Capitalism gone mad

By Kathy G.

I... drink... your... milkshake!

The history of the world, my love
Is those below serving those up above

 

Do I look like I'm negotiating?

 

I'm always a latecomer when it comes to recent  movies, because I don't see them until they come to campus. So it's only now that I'm catching up with films that were released near the end last year. Of the ones I've seen lately, three stand head and shoulders above the rest: Michael Clayton, Sweeney Todd, and There Will Be Blood. Not only were they the three best American films of 2007, they are, I believe, among the very best American films to appear within the last decade or two.

One reason all three of them are so powerfully resonant at this particular moment is that each is about capitalism gone mad -- literally. In Michael Clayton, the firm's lead counsel, soul-sick after years of being up to his eyeballs in corporate perfidy, strips naked in the middle of a deposition and starts screaming, "I am Shiva, the god of death!" In Sweeney Todd, the protagonist doesn't just go on a murderous rampage, he literally makes a business out of it, using the corpses of his victims as filling for Mrs. Lovett's meat pies (which -- wouldn't you know it? -- then begin to sell like proverbial hotcakes). And in the gloriously over-the-top There Will Be Blood, Daniel Day Lewis is a one-man sociopathic demolition derby, slashing and burning everyone and everything that gets between him and the untrammeled pursuit of greed, until in the final scene, having brained to death the last remaining character who seemed to have any integrity, he crumbles into an exhausted heap and croaks, "I'm finished."

I'd love to write more about each of these films, particularly Sweeney Todd, of which I've long been a fan. I've seen several versions of it on the stage, and Tim Burton's film is really marvelous in the imaginative way it re-envisions the material and creates something fresh and original. For now I'll just note that each of these films depicts a society rotten with corruption, bloated with greed, and riven by deep social injustices and gross class inequities.

But while Sweeney and There Will Be Blood are as thoroughly pitch-dark as any American film in recent memory, Michael Clayton at least holds out a glimmer of hope. As the burnt-out lawyer in the title role, George Clooney manages, at last, to reclaim his soul from the lost and found and find a measure of redemption. The climax, when the police rush in and arrest the corporate officers en masse while Clooney purrs, "You're so fucked. Here let me get a picture while I'm at it" -- it was thrilling. Seeing the corporate criminals getting the handcuffs slapped on them, savoring the shocked looks on their faces as they are being held to account for once in their lives -- it was the desire of our collective unconscious made manifest, the dream we don't dare to dream become reality.

All three of these films seem to be tapping into the ever-darkening national mood, and their thematic concerns with the excesses of capitalism strike an especially salutary note after a decade's worth of  corporate scandals like Enron, Halliburton, the mortgage crisis, and the like. I often wonder whether we as a society are capable of truly reining in these excesses and making the deep structural reforms that are necessary to make sure it won't happen again. One key lies in making demands on our leaders, requiring them work for our votes, and not selling our support on the cheap. "Do I look like I'm negotiating?" -- that's the spirit, for sure. Knock down the damn door.

Comments

[winer]

Yeah. Good movies. I'd add "When the Devil Knows You're Dead" as another great movie of last year that could be interpreted as an indictment of the way greed corrupts families, communities, and individuals.

[winer]

or actually it might be called "before the devil knows you're dead." Whatever...it's a good movie in my opinion.

[Max Renn]

'May you be a half hour in heaven . . . before the Devil knows you're dead.'

That's the proverb. Sadly, the film for me did not live up to the promise it portended. The performances are stellar, with the exception of Finney, but the script and the resolution? Eh, not so much. It's a good acting clinic, but not much of a 'hang together' in my view. It does do a decent, Lumet-y job of indicting the endless suckinging reality of the American nightmare, but in the end, too easy, too one-dimensional.

Kathy, have you see No Country for Old Men? Now that is a really fine film. Not for the faint of heart, but given your other picks, I think you'd love it. Talk about capitalism run amok. It's got everything.

Tilda won that Oscar the minute the crew printed the scene in which she collapses to her knees as Clayton walks away. Strings cut, boom, she's down on the floor. Great film.

Love your blog, btw. Great stuff.

[Kathy G.]

Winer, I haven't seen Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. I was hoping it would be shown on campus, but it wasn't. I'll be sure to check out the DVD, though, because I'm a big fan of Sidney Lumet and of Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Max, thanks for the kind words. I did see No Country for Old Men but I didn't much care for it. I thought it was extremely well-made but kind of empty. However, a lot of my movie-savvy friends loved it, so maybe the problem was me, not the movie.

[strait woman]

I'm new to your blog. I really like it. Saw all three movies, too, but not There Will be Blood. I'm one of the faint of heart--definitely.

[mrmobi]

Sweeney Todd. Now you're talking. I, too, have long been a fan of Sondheim, and this especially dark and musically exquisite play. I was ready to be disappointed, especially when I heard that Burton took out the opening chorus which, in the play, sets up the story. I should have known better. Burton and his art director have created a world so fully realized that the chorus is not missed.

The other performance I was ready to be disappointed in was Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs. Lovett, but she gives as nuanced and lovely a performance of one of the most difficult roles in musical theatre as I could have imagined, and she has a lovely singing voice. What a great job. Musical of the Century!

Michael Clayton was also very, very good, and I thought Tilda Swinton and Tom Wilkinson stole the show.

Let me add another vote for No Country for Old Men, and especially the performances of Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin.

[kew]

"...having brained to death the last remaining character who seemed to have any integrity..."

Um, maybe. But I kind of thought Daniel Day-Lewis and the fundamentalist preacher were two sides of the same coin: Both thrived on exploiting the ignorance of the trusting, simple folks. In the end, the oilman just finished off his last competitor. Which was why I liked this movie less than others did. None of the main characters had any redeeming value (I had similar feelings about Sweeney Todd--sorry). "There Will Be Blood" was one of two movies I watched this weekend, the other being "In the Valley of Elah." Now that is a good movie. Of course, I'm a sucker for most everything Tommy Lee Jones does, but it is good. Highly recommended.

[Bruce in Lyon]

Only saw "There Will Be Blood", and thought that, as usual, Daniel Day-Lewis was phenomenal. I had read an interview with him just a few weeks before I saw the film, and he talked about the role (and his youth) in a way that made me think of a cross between minor autistic tendencies (reluctance or inability to communicate with others for long periods of time) and paranoid psychosis (also known as just plain ol' off the deep end paranoia).

The paranoia is shown through the character's deep hostility and fear of other human beings, added to his inability to connect to any meaningful female relationship of any sort. He views all others as wanting what he has (= feelings of persecution), which is vividly illustrated at the end of the film when his "son" says that he basically wants to do the same thing as "his dad". Dad responds by telling him that he is now the enemy, and like any insect has to be crushed. (I'm obviously paraphrasing here, but that's the way I understood it.)

By the way, it seemed as though there was a very strong homosexual element to Day-Lewis's character in that he only had male friends, seemed to only be comfortable around other men, and in the one scene in a brothel, all he can do is sit there, angry and scowling, seeming almost afraid to look at the women there. Just after that scene is when he kills his "brother". Hypothesis for the character: because he thinks the guy is his brother (= like him), there's a strong identification, but because of "his brother's" heterosexual sex that he had just witnessed, well, that was just too intolerable, that guy couldn't possibly be his brother. Brother can't be brother, oh God, too intolerable, got to get rid of this psychic conflict, gotta' kill him (=> see end of 1st paragraph).

If indeed these films do show some kind of tendency to question the effects of modern day Wild West Capitalism (as it's called in France), is it possible that this film is hinting that one of the effects of unhindered capitalism is psychosis? And that if capitalism can in some cases promote psychosis, that capitalism is itself a psychotic process?

Just rambling on here... :-)

And please, keep up your writing, it's a real breath of fresh air...