Why Hollywood Can't Eat the Rich

[@UltraDoug]

Excellent analysis as usual. The only problem I have with most of these movies is the one dimensionality of the performances. Exceptions of course, but more often than not they are portrayed as a cartoon character showing exactly who they are or simply to provide a red herring. As a professional photographer that has shot over a thousand weddings and rubbed elbows with many of the ultra wealthy, I can testify that they are (almost) universally well behaved, polite and compassionate on the surface. You would generally never know what really lies beneath the facade. I love to watch movies that require the viewer to coax the true nature of a character to the surface either through passage of time, outright behavior development or at least left to wonder in the end.

[@J4hk2]

_"Anti-capitalism is trending, let's capitalise on that."_

[@ellugerdelacruz2555]

What Socialists will never understand....

[@DK-th5nt]

I love when millionaire actors and directors teach me that millionaires are bad.

[@AlexC-ou4ju]

The boys in a nutshell anti capitalism brought to you by Vought I mean Amazon.

[@myarea51]

I agree with your views in this analysis, except that I think this new wave of “nibble the rich” content (including The White Lotus) can be a good start to actually EATING the rich stories. Because this is still so novel in 2022, I still hold out hope that it’s just the beginning, not a fleeting phase this time for better storytelling and 3d-character development for future stories dealing with the class war

[@jake_bishop]

I really like the term "nibble the rich", did you come up with it? And yes, I couldn't agree more, my video on "The Rise of Super Rich Satire" takes this more optimistic view.

[@myarea51]

@@jake_bishop yes watched that video as well and enjoyed it! :) (and yes “nibble” seemed like a more apt term for this new wave to me 😅)

[@mohdshow]

The best movies that depict classism & wealth distribution injustice are Parasite and Snowpiercer

[@lexmitchell4402]

The Snowpiercer? The one where if the poor do rise up pretty much everyone dies, with the couple remaining having little chance to survive in the post apocalypse.

[@joshuaosborne9203]

It’s ironic that the actors, directors, and producers making these films ARE the rich and beautiful they claim to take down.

[@zato-1766]

Amazon based productions have the most "eat the rich" style films coming out rn.

[@1olad]

Very interesting analysis. Must say I hadn’t looked at these movies in this way yet. I do however disagree slightly with your judgment concerning Triangle of Sadness, I don’t think it failed in making its point. I think the point was to show that human nature will in most cases always revert to the same type of power dynamics, even when the situation is turned upside down. Which is kind of depressing in its own right tbh

[@transsexual_computer_faery]

can't say i know a lot about materialist analysis, but someone who does would say that your comment on "human nature" does not take material conditions into account.

[@alexanderbergstrom4405]

​@@transsexual_computer_faery That material conditions can itself form and influence human psychology to such a degree that an economic system wholly determines the shape of human relationships is an argument that one can disagree with. The idea that psychology and culture is wholly determined and subordinate to ecomonics is not self evident.

[@wojteks7553]

@@alexanderbergstrom4405 Material conditions in marxist sense are not just equal to economics. To some extent culture should also be considered as one of them. Besides, marxist or not, it's hard to defend a point that there is some "human nature" that would conceivable irrespectively of social (economic/cultural/political) determinants that mediate it.

[@alexanderbergstrom4405]

@@wojteks7553 Yes "human nature" doesant really exist as the commentor meant I think. Still the belief that economic forces fundamentally shape all of society and human interaction is not self evident. While "economic forces" is not equal to "material conditions" it is very close. I havent heard or read any Marxist that think culture/psychology can be anything other then subordinate to economics.

[@obscure.reference]

@@transsexual_computer_faery it doesn’t have to take material conditions into account

[@TxxT33]

I don't know if Triangle of sadness counts as a Hollywood movie. Regardless, Ostlund's previous movie The Square is also a statement on Capitalism, Elitism, Classism and inequality and in my opinion it is much more subtle and more fleshed out and I think Ostlund really was honest in the depiction of these themes. TOS was too on the nose and one gets the feeling that it is aimed at the masses (it still didn't make any money, lol.) But I agree with everything else you've said.

[@portland9880]

Still can't believe Triangle won palme d'or. Idk why but I actually thought it was a serious place for film but it's just a place for film money, I guess that's how it's always been. Though I guess the fact they still hold their silly little award show while France burns all around them shows how disconnected these people are and how much their opinions are worth to the working class. Im not too discouraged though film still and will always have a place for artists who want to change the world

[@nessman69]

I wonder the extent to which the author thinks this critique is also applicable to "Parasite." That felt like a different skewering

[@wilb0-]

This really reminds me of Disco Elysium, especially the quote by the game's Ultraliberal icon, Joyce Messier, where she says that "Capital has the ability to subsume all critiques into itself. Even those who would critique capital end up reinforcing it instead." The game is largely anti-capitalist - which is to be expected with the original creators being artists from Estonia, but the game is still able to critique the left, along with other ideologies. It even critiques capitalism's grasp on art, how it has just become another marketable product. Art is now something to be bought and sold, only 'truly appreciated' by the self-identified 'intellectuals' or the 'cultured' rich and powerful, but the art is ultimately empty. My experience with the game greatly opened my eyes not only to critical theory, but also general sociology, art appreciation, and literature. Or maybe I'm just doubling down as one of the cogs of a capitalist society, thinking I'm enriching myself by spending more money on 'The Correct Art™'. Now after the game has garnered large amounts of success, the original creators have been involuntarily separated from ZA/UM, the company behind its development and publishing, and the rights to adapt it to a TV show have been sold to Amazon. The game is now getting a sequel without the original creators, and they have no say as to how their intellectual property is used. Great.

[@lyogazaki984]

That's why Money Monster (Jodie Foster only movie) is a very interesting movie about capitalism and consumerism. And we see this anti-capitalist performance more recently in the TV show You.

[@billy-raysanguine2029]

For me the best critique to capitalism (of the movies I saw) in the recent years was "Joker". Because eat the rich was not the punch line. It was the side effect. It was not polarising, both parties (the working class and the wealthy) were somewhat relatable but also somewhat unsympathetic. (Take Arthur and Murray for example. Arthurs derailing being very understandable and feeling not forced, but also feeling dangerous and alienating. Murrays being somewhat down to earth and to a degree understanding but also ignorant towards the political situation and humiliating towards Arthur) The movie told the story of a split society. And it didn't achieve it with superficial characters or dummies. Edit: the last point is very valid though.

[@ltcrescent4011]

I think an interesting twist would be to have a character that was poor but is now rich because they worked. They are then put in a situation that is meant to condem capitalism along with spoiled rich people. As everything is going on, as the character is one of the last people standing, antagonist would provide a solution that condems capitalism only to be criticised for hating indiscriminately with hate blinding him. Whilst critiquing, modifying, and/or replacing capitalism, it also critiques the concept of eat the rich.

[@idab9958]

Personally I quite liked Glass Onion's ending as a metaphor, with the house as a stand-in for capitalism itself: the rich and powerful have constructed it to benefit themselves, and the only way to end their reign of terror is to destroy the system they operate in.

[@lazymansload520]

I thought the message was to humiliate them

[@CorndogMaker]

this is like making the GOP argument that Bernie Sanders can't mean what he says because he makes money.

[@markbasilejr1169]

Eat the rich is a meaningless phrase is any movie could be the thing that eats the rich. Eat is a verb and verbs are actions.

[@portland9880]

Triangle plays like it was written by a middle schooler who just learned what capitalism and socialism are, and references those two things through a lens of regurgitated opinions from their libertarian dad. Total trite and lazy shit that critiques nothing effectively and doesn't even really have any opinion on anything to begin with. They shouldn't have played up the "social critique" aspect maybe I wouldn't have wasted 15$ on it.

[@portland9880]

You're spot on with this video. Though I'm surprised anybody actually liked Traingle (you said you did right?)

[@szinyk]

Agree. I found watching Triangle to just be painful. Awkward scenes to make the audience cringe that go on too long, every character being over-the-top horrible, banging you over the head with the drunken capitalist vs communist argument... and it wasn't even really funny. I think I laughed maybe 5 times, and most of those were the slapstick of a boat rocking back and forth.

[@OsofoGriot]

If you want a valid critique of capitalism in film, look no further than Sorry To Bother You.

[@Amal-te2eh]

3 of my fav movie in 2022 in one video

[@tomhahnl1927]

So the movie should be free, or at least free for the poor to watch.

[@rexraxit1466]

Exactly. I pirated all of them including glass onion.

[@mikelawrencesk8]

thanks for vocalising why i didn't like any of these 'rich people get humiliated at the beach' films and could only stand one episode of white lotus.

[@wobohead3361]

Well put. I love it!

[@Daud-ix4tm]

I like the menu but others are kinda shit for the most part.

[@RealMadridFan-cr5jf]

The menu is a great watch and achieves what your talking about perfectly. The other two are crap movies and I agree they don’t achieve it.

[@goranab4944]

so what's the point of this video ?

[@baytooth]

This reminds me of antivirus that is a virus

[@angelagraves865]

Thank you for this perspective.

[@philhipp7766]

*stands up and claps* I want a cheeseburger

[@knowledgeablebro6970]

They can't coherently criticize capitalism because there's not much to criticize...

[@alexdebstep3424]

there is tonnes to criticize capitalism about, the problem is that most people don't even know what capitalism really is. Much like how, unless exposed to a myriad of family dynamics, it is quite difficult to picture other viable dynamics. Because we are mostly only exposed and entrenched within capitalist systems, alternatives are very difficult to envision. And you can try incredibly hard to envision an alternative, to attempt solid firm criticism, but due to lack of exposure, lived experience, and the entrenchment of capitalism within our lives the criticism tends towards being incoherent. It is a fallacy to say there is not much to criticize which then leads toward coherent criticism of capitalism being very difficult; instead, people can't picture an alternative due to how ingrained and absorbed capitalist "culture" is in our brains. As KZbin comment sections aren't really the place for nuanced and in-depth debate I'll just list a few things capitalism can be criticized for coherently: (1) due to being profit-focused, innovation that would be hugely beneficial for humanity (but not profitable) is nearly impossible; (2) who has the resources has the power, wealth in capitalism is a resource, power is concentrated ever increasingly in a rich elite meaning (if democracy is to be valued highly this is a criticism) capitalism leads to an increased undemocratized system; (3) in capitalism, you are not fairly compensated for your own labour - someone else is taking a disproportionate cut and, just by having a job that is beneficial to humanity, society, and the system it is no guarantee even in a first world country you will not be impoverished. How are those for coherent criticism?

[@tdotgang538]

@@alexdebstep3424Then what is the solution?

[@alexdebstep3424]

@@tdotgang538 An economy where the shareholders are not the priority, a proper peer-to-peer economy. Instead of obsessing on growth at the expense of humanity, a shift towards a consistent flow of capital. Workers at the table. More cooperatives. Making lobbying illegal. A state that cares for its citizens, is a proper welfare state. Socialized healthcare. Simple things

[@themasstermwahahahah]

@@tdotgang538 @TDot Gang so @alexdubstep meantionsed 3 primary criticisms that I will alter slightly: 1. Short term profit motive (which can have negative consequences later), 2. Stratification (money makes more money, and thus will accumulate, money also makes these people more powerful and able to circumvent laws and regulations, regulatory capture), 3. Payment for work is based on scarcity rather than the actual share of the labor performed (a company can survive for a bit without a CEO, but would have to immediately halt without employees, yet the CEO makes much more money) I would call none of these simple problems, as the nitty gritty details of Implementing solutions will be difficult and take time to get right. Defining the problem is much easier than defining a coherent solution, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Possible Broad Solutions: 1. Environmental/Health Regulation, essentially accounting for externalities produced by consumption of a good. This may also require a culture shift, so making the maximum amount of money you possibly can isn't seen as a successful life, so perhaps we should stop following billionaires like they are Hollywood actors, and instead aspire to be people who are actually doing the grunt work to make the world better. Another interesting idea is for-profit companies that simply donate all their profits to charity. That way you still have market forces to drive quality and efficacy, but for a good cause, and people are more inclined to make small business decisions, not to make the shareholders a few extra bucks, but to actually go to good causes. 2. A more progressive tax system, ie higher taxes on the rich, lower on the poor. Unfortunately voting with your wallet is very unfair when 5 people have as many votes as the bottom 50%, so firms in the market cater products to rich people, even when some poor people still need basic necessities, a UBI could be a more extreme example 3. This one is a little harder. There are some problems with Unions and minimum wages, but the pros may outweight the cons. Cooperatives are interesting corporate structures that may offer a solution. Honestly I kinda think we would be fine with this problem if we solved the other two.

[@portland9880]

@AlexDebstep the bosses don't want it fair, it will never be fair, it can never be fair when the bedrock of the whole system is exploitation. Research the history of capitalism, see where it came from, where it's going, and why it's inevitably going to die.

[@chrisperez3614]

The medium is the message. A filmmakers job is to make a great film, not provide solutions for the problems of late stage capitalism.