Throughout time the importance of the Industrial Revolution has been recorded within textbooks, stories, songs, and especially portrayed in movies. Today’s world often foreshadows the past in a repetitive history, depicting ideas and old foundations hidden within the allusions of our past times. But it seems that through the advancement of modern technology and advanced human thought most movies try to only mimic the aesthetic of the industrial revolution, however it is those which merely allude to it or hide it through their work that say the most about our past. This can be best observed within Juan Solanas’ film Upside Down (2012), creating a new world that explores the dichotomy of today’s modern media and advancing ideas against the reality of our past history through both a dystopian/utopian society. Upside Down imitates both the political and economic environment lived within the Industrialization era that represents social inequality, capitalism, and overbearing government; While still exercising the artistic freedom of the film to develop importance within the realms of Religion, Science, Nature and their planet’s advanced new culture.
Upside down, starring Jim Sturgess and Kirsten Dunst is believed to draw on the Industrial Era through its evident similarities in the economic in inequalities between rich and poor. Set in a new aura and planet, the film tells the story of Adam a hard working young man from “Down Below”, who falls for the beautiful Eden from the parallel world of “Up Above”. The Fictional worlds created by Juan Solanas, birth the unique idea of dual gravity, which combines the two individual planets while still allowing orbit. Each world is uniquely identified through its people, environment, and their...
... middle of paper ...
...topia of the Garden of Eden before original sin (Up Above) and after the fall (Down Below). The fall is one of the iconic aspects of biblical context, utilized within the film to depict the corruption of natural beauty through industrialization and elimination of ethics, morality, and justice.
Throughout Solanas’ film Upside Down and the comparison between the Industrial Revolution in the U.S, the audience can visualize the conditions of the working class in distinction wealthy elite through government inequality, labor induced segregation, and the acceptance of monopolies. Concluding that despite the film’s “out of our world” differences, it is the similarities that should astound us. That we should understand enough about our past, that we can conclude and in turn be inspired to create or even entirely comprehend such a civilization as the one within this movie.
Literature and film have always held a strange relationship with the idea of technological progress. On one hand, with the advent of the printing press and the refinements of motion picture technology that are continuing to this day, both literature and film owe a great deal of their success to the technological advancements that bring them to widespread audiences. Yet certain films and works of literature have also never shied away from portraying the dangers that a lust for such progress can bring with it. The modern output of science-fiction novels and films found its genesis in speculative ponderings on the effect such progress could hold for the every day population, and just as often as not those speculations were damning. Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein and Fritz Lang's silent film Metropolis are two such works that hold great importance in the overall canon of science-fiction in that they are both seen as the first of their kind. It is often said that Mary Shelley, with her authorship of Frankenstein, gave birth to the science-fiction novel, breathing it into life as Frankenstein does his monster, and Lang's Metropolis is certainly a candidate for the first genuine science-fiction film (though a case can be made for Georges Méliès' 1902 film Le Voyage Dans la Lune, his film was barely fifteen minutes long whereas Lang's film, with its near three-hour original length and its blending of both ideas and stunning visuals, is much closer to what we now consider a modern science-fiction film). Yet though both works are separated by the medium with which they're presented, not to mention a period of over two-hundred years between their respective releases, they present a shared warning about the dangers that man's need fo...
“If you put your mind to it you can accomplish anything” – Robert Zemeckis. Back to the Future is an American Classic that is on the minds of people around the world with images of Doc Brown’s shiny time travelling DeLorean. In 2007, The American government acknowledged the importance of the movie Back to the Future and its relativeness to American culture by introducing it into the National Film Registry. This award officially certified the movie in being a “culturally” important work that will be preserved for all of time, there by deeming it as a significant non-traditional “cultural media” in American society.
The postmodern cinema emerged in the 80s and 90s as a powerfully creative force in Hollywood film-making, helping to form the historic convergence of technology, media culture and consumerism. Departing from the modernist cultural tradition grounded in the faith in historical progress, the norms of industrial society and the Enlightenment, the postmodern film is defined by its disjointed narratives, images of chaos, random violence, a dark view of the human state, death of the hero and the emphasis on technique over content. The postmodernist film accomplishes that by acquiring forms and styles from the traditional methods and mixing them together or decorating them. Thus, the postmodern film challenges the “modern” and the modernist cinema along with its inclinations. It also attempts to transform the mainstream conventions of characterization, narrative and suppresses the audience suspension of disbelief. The postmodern cinema often rejects modernist conventions by manipulating and maneuvering with conventions such as space, time and story-telling. Furthermore, it rejects the traditional “grand-narratives” and totalizing forms such as war, history, love and utopian visions of reality. Instead, it is heavily aimed to create constructed fictions and subjective idealisms.
In his play Fuenteovejuna, Lope de Vega presents his audience with a provocative subversion of traditional class dynamics, depicting the peasants of the village of Fuenteovejuna revolting against and then killing the Commander who presides over them. This dramatic disruption of conventional class hierarchies would certainly be shocking to Vega’s original 17th century audience because they would be familiar with the structure of feudal societies such as the town of Fuenteovejuna. On the other hand, a modern audience lacks the necessary knowledge of European feudal politics to truly experience the same impact as an audience from Vega’s era. To remedy this issue, the class conflict in Fuenteovejuna should be portrayed as a Marxist revolution,
The 2006 film V for Vendetta, a cinematic remake of the classic graphic novel series by the same name, is the epitome of a Marxist fairy tale. The film is complete with a bourgeoisie government who spreads their ideology, via mass media, to a citizenry composed entirely of proletariats, and a hero who sets out to break said citizenry from the prison of false consciousness. If one examines the setting and environment of the film, and follows the main characters as they fight against, or break free from, false consciousness, evidence of Marxist themes are present throughout the film.
Classic narrative cinema is what Bordwell, Staiger and Thompson (The classic Hollywood Cinema, Columbia University press 1985) 1, calls “an excessively obvious cinema”1 in which cinematic style serves to explain and not to obscure the narrative. In this way it is made up of motivated events that lead the spectator to its inevitable conclusion. It causes the spectator to have an emotional investment in this conclusion coming to pass which in turn makes the predictable the most desirable outcome. The films are structured to create an atmosphere of verisimilitude, which is to give a perception of reality. On closer inspection it they are often far from realistic in a social sense but possibly portray a realism desired by the patriarchal and family value orientated society of the time. I feel that it is often the black and white representation of good and evil that creates such an atmosphere of predic...
By the example of Eloi and Morlocks, he warns of Capitalism and its consequences to mankind. This vision which is presented in “The Time Machine” shows or rather forecasts the results of the social split between the leisurely wealthy upper class and the working class, especially in the Victorian England.
... movie stars like royalty or mythical gods and goddesses, viewing the drama between great archetypal characters in a personal psychic realm. By considering the statements made and their societal impact from a Marxist perspective, Benjamin’s method is highly effective, as it does not simply consider art in terms of pure aesthetics anymore, but considers art’s place in a society capable of mechanically reproducing and endlessly duplicating film, photography, and digital art. His qualm with losing the aura and mystique of an original work is negated by the cult of movie stars, the adoration of fame, the incorporation of soundtracks which embody a particular time period, cinematographic allusions, and time-capsule-like qualities of a film such as Basquiat, a 90s tribute to the 80s, produced both as a part of and resulting from the art movements and trends it addresses.
As time passes, there are a few things that have stayed constant since the beginning of time. One of those things is the inevitable creation of class and social structure. Class and social structure are constructed because of the inequality between classes. In “Workaday World – Crack Economy” written by Phillipe Bourgois, and the film People Like Us social inequality is present. In this paper, I will use the theories of Pierre Bourdieu and Leith Mullings to analyze and evaluate social equality while using the film and essay as a guideline.
...use of documentary style lighting and discontinuous editing that diverges from the Hollywood “invisible” editing. Through understanding the historical climates these two seemingly similar French cinematic movements were in, the psychology of a generation can be visualized in a way truly unique to the indexicality of the cinematic medium.
The problem with society during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was the equality of all persons was few and far between. The bourgeoisie was in control of all the power and the proletariats were basically under their control. It was as if the bourgeoisie “originated out of the old medieval peasant class, in opposition to the medieval titled aristocracy.” [ii] They had taken over everything; the oppressed class lived by their rules and ways of life. Their way of life was not a happy one; family was based upon money instead of love. “Capital developed in the same proportion as the class of laborers developed.” ii Life then seemed simple for those living the life of the bourgeoisie, b...
Through most of the characters’ passion for filmmaking, this movie teaches the audience the great significance of film history. Many people in modern day tend to take film and its history for granted, but they do not realize the depth and effort that mankind has put into such a development. In Hugo, the theme of film history revolves around the entire production, and the audience sees flashbacks of Georges Méliès’ past that reveal his vital role in movie-making. By investing a deep meaning to the tale, viewers start to understand the great emotional and intellectual characteristics of movies. Additionally, Hugo himself delivers a message to his counterpart characters, which also serves as a lesson for the onlookers. He shows the audience that everyone has a part and purpose in this world. Protagonist Hugo Cabret says that “everything has a purpose, even machines. Clocks tell the time, trains take you places. They do what they’re meant to do.” Voicing through Hugo, the filmmakers illustrate how every individual has a reason to live and discover their calling. With a statement about the forgotten grandeur of film history and a valuable message to the crowd regarding one’s purpose, Hugo inspires and presents itself as a noteworthy and unforgettable
The marxist lens reflects the gap between the rich and the poor during the 1920’s through the glass ceiling effect and female economic status. The glass ceiling is an unseen and unbreakable barrier that keeps one from rising to the upper class regardless of their qualifications or achievements. The different settings in the novel represent this effect: East Egg, the Valley of Ashes, and
Since the creation of films, their main goal was to appeal to mass audiences. However, once, the viewer looks past the appearance of films, the viewer realizes that the all-important purpose of films is to serve as a bridge connecting countries, cultures, and languages. This is because if you compare any two films that are from a foreign country or spoken in another language, there is the possibility of a connection between the two because of the fact that they have a universally understanding or interpretation. This is true for the French New Wave films; Contempt and Breathless directed by Jean-Luc Godard, and contemporary Indian films; Earth and Water directed by Deepa Mehta. All four films portray an individual’s role in society using sound and editing.
The film Pulp Fiction was an immediate box office success when it was released in 1994 and it was also well received by the critics, and celebrated for the way it appeared to capture exactly a certain pre-millennial angst and dislocation in Western capitalist societies. The term post-modernist, often used to refer to art and architecture, was applied to this film. The pulp fiction refers to popular novels which are bought in large numbers by less well educated people and enjoyed for their entertainment value. The implication is that the film concerns topics of interest to this low culture, but as this essay will show, in fact, the title is ironic and the film is a very intellectual presentation of issues at the heart of contemporary western culture and philosophy.