Trading Places: Supporting Marxs Commodity Fetishism - Case Study Example

Trading Places: Supporting Marx’s Commodity Fetishism Although primarily seen as a form of inexpensive entertainment and amusement, the films coming out of Hollywood can often provide a great deal of insight into the functions of the greater society. Films capture the sense of current modes of thought in terms of political, social and economic structure in a given part of society. There are a great number of theories regarding how the media works to reinforce or reject specific cultural attitudes regarding class, race and gender, most of which are based on the theory of ideology brought forth by Karl Marx. “The Marxian view starts with the observation that ideological views tend to reflect economic power, and thus believes that one should not treat ideas as simply ideas, but rather one should understand them as emanations of financial interests. It does not, however, treat the holders of those views as insincere. Some people, of course, are insincere in their views. But this is relatively minor. More broadly, one has a kind of self-deception. People are more open to views that are congenial to their interests. Even more important, ideas are more likely to gain wide currency when they are in line with the interests of powerful economic actors” (Yglesias, 2005). Thus, many of the films that come out of Hollywood tend to reflect the glamorous, comfortable aspect of life that can only be obtained by acquiring a high degree of material wealth, or the struggle to attain this status, reinforcing the idea that the only way to live is to have a great deal of wealth and that without it, life is not worth living. This message is so prevalent that it is not even questioned in most circles, but rather exists as a fundamental belief of the prevailing culture. Even films that seem designed solely for entertainment purposes, such as Eddie Murphy and Dan Ackroyd’s Trading Places, can work in subtle ways to maintain and promote the existing power relations within society. This film is a perfect example of how Hollywood portrays race, class and gender in such a way that both reinforces the prevailing ideology concerning these issues and works to ensure others that are not of the upper echelons of these groups equally buy into the ideology. Thus, we will examine Marx’s theory of ideology using the film Trading Places to illustrate the various points contained as they relate to class, gender and race. Marx’s theory of ideology included a great deal of thought on the disparity between the essence of capitalism as it compared or contrasted with the reality of capitalism. According to Cohen (2000), the essence of capitalism consists of the fact that the expenditure of labour creates economic value in proportion to the amount of labour expended, but workers do not receive the entire value of what they produce. Those in power enjoy the profits gained by this surplus value that the worker is not paid which is the only form of investment that truly creates profit. However, the appearance of capitalism is that an object is worth what it can be exchanged for in the market. Therefore, workers appear to be paid for all of their efforts, while capital is seen to create profit. This difference between the essence or reality of capitalism and the appearance of capitalism is what Marx referred to as ‘commodity fetishism.’ “’Commodity fetishism’ is the vision of objective value in commodities, especially money, as the commodity of exchange. Under a society with exchange, the only way people can gauge value is during the exchange process … The cause of this commodity festishism is the nature of the exchange process. The result is that some aspects of the appearance of society are the ‘inverse’ of its essence.” (Webb 1998). With this inherent contradiction glaringly in place, it becomes the job of ideology to hide the essence of society that contradicts the appearance of society that is promoted by and benefits those in power. However, Marx did not intend to suggest that the ruling class had a kind of conspiracy running to keep the masses deceived into working for them. Rather, he suggested that the ruling class is equally subject to the illusions and appearances of the production process. “If the essence of society were not hidden, not only would the workers feel resentment at being exploited, but also the exploiters would lack the composure for confident rule” (Webb 1998). This translates into media analysis as it is through the media institutions that these belief systems are developed and maintained, continuously redefining roles to be in keeping with the prevailing ideology in spite of changing times and realizations. Analyzing the media from this perspective shows these institutions as being equally “locked into the power structure, and consequently as acting largely in tandem with the dominant institutions in society. The media thus reproduced the viewpoints of dominant institutions not as one among a number of alternate perspectives, but as the central and ‘obvious’ or ‘natural’ perspective” (Curran et al 1982). It can be seen then, that the media is given the power and the task of “renewing, amplifying and extending the existing predispositions that constitute the dominant culture, not in creating them” (Curran et al 1982). At the same time, the media is the one place wherein competing class views can be safely fought out and resolved, usually to the benefit of the existing prevalent ideology. “Ultimate control is increasingly concentrated in monopoly capital; media professionals, while enjoying the illusions of autonomy, are socialized into and internalize the norms of the dominant culture. The media, taken as a whole, relay interpretive frameworks consonant with the interest of the dominant classes, and media audiences, while sometimes negotiating and contesting these frameworks, lack ready access to alternative meaning systems that would enable them to reject the definitions offered by the media in favour of oppositional definitions” (Curran & Gurevitch 1977). This entire ideological outlook can be seen within the movie Trading Places as it relates to racial roles, class distinctions and gender bias. The movie opens making this distinction as it displays credits on a changing backdrop depicting scenes of opulence and privilege being conducted by mostly white men and scenes of abject poverty filled with mostly black men. One of the most impacting scenes in this opening montage involves the juxtaposition of the newspaper on the doorstep. This icon of American life is seen neatly folded and awaiting the fully suited butler to collect it from the doorstep of a neat and trim brownstone. It is also seen scattered across the doorstep of a run-down tenement building, partially covering the sleeping black man who has obviously been using it as his only source of warmth as he slept through the night. Viewers are also treated to images of groups of black men gathered around a fire lit inside a trashcan, gathering what warmth they can as they drink their breakfast from out of cans or bottles hidden within brown paper bags. This is seen in direct opposition to the image of the butler, now wearing a crisp white chef’s hat, as he carefully prepares an elaborate breakfast of freshly squeezed orange juice and delicately warmed croissants, placing all on a tray with a flower to take up to his master. This brief opening montage immediately establishes and reinforces the traditional viewpoints held by a great deal of American society – that of the rich white man and the poor black man, allowing no meeting ground to exist between the two. The movie that follows this opening scene does little to erase this initial impression of the black man’s place versus the white man’s place even though Eddie Murphy, a black man, is seen to succeed. It is important to note here that he is the only black man within the entire film that is shown to have any success at all in life, and that only through the intervention and assistance of white men. The black man servant at the ‘club’ receives a Christmas bonus totaling $5 from both of the ultra-wealthy Duke brothers and the character Billy Ray, portrayed by Eddie Murphy, is only interesting as the subject of an elaborate experiment between the brothers. Even when the police officers witness the actions on the steps of the Duke building as Billy Ray accidentally collides with Louis Winthorpe, portrayed by Dan Ackroyd, they immediately take Louis’ word that Billy Ray was trying to rob him, presumably again because of the difference between black and white and poor and rich. When Billy Ray is seen in jail, the only white man in the cell with him is portrayed as barely mentally competent, with the remaining four men are black. The majority of Billy Ray’s black friends, whom he invites back to his house after his newfound fortune, are unable to appreciate the finer things, instead continuing to behave as if they were in a sleazy bar by putting out cigarettes on the Persian carpet and dancing topless in the living room. Finally, although Billy Ray has proven himself competent to do the job he was provided with, neither one of the Duke brothers are willing to allow him to continue on in the position once the experiment has yielded its results. Like his initial success that had been handed to him by the Dukes, Billy Ray finds it necessary to enlist the help of the white Louis Winthorpe, as well as his white butler, in order to retain this wealth. Although the movie depicts a black man finding material success beyond most people’s wildest dreams, the film nevertheless reinforces the idea that black men are intended for support labor and little else, with one or two minor exceptions. Likewise, the film places a large degree of emphasis upon social class and status, again reinforcing the traditionally held ideology that material wealth is the ultimate goal which can only be obtained by allowing capital to create wealth, thus reinforcing the appearance of capitalism and obscuring the reality. Significantly, while Billy Ray is seen as a jobless beggar on the streets at the opening of the movie, Louis Winthorpe’s life seems hardly more disturbed by actual work than Billy Ray’s. The difference is that Winthorpe has learned how to make money work for him while Billy Ray allows money to flow through his fingers. Coleman, the butler, is obviously in a subservient position to many of the characters involved in the main action, and is rarely allowed to express his own personality, thereby presenting the impression that because of his social class, none of his opinions actually matter. The flambé dessert he makes is dismissed out of hand when Louis and Penelope retire to the fireplace following dinner and the Dukes casually order him to take part in the great experiment that will change everyone’s life. Nevertheless, Coleman does have opinions of his own, referring to the Dukes as scumbags when he learns of their plan and treating Billy Ray with a certain compassion, advising him to “just be yourself. Whatever else happens, they can’t take that away from you.” Likewise, Ophelia, the prostitute who ends up helping Louis after his gigantic fall, demonstrates a similar strength of character, working on a plan to retire from her profession and get out of the rat race altogether. Yet, she is readily disparaged as an unworthy individual based solely on the merits of her profession by most who come into contact with her. Even Winthorpe, in discussing work-related issues with the Dukes and on the verge of becoming a part of the family, is casually and coldly dismissed when the Dukes are not ready to discuss an issue, firmly putting him in his social place beneath them. Thus, while the movie serves to underline the accepted social structure that provides obviously wealthy individuals with the highest status, it also provides the loophole that encourages the working class to continue to struggle, always working to try to gain the toehold necessary to allow capital to create capital, completely buying into Marx’s perception of capitalism rather than the reality that it is through the efforts of this labor that the wealthy remain so. Gender roles are also strongly reinforced in this movie as women are portrayed as either spoiled and demanding or nurturing and supporting. The two choices available to women in society, based on the information provided in this film, are to be born rich and demand the status that should accompany that, or to become a prostitute, selling what talents you have to the highest bidder in the hope that someday you can be free. While neither role is portrayed in a necessarily good light, as the more kind-hearted Ophelia is nevertheless a prostitute who has just spent the night in jail upon our first sight of her, once again, the film reinforces the traditional viewpoint while providing encouragement for the working class to continue working. In both cases, the women are portrayed as always subservient to men. Penelope must use whining and wheedling to get her way with her fiancé and must defer to another man’s protection when things don’t go Louis’ way. Ophelia, though more independent, cannot seem to help herself in taking in the stray dog Louis that she found at the police station and coddling him in much the same way a mother might. When he comes home bent on committing suicide, she turns to Billy Ray to break the door open rather than doing it herself. When Louis takes her life savings to try to revenge himself upon the Dukes, she doesn’t seem to understand much about what it is that they’re doing and it doesn’t seem to matter whether she understands or not – he’s the man and he needs the money, so she gives it to him. While she gains the lifestyle she’s dreamed of as a result, it is through the efforts and intelligence of the man that she has it and through her continued association with him that she is able to keep it. Again, even as it is shown how an ordinary working class individual can join the ranks of the upper class, the film remains true to the prevailing ideology that encourages workers to work, the power brokers to hold onto their power and the women to provide the support. Although the film appears to be displaying a story of how the common man can rise above the current trappings of the capitalistic society, the fact that Billy Ray, Louis Winthorpe, Ophelia and Coleman all resort to the exact kind of lifestyle led by the ultra elite upon the conclusion of the movie only serves to reinforce the currently held ideology, serving to support, rather than refute, the validity of the perception rather than the reality. In Trading Places, the men don’t make the money, the money makes the money. This can be seen in that neither Billy Ray nor Louis Winthorpe are seen often in a working capacity, yet the one who seems to be working hardest remains Billy Ray. The only difference is who’s in charge of the money. Black men are not allowed to be in control of the money as is shown by Billy Ray’s dependence on first the Dukes, then Louis Winthorpe, to achieve success. Servants are not allowed to be in control of the money as is shown by Coleman’s inability to disagree with the Duke’s callous experiment and instead to be an active part of the game. Women are not allowed to be in control of the money as is shown by Penelope’s inability to care for herself in any capacity and Ophelia’s need to resort to crime to support herself as well as her dependence upon Winthorpe to get her out of the life she’s been living. Thus, the illusion that money makes money and that only white males are capable of creating this profitable effect is reinforced even while the reality that it is the workers who create capital is supported by the encouragement the movie offers the common man – the concept that even servants, black men and women of all races might attain their goals once in a while if they can figure out how to navigate through the capitalist maze. References Chandler, Daniel. (10 April 2000). Marxist Media Theory [online]. Retrieved 14 March, 2006 from Curran, James and Gurevitch, Michael. (1977) Mass Communication and Society. London: Edward Arnold. Curran, James; Gurevitch, Michael & Woollacott, Janet. (1982) “The Study of the Media: Theoretical Approaches.” Culture, Society and the Media. T. Bennett, J. Curran, M. Gurevitch, & J. Woollacott (Eds.). London: Routledge. Trading Places. (1983). [DVD]. Hollywood, CA: Paramount. Webb, Matt. (11 June 1998). “Marxism.” Interconnected. Retrieved 14 March, 2006 from Yglesias, Matthew. (19 January 2005). “The Theory of Ideology.” Weblog [online]. Retrieved 14 March, 2006 from Read More