by the industry to pump billions of dollars out of the people each year. But within this corrupt system of power and exploitation their is something still pure that can be seen if only you take a second to look. On page 1229 they say “the culture industry remains the entertainment business . Its influence over the consumers is established by entertainment” Without a doubt the entertainment media has a lot of power over the consumers. The fact that I would throw myself in front of a bullet to protect Christopher Walken or Steve Buscemi shows the strength of this power. But movies are not some tool of culture control and are not as evil as these guys make it out to be. I think the key is to filtering the ones that do nothing but brainwash the masses and search hard for the ones that can stimulate your senses and motivate yourself to do something new. Movies are an escape but they can also present an image through time that any morphed society can relate to. As literature shaped the way we view the past, movies will without a doubt shape the way the future views our time. We do not go to the movies against our own will, we go with the hope to have some fun and by chance see something unique and original for our time. In the grand scheme of things all ideas have been done before (SIMPSONS DID IT!) but relating all these stories to our time is what makes the originality pure. Victims we are not but participants in something that has the potential to be original and influential. We adapt to our ever changing times and our art mirrors these changes as well.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 10, 2007 at 9:27 pm
carawhalen
I can see where you feel that Horkheimer and Adorno have too much time on their hands!! However, even though we have new movies coming out aren’t they just repeating the same ideas or themes that have already been done, yet just presenting them in a slightly different manner? I also can understand where you feel that Adorno and Horkheimer stating that people who watch movies to be victims is a bit much, yet I feel that they call these people such to help solely to gain leverage in explaining their views. There are many views that were expressed throughout their work that could easily be debated. The factor of expression is definitely a main concern. Are new movies simply things that are being reproduced in a new manner or is a movie a completely new creation? I find it great that you have been filming and acting since you were younger, and thus should give you great passion when arguing this topic. Also the quote that you discussed, “the culture industry remains the entertainment business. Its influence over the consumers is established by entertainment” This just shows how the media has such power over the consumers, which would reinforce their idea…right? I’m looking forward to class tomorrow to see what everyone else feels. You had a great blog and brought forth a lot of wonderful supporting points to your argument! Good Job!!
April 11, 2007 at 3:00 am
Ryan
Well Bret
As it is mandated by law, we agree with each other. I too felt that using the word victim to describe movie-goers seemed a bit outrageous. Movies are movies, and either I choose not to see an alterior motive behind movies, or there just isn’t one there. And maybe movies are becoming tedious and seemingly the same thing over again, but that’s just because we have exhausted almost every original idea out there. Simpsons did it, may be a universal symbol that we’ve gone as far as we can go. But that’s not a bad thing. I am looking so forward to Die Hard 4 and Spiderman 3, it doesnt matter that they’re a continuation. These are stories and characters that we have become invested in and care about. So I guess what I’m trying to say is, I don’t feel like a victim when watching a movie.
April 15, 2007 at 5:37 pm
atticfox
Hey Brett,
Hearing you speak of your dislike of cookie cutter movies in class makes me think that you are closer to siding with H&A than you realize. Just as they felt America was complacent and somehow needed to break free from the stranglehold of late-capitalist movie markets, you seem to agree since you say a person’s taste in movies determines whether or not you’d be friends with them. (That was an awesome statement, by the way. I’m with you on this one.) Movie taste is telling of intelligence, I think. To watch something mindless and admit that it is mindless is one thing. To herald Legally Blonde as brilliance is quite another. Your dislike of the Academy would make H&A proud too. In visiting Oscars.com, the main focus (according to front page font size) is “all the glamour, all the style.” Our obsession with celebrity is disgusting. What about the art for art’s sake?
That art which is produced as a way to step out of the system of over stylized production for the sake of box office performance is the path to redemption. The film industry does occasionally demonstrate the ability to break from the mold. I find that theater appears to embody a purer element of art for the sake of art rather than to promote the market of overdone plot lines and billion dollar gratuitous effects that in no way enhance the content of many films (like “Gone in 60 Seconds,” for instance).
Sadly, the participants of Cannes and Telluride don’t always become mainstream for the very reason H&A complain about. Where was the hype over the sleeper “An Unfinished Life?” What an amazing film! It cost 30 million to produce and returned a mere pittance of 8.5 million. (Numbers retrieved from BoxOfficeMojo.com.) The industry is very limited in scope and tends to feel threatened by anything that falls outside the box simply because of their need to reclaim the bottom line investment. Such is the nature of movies in the late-capitalist era.
- Kim
April 16, 2007 at 3:45 am
sherrig12
Brett,
I absolutely agree with you. We are not victims. A victim, as defined by the Oxford dictionary is “a person injured or killed as a result of an event or circumstance” or a “person or thing injured or destroyed in pursuit of an object or gratification of a passion etc.” I’m pretty sure that both you and I were not injured, killed or destroyed. I think if H and A were to hear our responses to their criticim right now they would tell us that we are simply a product of the system and cannot therefore see outside of it. To me, this is nothing more than a bunch of BS. I’m not being ignorant, like you I understand that the film industry is in it to make money, but its not the industry that tells us what to watch. The reason we see more and more sequels and third and fourth versions of movies is because we spend our money on them and encourage more. Because we, in terms of the masses, enjoyed the movies. There have been plenty of movies that have been very hyped up and when they come out the amount of money they make is significantly less than what was expected. A great example of this is the use of U Tube. There is not money exchanging hands yet people have become famous for the videos they have made. We choose to watch these, there is no monetary value involved and anyone can make one. This flies in the face of what H and A have said.
April 22, 2007 at 5:17 pm
annieeinna
Hey Bob, how are you? As I just stated on Ryans blog, that is all I view movie as aswell. I think they are just mad b/c of what happened to them with the war ( which is understandable ) but I think movies are a real outlet for us at times. I think we get to feel emotions that we usually do not. I can understand where they come from, but they should understand us too!