I was initially skeptical of this week’s reading, because I have a difficulty in observing film beyond its base as a commodity. Film, although it has the capability of being a truly artful production, tends to get warped and changed through difficulties with budgets and censorship by production companies. However, this is a modern problem of film production, and while I was skeptical of Ross’s work, it was refreshing to observe the humble and social reflective beginnings of film. Even though it is clear that movies began solely as a method in which to make money.
Ross, however, polishes over this fact very nicely in describing film as one of the first mass forms of mass leisure for working class individuals. Although the purveyors of these first “nickelodeons” did indeed have money in their sights, they inadvertently created a form of leisure that diminished the alienation that many working class individuals felt on a daily basis. It is also interesting to see how film grew as an art form, not because it was absorbed by a different type of producer, but because better films made more money: “By offering the public better films and theaters, industry leaders began attracting greater numbers of white-collar and middle class patrons” (32).
Ross’s discussion of melodrama was also interesting. Judging from the description of some of the films, these depictions of working class plight set up a clear “good guy,” “bad guy” dichotomy. These movies made it ok to hate your boss, even though he was the moderator of your survival. They showed the disgruntled factory worker that they are not alone in their anger; that their feelings were popular enough to shown as entertainment to hundreds of people a day.
In this work Ross really focuses on the cohesive nature that film had, and this idea has not faded. One only has to look at the cult success of the movie “Office Space” to see that people still hate their jobs and their bosses.
No comments:
Post a Comment