FEATURE: Bad Apples Up On Top

20 01 2013

NOTE: This post was originally published on Dead Politics Society, a blog for my Political Sociology class in the spring of 2012, as my final paper.

“Let me tell you about the very rich,” wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald, “they are different from you and me.” If you look at eight movies that specifically tackle economic malaise following the 2008 recession, you would find that Fitzgerald rings true still today. They have Degas paintings in their office (The Company Men), expensive sports cars in their garage (Margin Call), and pools with a $100 bill painted on the bottom above their penthouse (Tower Heist).

Never mind that hundreds of feet below their offices and miles from their mansions, the unemployment rate swelled to 10% and 2.3 million Americans had their homes foreclosed. These films depict the fat cats of corporate America thriving off the misery of the middle-class, setting up two powerful frames for moviegoers to view the tough times. To borrow terms from Diana Kendall (2011), the upper crust is repeatedly portrayed through “bad apples framing” while the middle-class is seen through “victimization framing,” a clash which sets up audiences to view the post-recessional landscape as a class conflict.

Each of these films represents a frame that is episodic in nature since they are limited, unrelated narratives dealing with the financial crisis in some way; these reports attribute individual responsibility to large societal problems (Iyengar 1996). So rather than closely scrutinizing how capitalism itself might be responsible for middle-class woes, post-recessional cinema endorsed a theory of “bad apples capitalism.” This belief, rooted in the idea that a few people who refuse to play by the rules can ruin an entire system (Baum 2011), allows viewers to direct their anger at a person rather than an abstract concept (Kendall 2011).

Indeed, it is much easier to blame Gordon Gekko, the banker who refers to money as a “b*tch who never sleeps” (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps), and John Tuld, the CEO who calls money “made up” (Margin Call) than to find the entire capitalistic system guilty for the current American misery. The “bad apples” emphasis allows the movies to rile cages and stir anger without inciting revolutionary sentiment. They villainize the products of corporate America without actually attacking corporate America. (Corporate profits make these movies happen, so “bad apples” is about as close as they can get to critiquing the system.)

To emphasize the corruption of the rich corporate moguls, the movies shower us with lavish descriptions of their lifestyles. They chat about their million-dollar paychecks while the financial system teeters on the verge of collapse (Margin Call), and we hear about their private islands in Belize (Tower Heist) as well as how they make 700 times the salary of the average worker in their company (The Company Men). And all of this has blinded them to the plight of their workers – they claim to work for their shareholders instead of their employees (The Company Men), rob hardworking staff of their pensions (Tower Heist), and claim that massive layoffs present an “opportunity” for those left at the company (Margin Call).

Meanwhile, the middle class, out of their sight and most definitely out of their minds, is shown as trying to preserve their virtues and lifestyles amidst the turmoil. They have to sell their car to get by (Larry Crowne), take on a bartending job at night to put food on the table (Win Win), and move back in with their parents out of necessity (The Company Men). Jason Reitman’s Up in the Air takes the most wrenching look at their economic woes, putting real downsized workers in front of the camera to reenact their firings and rehash their financial fears. Current cinema has, in other words, provided a fresh set of faces to fit the bill for the “new poor” archetype that first came to prominence during recessions in the 1980s (Gilens 1999).

(NOTE: Both of these clips show firing scenes with staged actors, but they echo the general sentiment of the truly unemployed.)

However, the middle class is normally defined by their values rather than income (Kendall 2011), and post-recessional cinema makes its depiction go further than just merely downward mobility: the crisis threatens to break the country’s moral backbone. The economy forces them to contemplate taking money unethically from the elderly (Win Win), relapse into alcoholism (Everything Must Go), and launches them into depression that ultimately proves suicidal for some (Up in the Air and The Company Men). In the extreme case of Tower Heist, a comedy that borders on farce, fired workers even hire a convicted felon to help them steal $20 million from a rich man who conned them. Sadly, Hollywood showed through this recession that the squeeze forced them to budge on their values.

Ultimately, a hopeful Hollywood ending comes for the middle-class that allows them to reconnect with their values and inherent goodness (Kinkle and Toscano 2011). Yet most films provide a pass to the people who caused the suffering as well. They make over a billion dollars off the crisis (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps), walk out the door with a $90 million severance check (The Company Men), and giddily look forward to profiting from the meltdown (Margin Call). So why do they get off easy? Honesty.

In real life, these executives not only escaped punishment but also saw their fortunes grow. The filmmakers want us to be angry when the movie ends. So far, it has worked. Polls show that 60% of Americans supported cutting payroll taxes, and over half support raising taxes only on people who make more than $250,000 a year. If Obama ever gets the Buffet rule passed, he owes Hollywood a debt of gratitude.

For full bibliography, see the original post on Dead Politics Society.





(Kinda Belated) Weekend Update – August 21, 2011

21 08 2011

“How much does your life weigh? Imagine for a second that you’re carrying a backpack. I want you to pack it with all the stuff that you have in your life… you start with the little things. The shelves, the drawers, the knickknacks, then you start adding larger stuff. Clothes, tabletop appliances, lamps, your TV… the backpack should be getting pretty heavy now.

You go bigger. Your couch, your car, your home… I want you to stuff it all into that backpack. Now I want you to fill it with people. Start with casual acquaintances, friends of friends, folks around the office… and then you move into the people you trust with your most intimate secrets.

Your brothers, your sisters, your children, your parents and finally your husband, your wife, your boyfriend, your girlfriend. You get them into that backpack, feel the weight of that bag. Make no mistake your relationships are the heaviest components in your life.”

- George Clooney as Ryan Bingham in 2009′s “Up in the Air

“For what it’s worth: it’s never too late or, in my case, too early to be whoever you want to be. There’s no time limit, stop whenever you want. You can change or stay the same, there are no rules to this thing. We can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it. And I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you never felt before. I hope you meet people with a different point of view. I hope you live a life you’re proud of. If you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again.”

- Brad Pitt as Benjamin Button in 2008′s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

In case you missed it…

It was a pretty slow week as I was incredibly preoccupied running last second errands before leaving for college on Wednesday.  Hopefully I won’t fall off the map too precipitously, but things might be running slow for a while – especially in terms of reviewing new releases.

I took this as an opportunity to run reviews for some older movies that tied into other releases this week.  With Jessica Alba headlining the new “Spy Kids” movie, I reviewed her “Machete” and “Little Fockers” from 2010.  James McAvoy’s “The Conspirator” hit video this week, so I took the opportunity to review “Gnomeo & Juliet,” the animated Shakespearean tale to which he lent his voice.

I also took a look at the September crop of releases, which has a few gems shining amidst the trash heap.  Kris Tapley of “In Contention” just updated his Oscar predictions to include “Moneyball” as a probable nominee for Best Picture, Actor, and Supporting Actor.  More reason to get excited.  Click on the picture below to see the September preview post.

And the end of the week saw a lot of emphasis on Anne Hathaway as “One Day” opened in theaters.  On Friday, the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” was “Rachel Getting Married,” Oscar-nominated because of her performance.  On Saturday, I reviewed “One Day” and for the most part liked what I saw.  Click the picture below to read the review.

Recommended Reading

Save a tree, read a blog. Unless you want to print out a review … in which case, you aren’t saving trees.

And Vulture asks the question we are all pondering: Why Do Studios Think There’s So Much Value in Old Titles?  After the flop of “Conan the Barbarian” and “Fright Night,” here was their best conclusion.

“‘Studios remake these movies because they often already own the title,’ says Ammer. But it’s more than that. After all, it wouldn’t cost a studio any more money to hire a writer to write an original screenplay than it would to have him or her write one based on an older film. The real appeal of an old title is more superstitious: The studios use them, says Ammer, because ‘they know it’s worked in the past.’ Even though it’s an entirely different movie made by different people for a different generation, the idea is, hey, the title worked before, why not give it another shot? For all of Hollywood’s supposed liberalism, studios, like their audiences, are quite conservative. Genre is the most predictive aspect of a film’s future results, and then title, so why not double down? A remake of a successful genre film allows a studio the greatest possible risk reduction.”

The Tree of Death

/Film said it best when they broke the story: Even Sean Penn did not care for Sean Penn in “The Tree of Life.”  However, I’ll give credit to where I saw this first, Guy Lodge of “In Contention.”

Sean Penn moping about in my hometown.

In an interview with the French magazine Le Figaro, Sean Penn had this to say about Terrence Malick’s enigmatic film:

“I didn’t at all find on the screen the emotion of the script, which is the most magnificent one that I’ve ever read. A clearer and more conventional narrative would have helped the film without, in my opinion, lessening its beauty and its impact. Frankly, I’m still trying to figure out what I’m doing there and what I was supposed to add in that context! What’s more, Terry himself never managed to explain it to me clearly.”

I’ll go ahead and add this disclaimer to those that love the movie or the fact-checking Gestapo that yes, I realize that’s not the full quote.  But for the sake of this post, it’s easier to just analyze this part.

Where to begin?  The fact that a two-time Academy Award winner would bash his own movie would be shocking even if it was a total sellout, but even I as a non-impressed watcher see “The Tree of Life” as anything but a sellout.  It’s high art, just not the kind of art that was to my taste.  He doesn’t exactly mince his words there, pretty openly stating his distaste for how his role in the movie turned out.

This is nothing new, of course.  Adrien Brody complained when he was largely cut out of Malick’s “The Thin Red Line” – while I don’t like when whiners get their way, he certainly got it with Roman Polanski’s “The Pianist” in 2002.  But Penn’s statement goes far beyond just a diva fit, although I do think it dabbles in a sort of self-centered sensibility.  He questions the very way that the movie was made!  Keep in mind that Sean Penn has stepped behind the camera before, even turning out an all-time favorite of mine with “Into the Wild.”

Penn gets to the core of my issues with the movie.  I’m even a little bit more flexible – I’d be fine without a conventional narrative.  But Penn points out that the movie was incredibly disjointed.  I’m sure that the movie was beautiful in Terence Malick’s head, just as Penn says it was beautiful on the page.  Interestingly enough, I’ve heard from industry insiders that Malick shot the script with the dialogue, even allowing Jessica Chastain to speak.  Then he would cut, walk over, and tell her to emote all of the dialogue just with her eyes.  An interesting philosophy that produced an interesting end product.

Still moping...

Yet when everyone on set is not working in sync with the same vision towards a final product, the movie inevitably suffers.  If an actor doesn’t understand his purpose on screen, how can he do a decent job?  Moreover, how can he contribute anything to the movie?  If a director can’t even articulate his vision to the people he entrusts to help him create art, how can he articulate it to an audience?  I’ll inevitably be hit with the “it’s subjective” argument, but give it up here.  You can’t honestly argue that Malick is such a visionary that he can’t even be on the same page with his fellow artists.

Even those that I’ve talked to who LOVE the film can at least admit that the Sean Penn segments were the weakest parts of the film, and the actor’s statements shed some light on why that is.  An actor just existing on screen because a character exists on the page doesn’t make for compelling cinema if he doesn’t understand the basic objectives and motivations.  It’s just … boring.

I guess my biggest question here is why didn’t Penn make a bigger fuss on the set?  It seems kind of cowardly to whip out these harsh words now, potentially even in “too little, too late” territory for those who feel they’ve wasted their life watching the movie.  I get the whole mindset that Malick is a genius and you don’t question him, but for such primal acting concerns as these, why wouldn’t you demand more from the master during production?  If he was really that dissatisfied, why not walk off the movie?  These problems Penn has should have been settled a long time ago, and by just bringing them up now, he’s either searching for attention or absolution for being the worst part of the movie.

Penn did close with this statement about the movie, something that I’d say I basically espouse:

“But it’s a film I recommend, as long as you go in without any preconceived ideas. It’s up to each person to find their own personal, emotional or spiritual connection to it. Those that do generally emerge very moved.”

 





Random Factoid #461

1 11 2010

I sure have had a lot to say about “Up in the Air” in the past year, largely because so much of my life has been up in the air.  In particular, my future come this May – in other words, college – has been something particularly up in the air.

While I don’t think it’s possible for anyone’s life to be entirely not up in the air, a very large part of mine has come down to earth.  The burden that is my future education has been decided.  When I got home from school today, I received a very large packet from Wake Forest University.

Inside the package was my acceptance letter to the university.  So come next August, I will be a Demon Deacon in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and I couldn’t be happier or prouder.  While my access to independent film will be significantly diminished, I look forward to continuing to provide the same great quality from my new hub.

COLLEGE! (Maybe it’s time for me to watch “Animal House.”)





Random Factoid #383

15 08 2010

Yesterday, I went to my first wedding in well over a decade.  That being said, I don’t really remember much, if anything, about those holy matrimonies.  If I recall correctly, I was a ringbearer at one of my aunt’s weddings…

But while at the ceremony, I felt like I had been going to them my whole life.  As I thought about it more clearly, a thought hit me – I had been going to weddings, just at the movies!  They are a dime a dozen at the cinema nowadays, the blessed sacrament so commonplace that we rarely stop to think about the importance of it.

Really, everything I know about weddings comes from the movies.  Is it a horrible fault when all we know about something comes from a movie?  I’ve learned plenty from cinema – how to make up after cold feet (“Up in the Air”), how to be a good bridesmaid (“27 Dresses”), how to be a good father of the bride (“Father of the Bride”), how to deal with bridezillas (“Bride Wars”), how to break up a wedding (“The Graduate”), how to shine all the attention away from the bride (“Rachel Getting Married”), and how to fit in at any wedding (“Wedding Crashers”).  And that’s just a fraction of what I could say.

Are there any fields of knowledge wonderfully filled in by movies for you?

P.S. – Life’s better with company.





Random Factoid #317

10 06 2010

Yesterday, I totally had what M. Carter calls a “Real-Life Movie Moment.” She has a whole template for describing them, so I’ll follow it.

The movie: “Up in the Air”

The moment: While at my dad’s birthday dinner last night, we were waited on by a team of waiters.  The first was an older, more experienced man, perhaps not just a waiter but even a manager.  The second was a younger woman, clearly a trainee.  I assume it was one of her preliminary days on the job because he was walking her through the motions and giving her little tips throughout our meal.  While serving me a cup of gumbo, I could hear him whispering to her, “The spoon goes on the right.  Now reach around him and put it down.”  She did a fine job, but she was clearly flustered and nervous.  She offered cookie-cutter courtesy and was so business oriented that she was more of a robot than a waitress.

The correlation: Ryan and Natalie, duh!  Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) takes neophyte Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) with him on an aerial adventure of lay-offs.  He understands the art of offering these people some sort of sympathy and respect.  She, on the other hand, feels that the firings could go more efficiently if they are performed mechanically and are desensitized.

I just see movies everywhere.  Life imitating art.





Random Factoid #298

22 05 2010

I’ve got a lot of soundtracks in my iTunes library, and I won’t try to hide it.  What I haven’t revealed yet is that I buy a whole lot of songs because I hear them in the trailer of a movie.  I’ll hear a tune and Google it to find out what the song is called.  Click, click, it’s in my library.

Here are some of the songs that are now proudly stored in Marshall’s iTunes library thanks to movie trailers.

“Help Yourself” by Sad Brad Smith, trailer for “Up in the Air”

“You’ve Got Me Wrapped Around Your Little Finger” by Beth Rowley, trailer for “An Education”

“Photograph” by Ringo Starr, trailer for “Funny People”

“The Beginning is the End is the Beginning” by Smashing Pumpkins, trailer for “Watchmen”

“Wild is the Wind” by Nina Simone, trailer for “Revolutionary Road”

“Rock Me Sexy Jesus” by The Ralph Sall Experience, trailer for “Hamlet 2″

“Paper Planes” by M.I.A., trailer for “Pineapple Express”

“Iron Man” by Black Sabbath, trailer for “Iron Man”

“Heart of the City (Ain’t No Love)” by Jay-Z, trailer for “American Gangster”

And probably countless others than I can’t remember.





Random Factoid #246

31 03 2010

I actually feel legitimate disappointment when good movies have bad DVD covers.

Case in point: “Up in the Air.”  Come on, Paramount, is that really the best you can do?  A picture of George Clooney laughing surrounded by a whole bunch of empty blue space?

There’s nothing happening on the cover, and if I knew nothing about the movie, I would see it and walk away.  I fear that in the future, people will see this DVD and not even think twice about it.  Which is such a shame.

What about you?  Any DVD cover (or poster, for that matter) really disappoint you?





Random Factoid #197

10 02 2010

When I wrote Random Factoid #141, I hadn’t done this in over half a decade. Now, I have done it twice in less than three months.

I have read the source material of a movie after I saw the movie.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that I read “Up in the Air,” the novel by Walter Kirn. I brought it with me to Argentina and began it there when I found out that I would be interviewing Kevin Renick. I was under the mistaken impression that he wrote the song after reading the book, so I pile-drove through the first half in order to be prepared. After more research, I discovered that he hadn’t read the book, and my pace slowed quite a bit.

Overall, I liked the book. I much prefer Jason Reitman’s take on it though, which is very distinctly different from Kirn’s novel.

(And for those of you who read Random Factoid #195, yes, it was the movie tie-in edition.)





Random Factoid #191

4 02 2010

I feel like a dinosaur writing this, but I remember whenever there were no such things as “fan pages” on Facebook.  More than that, I remember whenever fan pages were only for celebrities and TV shows and the like.

Now, everyone is becoming a fan of vague ideas and statements.  I’m sorry, but I refuse to become a fan of “flipping over the pillow to get to the cold side.”  I’ll smirk at seeing other people join it, but why would I waste my time joining it?

Anyways, I limit my fan pages.  Right now, I’m at a healthy 18 (I have friends with well over 500).  Of course, I am a fan of things related to movies – why else would I write about it here?  I am a fan of “Up in the Air,” “The Dark Knight,” and Gabourey Sidibe.





Random Factoid #185

29 01 2010

Tonight, I sat down to watch “Rocket Science,” the movie which led Jason Reitman to write the part of Natalie Keener in “Up in the Air” specifically for Anna Kendrick, on my AT&T U-Verse DVR.  After a minute, it stopped.  Turns out that at 3:50 A.M. a few days ago, we ran out of space on the DVR.  This is especially frustrating because “Rocket Science” is nearly impossible to find, and I managed to find the one time that it would be on Cinemax for weeks.

I’ve talked about the tight space before, but I can’t believe there is no way to check on AT&T how much time is left before something like this happens.  This is ridiculous.  I am very upset that I now have to wait several more weeks to watch “Rocket Science,” but what if it was something more important that my trite trifles?  What if AT&T only recorded one minute of something truly important?  It just gets you thinking.





INTERVIEW: Kevin Renick

27 01 2010

If you have read this blog with any sort of frequency over the past month, you will undoubtedly know that I have something resembling an obsession with the movie “Up in the Air.”  So when I found out that Kevin Renick, the singer of the film’s titular song, had discovered my blog and posted a link on his website to me, saying “lots and lots about UP IN THE AIR can be found at this info site,” I was ecstatic.

I perused around his site and found an e-mail address for the singer.  An idea pulsed through my head: why not humbly ask for an interview?  Much to my surprise, Renick happily agreed.  He couldn’t have been more kind throughout the process, offering to conduct the interview in whatever manner was easiest for me.  We opted for e-mail because it allowed more time for thoughtful and more eloquent answers.

We talked plenty about “Up in the Air” – the movie and his song – and also about what lies ahead for him in the music industry.  Renick’s words were incredibly profound.  Despite the spotlight that has been shined on him from this burst of fame, he remains wholeheartedly humble.  For those who do not know Renick’s story, he gave a demo tape of his song to Jason Reitman at a lecture.  The director loved the song enough to include it in the movie “Up in the Air.”  According to Renick, “Jason liked the ‘D.I.Y. aesthetic’ of my song….[and he stated that] it gave an “authentic voice” to all the people in the U.S. who’ve lost their job and their direction.”

Read the rest of this entry »





Random Factoid #181

25 01 2010

Now hanging on my bulletin board: a review of “Up in the Air” in Spanish!  I tore it out of a copy of “La Nación” (The Nation), a newspaper in Buenos Aires, while at a Starbucks Coffee chowing on a donut and croissant.

They gave it four stars, by the way.





Random Factoid #175

19 01 2010

Sometimes, when I get especially bored, I will leaf through my ticket collection to see how long ago I went to a movie at the same time as my most recent trip to the theater.  Sometimes it takes a while.  Matching 12:05 when I went to see “Up in the Air” a few weeks ago was especially tricky.





Random Factoid #169

13 01 2010

Am I really that obsessed with “Up in the Air?”

I mean, I’m pretty vocal about my love.  But literally everyone I know that has gone to see it makes sure to tell me that they did.

Jason Reitman, Paramount Pictures, take note as to who is delivering plenty of money into your hands this winter.





Random Factoid #160

4 01 2010

While browsing the Entertainment Weekly website yesterday, I came across a picture (above) from a photoshoot with “Up in the Air” stars George Clooney, Anna Kendrick, and Vera Farmiga.

The caption of the photo reads:

What do the jet-setting cast members of Up in the Air do first when they check into a hotel room? ”I look at the view,” says Vera Farmiga. Adds George Clooney: ”I check out the channels on the TV.” As for Anna Kendrick? ”I’m probably a bed-tester. I want to know if it’s going to be a good bed. That’s the only thing that matters in a hotel.”

This inspired a factoid!  So, what do I do whenever I check into a hotel room?

I instantly run to the TV and check what in-room movies are available.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 84 other followers