Deconstruction not to criticize, but to defend
July 24, 2019 8:43 AM Subscribe
If Capitalism is not sustainable and always trends towards monopolies or greater control of market share by a single entity, can we use late stage capitalism to explain why the recent Disney live action remakes are terrible? Sure, why not: LATE STAGE DISNEY by Renegade Cut ( 20:41)
I'm glad to see the blame clearly laid at the feet of Tim Burton, the candystriped symbol of all that is wrong in the world today.
posted by mittens at 9:18 AM on July 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by mittens at 9:18 AM on July 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
Three words: Son of Flubber.
posted by sammyo at 9:59 AM on July 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 9:59 AM on July 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
This was a really good video; I've been following Renegade Cut for a while, but I think this is easily one of his best.
The quote that nailed it for me:
"Late Stage Disney movies contain deeply disingenuous themes and a pale IMITATION of post-modernism that only jokingly mocks its own canon and deconstructs NOT TO CRITICIZE but to DEFEND ITSELF FROM CRITICISM of its own place in late stage capitalism"
This also sums up what bugs me about a lot of these 'self-aware' "woke" brands; it's the corporate version of that dude who tells everyone he's an 'asshole' so he can later get away with being an asshole.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 10:02 AM on July 24, 2019 [12 favorites]
The quote that nailed it for me:
"Late Stage Disney movies contain deeply disingenuous themes and a pale IMITATION of post-modernism that only jokingly mocks its own canon and deconstructs NOT TO CRITICIZE but to DEFEND ITSELF FROM CRITICISM of its own place in late stage capitalism"
This also sums up what bugs me about a lot of these 'self-aware' "woke" brands; it's the corporate version of that dude who tells everyone he's an 'asshole' so he can later get away with being an asshole.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 10:02 AM on July 24, 2019 [12 favorites]
I haven't yet had a chance to watch the full 20 minute video, but the reliance on the inherent and disingenuous contradictions between justice/morality/ethics and capitalism has been a key component of the Hollywood product from the start in differing ways as the social focus changes, but always there to get people to feel good about consuming while selling criticism of the "elite".
Some of it is sorta genuine as the makers and production companies can have different goals, but much of it is by careful design.
Now I'll refrain from further comment until I finish the video.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:19 AM on July 24, 2019
Some of it is sorta genuine as the makers and production companies can have different goals, but much of it is by careful design.
Now I'll refrain from further comment until I finish the video.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:19 AM on July 24, 2019
to get people to feel good about consuming while selling criticism of the "elite".
One of the interesting points of the video that I hadn't really considered was how carefully filtered that criticism is; the movies criticize individuals, not systems, and make sure there are plenty of friendly rich people around to emphasize that the problem isn't profound wealth.
posted by mittens at 10:27 AM on July 24, 2019 [4 favorites]
One of the interesting points of the video that I hadn't really considered was how carefully filtered that criticism is; the movies criticize individuals, not systems, and make sure there are plenty of friendly rich people around to emphasize that the problem isn't profound wealth.
posted by mittens at 10:27 AM on July 24, 2019 [4 favorites]
I watched the video - I think he makes a good case but I disagree.
All these movie remakes I'd describe as mid-stage capitalism, as in they are taking products that worked and endlessly remaking them to wring every dollar out of the individual product. Disney actually held out on this too, didn't they- longer than most? I mean the endless Spiderman reboots seem more on point that these. At least Disney is making relatively complex technical changes. The last Spiderman reboot was cheap stilted animation (to be comic book like) and they just added a few jokes.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:32 AM on July 24, 2019
All these movie remakes I'd describe as mid-stage capitalism, as in they are taking products that worked and endlessly remaking them to wring every dollar out of the individual product. Disney actually held out on this too, didn't they- longer than most? I mean the endless Spiderman reboots seem more on point that these. At least Disney is making relatively complex technical changes. The last Spiderman reboot was cheap stilted animation (to be comic book like) and they just added a few jokes.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:32 AM on July 24, 2019
the movies criticize individuals, not systems, and make sure there are plenty of friendly rich people around to emphasize that the problem isn't profound wealth.
This is basically Orwell’s take on Dickens as well
posted by The Whelk at 10:34 AM on July 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
This is basically Orwell’s take on Dickens as well
posted by The Whelk at 10:34 AM on July 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
At least Disney is making relatively complex technical changes. The last Spiderman reboot was cheap stilted animation (to be comic book like) and they just added a few jokes.
Wait, is this a reference to Into the Spider-Verse, a movie that was both very innovative in the world of animation and probably the most interesting looking movie of 2018?
posted by notheotherone at 10:46 AM on July 24, 2019 [26 favorites]
Wait, is this a reference to Into the Spider-Verse, a movie that was both very innovative in the world of animation and probably the most interesting looking movie of 2018?
posted by notheotherone at 10:46 AM on July 24, 2019 [26 favorites]
Wait, is this a reference to Into the Spider-Verse, a movie that was both very innovative in the world of animation and probably the most interesting looking movie of 2018?
Yes, and neither of those other two things is true (IMO). I could probably list a half-dozen movies that copied the 'comic book thing' animation style at least for a few scenes and Isle of Dogs was more interesting looking.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:51 AM on July 24, 2019
Yes, and neither of those other two things is true (IMO). I could probably list a half-dozen movies that copied the 'comic book thing' animation style at least for a few scenes and Isle of Dogs was more interesting looking.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:51 AM on July 24, 2019
es, and neither of those other two things is true
Well, that's like, just your opinion man!
posted by evilDoug at 10:53 AM on July 24, 2019 [14 favorites]
Well, that's like, just your opinion man!
posted by evilDoug at 10:53 AM on July 24, 2019 [14 favorites]
Yeah, there is no ethical production under capitalism, etc, but Spider-man: Into the Spider-Verse was objectively one of the best action movies in 2018 and the best comic book movie from that year. The art direction (not just the ben-day styling and word boxes) was gorgeous and reinforced both plot and themes, the cinematography such as it was was top-notch, the plot innovative, the characters novel and well-voiced, and the soundtrack excellent (sadly with a Post-Malone addition though). It's funny in such a joyful way that doesn't overplay its hand (unless the point is to overplay it with extreme excess in a few places). My partner is sick to death of comic book movies, but had such a good time with this one.
Just look at this one scene.
P.S. Peter B. Parker confirmed Jewish.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:10 AM on July 24, 2019 [10 favorites]
Just look at this one scene.
P.S. Peter B. Parker confirmed Jewish.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:10 AM on July 24, 2019 [10 favorites]
I could probably list a half-dozen movies that copied the 'comic book thing' animation style at least for a few scenes and Isle of Dogs was more interesting looking.
I thought Isle of Dogs (and Fantastic Mr Fox before it) was great *before* I read your comments... but your opinions on Spider-Verse are so bad that I think I'm forced re-examine the idea that I should share an esteem for Dogs.
Though I am anxiously awaiting this list of a half-dozen movies that have comparable "comic book thing" animation, even if "at least for a few scenes" is the kind of qualifier that can entirely swallow a premise, because I'd be as happy to be surprised to find out there are equally brilliant visual experiences I was unaware of out there as to find out some people don't appreciate what was on screen in Spider-Verse.
posted by wildblueyonder at 11:25 AM on July 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
I thought Isle of Dogs (and Fantastic Mr Fox before it) was great *before* I read your comments... but your opinions on Spider-Verse are so bad that I think I'm forced re-examine the idea that I should share an esteem for Dogs.
Though I am anxiously awaiting this list of a half-dozen movies that have comparable "comic book thing" animation, even if "at least for a few scenes" is the kind of qualifier that can entirely swallow a premise, because I'd be as happy to be surprised to find out there are equally brilliant visual experiences I was unaware of out there as to find out some people don't appreciate what was on screen in Spider-Verse.
posted by wildblueyonder at 11:25 AM on July 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
This is basically Orwell’s take on Dickens as well
I want so badly to argue the point because debt is so central to Dickens, and cruelty emerging from institutions, but Orwell's pretty persuasive. God, does that mean Dickens and Disney occupy the same moral position? I may not be cut out for this horrible world if so.
posted by mittens at 11:29 AM on July 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
I want so badly to argue the point because debt is so central to Dickens, and cruelty emerging from institutions, but Orwell's pretty persuasive. God, does that mean Dickens and Disney occupy the same moral position? I may not be cut out for this horrible world if so.
posted by mittens at 11:29 AM on July 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
Well as the essay and thread point out, Dickens is coming from a place of real empathy, as with his writing on the French Revolution in A Tale Of Two Cities (it would be difficult to be a good novelist without this, I’d say) he just can’t imagine solutions that aren’t everything somehow magically working out, which is a common critique of mainstream liberalism for sure.
Both Disney and Dickens end up at the same place, their being “good” individual rich people who come to the rescue, but I think a massive multinational hellbent on never losing market share and absorbing as much intellectual property as possible has a different underlying motive then a 19th century English novelist.
posted by The Whelk at 11:42 AM on July 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
Both Disney and Dickens end up at the same place, their being “good” individual rich people who come to the rescue, but I think a massive multinational hellbent on never losing market share and absorbing as much intellectual property as possible has a different underlying motive then a 19th century English novelist.
posted by The Whelk at 11:42 AM on July 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
Dickens has always been an uncomfortable combination of real passion for justice and a fear of upsetting conservative respectability. He was brilliant enough to walk that line and make good money at it, but retreating to a belief in individual goodness as as solution to systemic evil was definitely one way he coped with that. But he is hardly unique in that; all conservatives and even lots of liberals much prefer "nice" billionaires giving out presents to "worthy" poor people to actual change.
posted by emjaybee at 11:45 AM on July 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 11:45 AM on July 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
Yeah, there is no ethical production under capitalism, etc, but Spider-man: Into the Spider-Verse was objectively one of the best action movies in 2018 and the best comic book movie from that year.
It's probably my favorite superhero movie period. It was fantastic.
That's all beside the point though, because it wasn't a Disney film. It was Sony.
posted by graventy at 12:38 PM on July 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
It's probably my favorite superhero movie period. It was fantastic.
That's all beside the point though, because it wasn't a Disney film. It was Sony.
posted by graventy at 12:38 PM on July 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
One of the things that really kills me about Disney's market domination is how much free help they get in their efforts. Because they control popular properties from the past they get not only name recognition as part of their marketing scheme, but the assist of any website or publication that remotely traffics in popular culture pushing their promos, showing their trailers, and generally adding to the hype around the properties that makes them so talked about that people see them if for no other reason than to find out what it is people are talking about. It's a cultural gavage that a site almost has to assist in to get any views themselves as that's all people talk about. That even Metafilter has had, what, about ten posts or so on Disney properties over the past week shows how difficult it is to avoid celebrating capitalism in its artistic guise.
Part of this though is a bit more complicated, I think, than the video lets on as some of the elements in some movies can carry subversive ideology, even when under capture of capital interests. Disney and other movie/entertainment companies don't so much mind this as the critique is still being sold by the company and there isn't any real and current danger that capitalism in under threat, so they're comfortable criticizing it as it appears to keep them more distant for being "artistic". The same is true for other "isms" at times as well. There have been legitimate criticisms nestled in consumer products as part of the makers concerns, but even then as popular movies are usually incredibly expense to make, the compromise or contradiction is always there, implicitly if not, as described in the video, explicitly if one cares to dig a bit.
The question of what constitutes a "meaning" or read in that sense and who gets to make it and determine its worth is also an important consideration the video kind of elides under its preheld belief in the faults and needed decline of capitalism. (There's nothing at all wrong with that belief, but assuming it as one that should be exhibited or held by others does sort of beg the question.) Look at something like Black Panther, for example, celebrated for good reasons in bringing some long denied sense of representation to the screen in heroic roles to popular response. In a way, only Disney could provide that sense of validation because of their importance to the market.
It is important, in just that way, because Disney made it for profit and succeeded in gaining a huge audience. At the same time, there are a number of salient critiques leveled against the movie by some black critics for how it envisioned its cultural conflicts and made the movie "safe for whites" by implicitly contrasting The Black Panther against the Black Panther Party as a way to signal a safe for white audiences attitude. The craft and importance of the movie balanced against the conflicting ideologies it may contain is just the kind of mixed message movie history is full of. I can't possibly say that there isn't anything of value or importance for black audiences in the movie when they say there is but I can't ignore the critiques of the movie either, leaving it as an unresolved tension that can be understood in more than one way. That only Disney (almost) could make such an enormously popular movie also starts to lean towards requiring Disney's validation for values to have meaning in the culture, which is really disturbing.
That's really the true art of Hollywood, saying different things simultaneously and having them each be true. Trying to simplify that overmuch leads down a misguided path as the arts, like the rest of our lives, exist in the culture as it is even if that isn't the culture that we desire. We necessarily contribute to the capitalist system by living within it, even as we may also wish to critique or fight it. Disney obviously doesn't wish to destroy capitalism, there's no reason to believe they would have that as a meaning in their movies. They are far more artistically controlling of their franchises in hopes of maintaining a constant return of revenue from the familiar. Original productions and those of lesser importance to a bottom have greater freedom in expression, though remotely unlimited, but even big budget franchise movies can't completely control the creative processes or, more importantly, the reception of the works entirely, which is where the limited battles for meaning really play out.
That isn't to say I didn't appreciate the video for making the argument, as that is what needs to happen if one does want to get beyond late stage capitalism and Disneyfication, I just think he oversimplifies a bit and puts the cart before the horse in some ways.
(I haven't seen the specific films discussed in the video other than the first Burton Alice, but plenty of other Disney movies and Hollywood stuff.)
posted by gusottertrout at 12:49 PM on July 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
Part of this though is a bit more complicated, I think, than the video lets on as some of the elements in some movies can carry subversive ideology, even when under capture of capital interests. Disney and other movie/entertainment companies don't so much mind this as the critique is still being sold by the company and there isn't any real and current danger that capitalism in under threat, so they're comfortable criticizing it as it appears to keep them more distant for being "artistic". The same is true for other "isms" at times as well. There have been legitimate criticisms nestled in consumer products as part of the makers concerns, but even then as popular movies are usually incredibly expense to make, the compromise or contradiction is always there, implicitly if not, as described in the video, explicitly if one cares to dig a bit.
The question of what constitutes a "meaning" or read in that sense and who gets to make it and determine its worth is also an important consideration the video kind of elides under its preheld belief in the faults and needed decline of capitalism. (There's nothing at all wrong with that belief, but assuming it as one that should be exhibited or held by others does sort of beg the question.) Look at something like Black Panther, for example, celebrated for good reasons in bringing some long denied sense of representation to the screen in heroic roles to popular response. In a way, only Disney could provide that sense of validation because of their importance to the market.
It is important, in just that way, because Disney made it for profit and succeeded in gaining a huge audience. At the same time, there are a number of salient critiques leveled against the movie by some black critics for how it envisioned its cultural conflicts and made the movie "safe for whites" by implicitly contrasting The Black Panther against the Black Panther Party as a way to signal a safe for white audiences attitude. The craft and importance of the movie balanced against the conflicting ideologies it may contain is just the kind of mixed message movie history is full of. I can't possibly say that there isn't anything of value or importance for black audiences in the movie when they say there is but I can't ignore the critiques of the movie either, leaving it as an unresolved tension that can be understood in more than one way. That only Disney (almost) could make such an enormously popular movie also starts to lean towards requiring Disney's validation for values to have meaning in the culture, which is really disturbing.
That's really the true art of Hollywood, saying different things simultaneously and having them each be true. Trying to simplify that overmuch leads down a misguided path as the arts, like the rest of our lives, exist in the culture as it is even if that isn't the culture that we desire. We necessarily contribute to the capitalist system by living within it, even as we may also wish to critique or fight it. Disney obviously doesn't wish to destroy capitalism, there's no reason to believe they would have that as a meaning in their movies. They are far more artistically controlling of their franchises in hopes of maintaining a constant return of revenue from the familiar. Original productions and those of lesser importance to a bottom have greater freedom in expression, though remotely unlimited, but even big budget franchise movies can't completely control the creative processes or, more importantly, the reception of the works entirely, which is where the limited battles for meaning really play out.
That isn't to say I didn't appreciate the video for making the argument, as that is what needs to happen if one does want to get beyond late stage capitalism and Disneyfication, I just think he oversimplifies a bit and puts the cart before the horse in some ways.
(I haven't seen the specific films discussed in the video other than the first Burton Alice, but plenty of other Disney movies and Hollywood stuff.)
posted by gusottertrout at 12:49 PM on July 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
um you guys I named this phenomenon years ago; the "Wall-E Conundrum" is when the ostensible "moral" of a Disney movie is corrupted by the very fact that the movie was made by Disney, you are welcome to use it anytime
posted by youarenothere at 2:43 PM on July 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by youarenothere at 2:43 PM on July 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
the plot innovative, the characters novel and well-voiced, and the soundtrack excellent (sadly with a Post-Malone addition though).
I'd go so far as to say everyone's defense of Spiderverse is exactly why Disney rebooted their movies. The realistic animals in the rebooted Lion King is equally as innovative as Spiderverse was, just for a different audience. And the slight changes to the story of live action Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast are as innovative plot-wise as telling the Spiderman origin story again. Which is totally mid-stage capitalism! Copy an existing product, but make it slightly more appealing to their chosen market segment.
And I did like the voice actors, but that is because Nick from New Girl was the mid-stage capitalism reboot of Friends the appealed to my market segment (me).
posted by The_Vegetables at 5:55 PM on July 24, 2019
I'd go so far as to say everyone's defense of Spiderverse is exactly why Disney rebooted their movies. The realistic animals in the rebooted Lion King is equally as innovative as Spiderverse was, just for a different audience. And the slight changes to the story of live action Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast are as innovative plot-wise as telling the Spiderman origin story again. Which is totally mid-stage capitalism! Copy an existing product, but make it slightly more appealing to their chosen market segment.
And I did like the voice actors, but that is because Nick from New Girl was the mid-stage capitalism reboot of Friends the appealed to my market segment (me).
posted by The_Vegetables at 5:55 PM on July 24, 2019
how difficult it is to avoid celebrating capitalism in its artistic guise.
Amen. Also: ouch.
posted by SaltySalticid at 6:19 PM on July 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
Amen. Also: ouch.
posted by SaltySalticid at 6:19 PM on July 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
The_Vegetables, I didn't think it was possible for one person to be so consistently wrong in one thread.
In fact this isn't just wrong, it's incoherent:
The realistic animals in the rebooted Lion King is equally as innovative as Spiderverse was, just for a different audience. And the slight changes to the story of live action Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast are as innovative plot-wise as telling the Spiderman origin story again
ITSV wasn't an animated copy of a previously existing work. It was a brand-new new story with characters that have never been in any Spider-Man movie before. It used all sorts of innovative and creative animation styles and techniques that are only possible in that medium that felt fresh and fun.
I suspect you just have the kind of contempt for animated works in general that kept ITSV from reaching the wider audience it deserved.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:47 PM on July 24, 2019 [4 favorites]
In fact this isn't just wrong, it's incoherent:
The realistic animals in the rebooted Lion King is equally as innovative as Spiderverse was, just for a different audience. And the slight changes to the story of live action Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast are as innovative plot-wise as telling the Spiderman origin story again
ITSV wasn't an animated copy of a previously existing work. It was a brand-new new story with characters that have never been in any Spider-Man movie before. It used all sorts of innovative and creative animation styles and techniques that are only possible in that medium that felt fresh and fun.
I suspect you just have the kind of contempt for animated works in general that kept ITSV from reaching the wider audience it deserved.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:47 PM on July 24, 2019 [4 favorites]
I could probably list a half-dozen movies that copied the 'comic book thing' animation style at least for a few scenes
Like I just want to point out here that they didn't do the low-frame rate animation on Miles to be more like a comic book - the Spider-people are all animated at 24fps except for Miles.
I appreciate you're trying to rescue what you think is a cogent point, but, man, I've been here before. Take the L.
posted by Merus at 10:27 PM on July 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
Like I just want to point out here that they didn't do the low-frame rate animation on Miles to be more like a comic book - the Spider-people are all animated at 24fps except for Miles.
I appreciate you're trying to rescue what you think is a cogent point, but, man, I've been here before. Take the L.
posted by Merus at 10:27 PM on July 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
Disney actually held out on this too, didn't they- longer than most?
I mean, not really.
The official Walt Disney Animation plan before the Pixar acquisition was to churn out direct to video sequels of existing properties on a 2 year cycle. Post acquisition (when Lasseter was put in charge), they changed to a three year cycle with a renewed focus on original properties.
So, the Pixar folks brought us a temporary reprieve, but Disney always had the “over and over until we are all dead” inside them.
posted by sideshow at 11:31 PM on July 24, 2019
I mean, not really.
The official Walt Disney Animation plan before the Pixar acquisition was to churn out direct to video sequels of existing properties on a 2 year cycle. Post acquisition (when Lasseter was put in charge), they changed to a three year cycle with a renewed focus on original properties.
So, the Pixar folks brought us a temporary reprieve, but Disney always had the “over and over until we are all dead” inside them.
posted by sideshow at 11:31 PM on July 24, 2019
Also, I disagree with a lot of takes on this website, especially when the threads start repeating “late stage capitalism” over and over, but that take on Into the Spider-verse is the worst I’ve seen on in the 18 years I’ve been coming here.
Well, except for that one guy who said Frozen wasn’t a popular movie during the time you could bet your life that if you drove to you local elementary school at lunch, you could hear multiple groups of little girls singing Let It Go to each other.
posted by sideshow at 11:34 PM on July 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
Well, except for that one guy who said Frozen wasn’t a popular movie during the time you could bet your life that if you drove to you local elementary school at lunch, you could hear multiple groups of little girls singing Let It Go to each other.
posted by sideshow at 11:34 PM on July 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
One of the things I find interesting about the comparison between the new Lion King and its ilk and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is that the latter is relying more on establishing an artistic style as its look, sure, referencing the comic books, but using animation for its more plastic and unreal qualities as much as anything else, where The Lion King, while surely having artistic choices involved, is relying more on the brute force of spending on the highest end computer animation to attempt to create a feeling of non-animation, of it seeming "real".
The Lion King method of animation in itself is more novelty of technological advance and the money to put it to use in a full length film. It's a short term advantage that others eventually will be able to adapt for their own ends, including competitors from overseas as redubbing an animated movie is only a small added expense. Given how well India and China are taking up CGI and using it towards more unique ends, Disney either has to keep developing new technological novelties or allow more artistic freedom in developing more singular styles like Spider-Man. The Disney-esque control works when you have market advantage in scale and familiarity of product, but eventually the want for seeing new expression will ask for more than tech and habituation can provide.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:51 PM on July 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
The Lion King method of animation in itself is more novelty of technological advance and the money to put it to use in a full length film. It's a short term advantage that others eventually will be able to adapt for their own ends, including competitors from overseas as redubbing an animated movie is only a small added expense. Given how well India and China are taking up CGI and using it towards more unique ends, Disney either has to keep developing new technological novelties or allow more artistic freedom in developing more singular styles like Spider-Man. The Disney-esque control works when you have market advantage in scale and familiarity of product, but eventually the want for seeing new expression will ask for more than tech and habituation can provide.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:51 PM on July 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
I want so badly to argue the point because debt is so central to Dickens, and cruelty emerging from institutions, but Orwell's pretty persuasive. God, does that mean Dickens and Disney occupy the same moral position? I may not be cut out for this horrible world if so.
Dickens was writing in an absurdly different world - before and immediately after the bourgeois revolutions of 1848, before and immediately after the Communist Manifesto, when it was pretty much illegal to "combine" or unionize. That's not to say that his "the world would be good if people were good" analysis is a great one, but it's coming from a very different material situation/conceptual toolbox than late capitalist Disney's. It's wrong, but it's not IMO hypocritical in the same way.
Dickens started writing before many of the big tunnel and road projects that made travel within the UK comparatively easy.
To spitball: I think we underestimate the conceptual power of the sort of systematizing revolution that happens with Marx, Freud and the later 19th century consolidation of the sciences. You think about someone like Zola, so widely reviled, who was writing these books in the late 19th century that strive to create a sort of panoramic economic view as a political project...Or you think about Fielding, writing in the mid-18th century, who was a judge famous for his sympathy to the poor, and how there's no economic system in Tom Jones whatsoever.
Like, I find the soft squishy dissolve that Orwell describes at the end of most Dickens novels frustrating, but it's not at all the same moral position because it's not informed by the same conditions or the same understanding of the world.
posted by Frowner at 5:53 AM on July 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
Dickens was writing in an absurdly different world - before and immediately after the bourgeois revolutions of 1848, before and immediately after the Communist Manifesto, when it was pretty much illegal to "combine" or unionize. That's not to say that his "the world would be good if people were good" analysis is a great one, but it's coming from a very different material situation/conceptual toolbox than late capitalist Disney's. It's wrong, but it's not IMO hypocritical in the same way.
Dickens started writing before many of the big tunnel and road projects that made travel within the UK comparatively easy.
To spitball: I think we underestimate the conceptual power of the sort of systematizing revolution that happens with Marx, Freud and the later 19th century consolidation of the sciences. You think about someone like Zola, so widely reviled, who was writing these books in the late 19th century that strive to create a sort of panoramic economic view as a political project...Or you think about Fielding, writing in the mid-18th century, who was a judge famous for his sympathy to the poor, and how there's no economic system in Tom Jones whatsoever.
Like, I find the soft squishy dissolve that Orwell describes at the end of most Dickens novels frustrating, but it's not at all the same moral position because it's not informed by the same conditions or the same understanding of the world.
posted by Frowner at 5:53 AM on July 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
just gonna dive right in to the dickens derail: if i recall correctly his hard times (one of his few novels without scenes in london; it takes place in a northern industrial town, sort of manchester with the serial numbers filed off) to some extent transcends his mushy “a nice reformed rich person will save us all” liberalism. but also, i can’t recall all that much in particular about it because it was uhhh almost unreadably boring.
i think i came into it with expectations that were a bit too high; i was all “omg a dickens novel set in manchester??? and it’s kind of communist?!?!1!?? sign me up!”
and then: boring.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 8:10 AM on July 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
i think i came into it with expectations that were a bit too high; i was all “omg a dickens novel set in manchester??? and it’s kind of communist?!?!1!?? sign me up!”
and then: boring.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 8:10 AM on July 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
The thing I like about Metafilter is in a thread about capitalism and Disney there are two details, one about a Spider-Man cartoon and one about Charles Dickens, and they're both equally thoughtful and articulate.
P.S. Into the Spider-Verse is excellent and if you disagree you probably need to watch it again.
I have no meaningful opinion of Dickens
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 4:19 PM on July 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
P.S. Into the Spider-Verse is excellent and if you disagree you probably need to watch it again.
I have no meaningful opinion of Dickens
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 4:19 PM on July 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
You should read Bleak House! It's so weird!
Lotta people have seen A Christmas Carol (which in itself is pretty weird but has been naturalized by repetition) and think that Dickens is some staid, dull virtue-monger, but his books are actually full of strange incident and eerie weirdness.
And horror! I just read The Old Curiousity Shop - about which Wilde was mostly wrong - and it is fucking horrifying. (Also extremely able-ist, in that the genuinely scary villain is a little person and his shortness is clearly supposed to indicate his moral failings. He's not scary because he's short; he's scary because he is malice personified, a domestic abuser and a rapist.)
But anyway. The whole book revolves around the pursuit of Nell, who is fourteen, by various adult men who are essentially trying to rape her. She's a child, she's out in the world trying to care for her grandfather, who suffers from dementia and addiction, and there is almost no way for her to access help and housing. Meanwhile, this terrifying chain of creeps and abusers are all scheming to assault her. There's a lot of horror in the book and I don't think it's just because we have different ideas about childhood now - I think Dickens means it to be horrifying. It's us, who put this oldey-timey folkloresque reading on it, who make it a kitsch joke. And there's a lot of Dickens that is horrifying in the same way, with only its distance from us masking the scariness.
I mean, in broad outline Dickens's plots are all "bad things happen, then the protagonist marries or inherits money and everyone sits around being modestly independently wealthy for the rest of their lives", that's very true. But if you're reading Dickens for NK Jemisin-esque brilliant plot twists and surprises, you're reading for the wrong thing.
I highly recommend Dickens, and I recommend starting with Bleak House. It's big, it's weird and it really packs a tremendous punch.
posted by Frowner at 7:44 AM on July 26, 2019 [1 favorite]
Lotta people have seen A Christmas Carol (which in itself is pretty weird but has been naturalized by repetition) and think that Dickens is some staid, dull virtue-monger, but his books are actually full of strange incident and eerie weirdness.
And horror! I just read The Old Curiousity Shop - about which Wilde was mostly wrong - and it is fucking horrifying. (Also extremely able-ist, in that the genuinely scary villain is a little person and his shortness is clearly supposed to indicate his moral failings. He's not scary because he's short; he's scary because he is malice personified, a domestic abuser and a rapist.)
But anyway. The whole book revolves around the pursuit of Nell, who is fourteen, by various adult men who are essentially trying to rape her. She's a child, she's out in the world trying to care for her grandfather, who suffers from dementia and addiction, and there is almost no way for her to access help and housing. Meanwhile, this terrifying chain of creeps and abusers are all scheming to assault her. There's a lot of horror in the book and I don't think it's just because we have different ideas about childhood now - I think Dickens means it to be horrifying. It's us, who put this oldey-timey folkloresque reading on it, who make it a kitsch joke. And there's a lot of Dickens that is horrifying in the same way, with only its distance from us masking the scariness.
I mean, in broad outline Dickens's plots are all "bad things happen, then the protagonist marries or inherits money and everyone sits around being modestly independently wealthy for the rest of their lives", that's very true. But if you're reading Dickens for NK Jemisin-esque brilliant plot twists and surprises, you're reading for the wrong thing.
I highly recommend Dickens, and I recommend starting with Bleak House. It's big, it's weird and it really packs a tremendous punch.
posted by Frowner at 7:44 AM on July 26, 2019 [1 favorite]
Somewhat under discussed, because of the massive market share Disney has their movies can’t fail. As a monopoly they exist outside “market forces”
“This has never happened. The five biggest movies of the year at the U.S. box office are all from one studio -- Disney.
(1) #AvengersEndgame $856.4 million
(2) #CaptainMarvel $426.8 million
(3) #ToyStory4 $395.6 million
(4) #TheLionKing $350.8 million
(5) #Aladdin $345.9 million”
Pretty basic Adam Smith will tell you all large industries trend toward monopoly but this is like, late 19th century standard oil levels of monopoly.
posted by The Whelk at 8:58 AM on July 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
“This has never happened. The five biggest movies of the year at the U.S. box office are all from one studio -- Disney.
(1) #AvengersEndgame $856.4 million
(2) #CaptainMarvel $426.8 million
(3) #ToyStory4 $395.6 million
(4) #TheLionKing $350.8 million
(5) #Aladdin $345.9 million”
Pretty basic Adam Smith will tell you all large industries trend toward monopoly but this is like, late 19th century standard oil levels of monopoly.
posted by The Whelk at 8:58 AM on July 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
« Older Codecademy vs. the BBC Micro | Farewell to the Dog That Launched a Thousand Pets Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
#NotAllCapitalists
posted by sfenders at 8:55 AM on July 24, 2019