The Representation of Business in Erin Brockovich (2000) and Other Peoples Money (1991) - Case Study Example

The representation of business in Erin Brockovich (2000) and Other People’s Money (1991) Film is often used as a vehicle to communicate ideas and representations to a wide audience. Such is the case with Erin Brockovich (2000) and Other People’s Money (1991) which focus on business as a theme. How the motion pictures present business is aided by a number of technical, cinematic character role and audience positioning devices to create representations that correlate with the messages and values of the films. Both films are business oriented in theme and seek to define business as a term and concept whilst also presenting it in the context of the film’s events. Despite the focus of both films on this idea, they present very different attitudes about business, how it functions and the way it impacts society. Erin Brockovich presents business, not independently, but with relation to the environment and context in which it operates. The film delays this representation and analysis of business in order to first construct a ‘standard’, a view of society in its normal working order against which business, and its role, can be considered. Hence the initial events of the film are concerned with establishing a picture of society, engaging with, and using the character of Erin Brockovich to do so. The film opens with a close-up of the heroine’s face, a classic cinematic technique used to create empathy for the character. More opportunities ensue for the audience to engage and empathise with Erin, from her status as an unemployed, struggling mother of three, to her car accident injury and the unjust conclusion. Whilst being a member of the community, and later coming to represent it in her investigations, she is simultaneously awkwardly outcast. Erin is victimised and stereotyped in the courtroom, rejected time and again by employers, and on finding a job, is shunned by the women in the office. Throughout the film the audience is asked to engage with the central character in her plight for justice and truth and this is cleverly aided by the restricted narration that runs throughout the film. The audience is granted access to information in the plot only when it is revealed by, and to, the heroine. The audience is not the ‘omniscient’, all seeing audience of some blockbuster films, and because of this the audience becomes involved in the plot. They too are the investigators, the curious, and are positioned by this device to relate directly to Erin Brockovich. Her family oriented values demonstrated in the claim ‘I just want to be a good mother’, and in the recurring family scenes are central to the film’s messages and she represents the community in these ideologies which are shared by the families she visits in the later scenes. Such construction of this initial world prepares for the contrast of values and ethics of the business world. Business in Erin Brockovich is starkly juxtaposed with that of community life. This binary reveals a struggle in the film between big business and a small town community as highlighted in the film’s tagline, ‘She brought a small town to its feet and a huge corporation to its knees’. Business presents a threat. It not only threatens the comfortable home lives of the community members (‘I don’t want to move, uproot the kids’) but imposes a more fundamental threat to the physical wellbeing and health of the community members. Such a threat is seemingly disregarded by the corporation (PG&E) who knowingly lie about the dangerous chromes used in the water and regard the maintenance of the machinery as more integrally important than the effect its operations have on the surrounding society. Such priorities suggest an immoral business acumen that is more readily concerned with money than health. Manipulative in their plans, PG&E pay for the health checks and doctors of the Jenson family, appealing to the very values of the community members and instilling trust. The company exploits the trusting nature of such people, and willingly exposes them to harm for their own financial convenience. The company’s recklessness and dismissal of the consequences reveals an egotistical business, a corporation which can buy houses, uproot families and knowingly endanger the society and surroundings. Business, as indicated here, is an institution which values money as a solution, whether to obtain land (and buy out family homes), bribe health practitioners or find solutions, financially, to health damaging consequences of their business endeavours. The way in which business is represented is far removed from the presentation of community life. The audience is not asked to engage with such business values and ideas, quite the contrary, they are distanced from any relations by various devices. Business is represented through channels, we hear about the business intentions and motivations through third parties. Mrs Jenson, the first known victim of the corporation’s endeavours relays the story of the companies offer to buy the house, their paying for medical and doctors bills, and the assurances of safety. Information of the dangerous chemical used in the company’s operations is revealed by a university professor, and the solid evidence of the company using such chemicals is confirmed by close-ups of photocopied paper records. Hence such information is relayed to us indirectly, from sources removed from the corporation. Compare this with the recurrent close-ups of Erin’s face, the concentrated camera work on the reactions of Mrs Jenson and the emphatic family scenes of the Brockovich household and it is obvious that the representations of these bipolar entities are widely removed. The audience is given no opportunity to relate to the company, in fact the first human encounter with PG&E does not arise until fifty minutes into the film. The representative of the company, a self-assured messenger who offers money and bribes is presented. The boardroom table divides him and the legal team (Ed Masry and Erin). The camera flicks from one side to another like a competitive tennis match but lingering on Erin’s reaction, the lighting is stark and the scene short. This is very different to the long scenes with various families in the intimacy of their homes. The shot of Erin and Mrs Jenson for example, where the women sit facing each other, a side shot views both women as equals who share the same values and family ideals. In another brief encounter with the company, when Erin is collecting water samples, she is chase by two laboratory technicians in coats and masks. Such costume obscures any personal interaction with the company’s staff and leaves the audience without a ‘human’ representation of the business world. Business has a strange presence in Erin Brockovich, it is discussed in relation to the effect it has, and how it impacts the community. Business lacks a voice, it finds no opportunity to justify or defend its actions and the audience is left with the representation of business as a threatening, dangerous force, exactly how it is constructed by the films clever cinematic stategy. Different representations can be expected from Other People’s Money due to its comedy genre. The films tagline introduces the central character with ‘Meet Larry the Liquidator. Arrogant. Greedy. Self-centered. Ruthless. You gotta love the guy’ which simultaneously presents business values and offsets the negativity by humorously suggesting those qualities as admirable. There is no passivity about this presentation of the business-minded, the values are explicitly, unashamedly stated, the voice is active and business as a concept, with all its related values are embodied in the central character of Lawrence Garfield. Despite the differences mentioned above, many thematic ideas from Erin Brockovich can be seen in Jewison’s film, Other People’s Money. For example, the contrast between business intentions and family values, and the struggle between big corporations and community is common to both films. However, the 1991 blockbuster opens up, into several channels, the different definitions of business. Although both Lawrence Garfield and Andrew Jorgenson are business men, (and in this film we are offered direct access to both) the difference in their ethics and values distinguish them as separate, and the role of business in the film as a more complex in its representation. The public address to the shareholders scene reveals both sets of values pitched alongside each other. Jorgenson’s business definition hinges on community values, he considers it as an array of social nuances and claims that a business like the one he runs is the ‘very fabric that binds … society together’. He is the ‘paternalist protector of workers and community’ (Barger 2003) willing to prioritise his loyalty to employees over the financial loss affecting the factory. His romantic ideals of business are based around the work place being one where ‘we can earn our living, where we can meet our friends, dream our dreams’ and reveals a very different attitude to business than in Erin Brockovich. In a brutal dismissal of Jorgenson’s loyalties and community oriented speech Garfield address his audience with talk of new technologies, the forward moving business world, and the fundamental pearl of business, money. The dark factory room maintains a sense of both a dark ‘underworld’ of business and money and simultaneously has a sense of the old traditional view of loyalty, friendship and fraternity that Jorgenson as an aging business man preaches. The de-saturated colour adds a sense of anachronism and the clothing of mature men and women are reminiscent of a past age. Indeed such devices align with Jorgenson nostalgic speech, both of which seem outdated. It is the city-slick ‘Liquidator’ who receives cheers and whistles for his eloquent speech. He is the emissary from a modern world telling of new business acumen and his ability to make the shareholders money. Garfield is followed by the camera as it pans to receive his speech, it catches him from a low-angle looking up and idolising him and his candid advice as he tells the intrigued shareholders ‘You don’t care if they manufacture wire or cable…You want to make money’. Presented are two very different views of business, but what makes this comparison interesting is the time-conscious nature of them. Jorgenson’s are the old world values, Garfield’s the new, and even in scenes set in their respective offices can we see this juxtaposition of values, Jorgenson’s the homely, softly lit, old-fashioned office, Garfield’s the modern, minimalist, brightly lit, alternative. Technology, as suggested in Garfield’s speech (‘Fibre optics. New technologies…we’re dead alright’) threatens the old values of business and comes to represent the world that must adapt, even if it means casting off the traditional, community aware values as presented in this film. The character of Lawrence Garfield becomes appealing to the audience, he honestly states that he loves money and is explicit in his ruthless business manner. His openness and presentation creates comedy, he does not attempt to conceal his business endeavours as the sinister business in Erin Brockovich does, and in fact creates comedy through his outspoken values. The camera respects him and in several scenes the camera uses high angle shots to address him, looking up to him, honouring his successful business techniques and elevating him. The audience are presented with Garfield as a business icon, almost a God-like figure, and in the factory scene where Garfield’s attempt to convince Jorgenson, he is positioned high on the steps looking down on the factory floor, Jorgenson and the failing business and preaching of new age values. However representations of business are not limited to just these time-based views and the film is peppered with other attitudes and attempts to define business. Business is presented as a destructive force and Jorgenson states ‘This man leaves nothing. And in his wake lies nothing but a blizzard of paper to cover the pain’. It is regarded as a threat to traditional business values and Garfield’s business strategy of buying companies, breaking them up and selling the pieces can be seen as a destructive force. He is accused of being inhuman in his business ways and of having ‘dollar bills where a conscience should be’. This view interacts with the presentation of business in Erin Brockovich as the inhuman ‘other’. Garfield is obsessed with business, it is the centre of his world, it is a game in which you ‘make as much [money] as you can for as long as you can. Whoever has the most when he dies wins’ and it is this absurd view that creates comedy in the film. In fact such a stance taken as this on the importance and centrally of business creates a self-mocking tone, Garfield’s over-the-top love of money and business operations is laughable, and he even tries to negotiate business into his sexual relations, a deal and contract style agreement which is pure farce. He cannot shake the cut-throat and relentless business values that are so ingrained in his character and way of life even when he falls in love, and more than money is at stake. Both Erin Brockovich and Other People’s Money succeed in creating defined representations of business, either as the concealed, sinister world that imposes threat and risk on to its surroundings, or as a fluid and elusive concept susceptible to change depending on time factors, character values and the advancing world. References Primary sources Erin Brockovich. (2000) Film. Directed by Steven Soderbergh. USA, Jersey films Other People’s Money. (1991) Film. Directed by Norman Jewison. USA, Warner Bros. Secondary sources Barger, A. 2003. Other People’s Money: Beyond business stereotypes [Online]. Available at http://www.morethings.com/fan/other_peoples_money.htm [Accessed 26 November 2008] Read More