Analysis 2

“Go home and tell your wife your troubles”   

In the movie Glengarry Glen Ross, we find a powerful social commentary that offers a bleak outlook on the wage laborer, the proletariat, as Marx defined them in his Communist Manifesto. In the scene where Alec Baldwin’s character, the business motivator, lectures the salesman of a branch of his company, Mitch and Murray; his subsidiary salesmen are not helping their company, and Baldwin’s character beautifully and caustically reminds the salesmen why he is successful and they are not.

Even upon Baldwin’s first appearance in the scene, the lowly salesmen already distance themselves from him. When he says, “Lets talk about something important,” Baldwin’s character strategically urges the salesmen to make a drastic change in their business methodology; he makes it known to the failing salesmen that his approach works where theirs have failed. At the same time it doesn't matter what follows after Baldwin’s character deems his motivational speech “important” because he already has his audience’s attention and what he offers is his own business ideology—in the sense that his ideas have worked and make more money than his audience’s, Baldwin’s character represents the ruling class’ intellectual power over the working force it exploits. This relates to Marx’s conjecture, that, “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas […] the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force” (Marx 656); Baldwin’s character is the paragon of successful and pragmatic business in contemporary American society, while he, too, embodies the ruling, intellectual force that posits its ideology on the working class to ensure its own survival at their cost. Later in the Glengarry scene, Ed Harris’ character, a member of the working class, Marx’s proletariat, alienates himself from Baldwin’s character—“I don’t got to listen to this shit.” To this, Baldwin’s character responds, “You certainly don't, pal;” the irony of this little interchange between Harris and Baldwin’s characters is that Harris, in fact, does have to listen to Baldwin’s corrosive and condescending speech because Harris is subservient and willing—he embodies the struggling working class man, who fights back against the social hegemony Baldwin enforces, but always loses.

            Similarly, Harris’ character’s alienating response to Baldwin’s approach sheds light on why the working class is subservient to the elite few, who have the materials and ideology to keep their working forces in their control, for their ends. Baldwin announces, “I’m here from down town. I’m here from Mitch and Murray. And I’m here on a mission of mercy.” Right off the bat, Baldwin’s character establishes his place over the working force, his audience in the scene, and simultaneously reminds his audience who pays their bills, who provides them sustenance. When Marx posits that, “The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it” (Marx 656), he focuses on why Baldwin’s character, the intermediary between the ruling and working classes (while he also represents the ruling class ideology in this scene)—this is to say that Baldwin’s character, under a Marxist light, uses the term “mission of mercy” to remind the salesmen that he has the “means of material production” at his disposal and that they are the ones “who lack the means of mental production”, that they are “subject to it” (Marx 656). Essentially, Baldwin begins by verbally instating social classes, by establishing who is on which side.

            Baldwin reiterates this socio-economic hegemony when he says, “The good news is: you’re fired. The bad news is that you have one week to regain your jobs, starting with tonight’s sit. Oh, have I got your attention now?” In laying down his purpose for visiting his audience, Baldwin establishes the fact that they, his audience and his exploitable working force, is at his disposal and is expendable. What lies beneath this statement, is the illusion that the working class, Baldwin’s audience in this scene, has agency in becoming just like him, in rising up to a higher tax bracket. This ties in directly with what Marx says about how the ruling class tricks the working class into submission. Marx says that the ruling class’ interest is “more connected to the common interest of all other non-ruling classes” (657); he continues to say that the ruling class’ “victory, therefore, benefits also many individuals of the other classes which are not winning a dominant position, but only insofar as it now puts these individuals in a position to raise themselves into the ruling class” (657). Aside Baldwin’s speech, Marx points to the cause of his audience’s acquiescence, willing or unwilling. The artifice Baldwin’s speech employs draws its strength from the false sense of agency he reminds his audience they have; in reality, in Marxist reality that is, Baldwin’s audience, in buying his plan for regaining their jobs, accepts the illusion that they have socio-economic mobility when in fact such mobility depends on the ruling class’ ends.

            When Baldwin’s words awaken the socio-economic survival instinct in his audience, he strengthens his Logos with visual objects. Setting up the competition among his subsidiary work force, Baldwin strategically incorporates the idea of Marxist commodities in his call to action. He says, “As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone want to see second prize? A set of steak knives. Third prize is: you’re fired.” Baldwin’s character uses tangible objects to ground his competition. This line speaks to Marx’s theory that, “the exchange-values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity” (Marx 666). Baldwin’s character utilizes the “exchange-values of commodities” which are “expressed in terms of something common” to his entire audience to create a competitive spirit in them, but also to remind them of the socio-economic hegemony they operate under—the ruling class’. Each prize represents a different level of the socio-economic hierarchy Baldwin reminds his audience they are a part of—the first prize, the car, symbolizes the greatest material mode of economic success; the second prize, the knives, symbolize the drastic step down from success to mediocrity (in the socio-economic mobility sense); the third prize, although not material, affects the material attainment of the working class, while it also represents the drastic step down from the steak knives—that the next step down from mediocre performance is ultimate and complete socio-economic loss and hopelessness.

            Likewise, when Baldwin says to Harris, “You see this watch? That watch costs more than your car,” he continues to use material commodities to make his point that he is better than his audience—that is to say that the ruling class rules with its own ideology and their success is measured in commodity. Marx says:

        Commodity is a mysterious thing […] because in it the social character of men’s labor appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labor; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labor is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labor. This is the reason why the products of labor become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the sense. (667)

With this in mind, Baldwin’s character’s social character, his social identity as the ruling class, is defined by his watch, his “product of labor.” Baldwin, then, represents a higher sum of product of labor than Harris, the working class beneath him. In this case, Baldwin’s watch, as a product of labor, becomes a commodity in the social sense; Harris perceives his watch as a social marker with his senses and Baldwin uses this to confirm his own socio-economic status over him. Ed Harris’ character is his “Hyandi” where Baldwin’s is his watch and his sizeable salary; Baldwin uses his products of labor as commodities as both Ethos and Logos to an audience that he feels needs to see the tangible outcomes of “hard work.” If only the salesmen knew that the tangible Glengarry leads were only a ploy to get them to struggle for products of labor they have no real or practical chance of obtaining, let alone socio-economic agency, in this scene.

       

Works Cited 

Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2004.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WCcKIkMp8Y        

Consider Freud and Lacan next to Reznor....discuss amongst yourselves (note the nature of the images; the lyrics are below the video):

Right Where It Belongs

by NIN (written by Trent Reznor)

See the animal in his cage that you built
Are you sure what side you're on?
Better not look him too closely in the eye
Are you sure what side of the glass you are on?
See the safety of the life you have built
Everything where it belongs
Feel the hollowness inside of your heart
And it's all...
Right where it belongs

What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is it all you want it to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks?
Would you find yourself...
Find yourself afraid to see?

What if all the world's inside of your head
Just creations of your own?
Your devils and your gods
All the living and the dead
And you're really all alone?
You can live in this illusion
You can choose to believe
You keep looking but you can't find the woods
While you're hiding in the trees

What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you used to know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is it all you want it to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks
Would you find yourself...
Find yourself afraid to see?

"Use the Force"

Part I: Defamiliarization 

In this photo: A man, dressed in black garb, stands at the center of a confrontation. He has buttons on his chest and, overall, looks like a robot. His mask hides his face. He is assessing the situation before him. To his left and behind him, there are men in white garb that also look like robots. Their masks hide their faces. The one closest to the man in black garb is carrying his gun at the ready. The white man furthest from the man in black garb is facing to the right as if to communicate with one of the other, several, men in white-robot-esque garb. In addition to the men in white robotic garb and the man in black in the foreground, there lie men in white robotic garb in addition to men, without masks, dead on the floor. There seems to have been a violent confrontation that has ended in death of two different factions of men; the men with masks have won it seems. The setting is one of the inside of a space vessel. It has several compartments on its vertical, left and right walls, while a series of two bright lights lines the ceiling. Red lights are obscured by smoke-possibly left from the gunfire of the confrontation.

Works Cited

http://www.galacticbinder.com/images/vaderfirst1.jpg

Part II: Semiotic Analysis--what meaning the signs carry in the photo

First off, we can look at the images in the picture to determine what they represent to us. The setting, for one, is white. White, in the photo, most likely represents a sterility associated with the inside of a spaceship in which our characters operate; The ship's walls are plastered with buttons and compartments which reveal that every inch of the ship has a function, a purpose. Furthermore, the ship's interior could symbolize the need Mankind to make everything useful for the greater good of his race--man---in a purely utilitarian and industrial sense. Also, the bright, fluorescent light in the ceiling adds additional effect to this sense of sterility, but also symbolizes the clarification of power--that is, that there is always a power struggle involved in space in this context, Star Wars. On a basic level the ratio of dead humans to dead Stormtroopers symbolizes the growing concern that technology is vehemently replacing humanitarianism, that the Empire (Capitalism/ the Ruling Class) is coming to rise. Notice the hazy hue being cut by the fluorescent light above, as well; it symbolizes a growing clarification of the ruling class, who has the power if you will, after war. Darth Vader, the villainous black figure represents not only the transition from organic life innate in mankind transforming/being outweighed by the rise of avarice, power, monarchy, technology (Vader is half man and half machine)--he also, represents the evil side of the coexistence of good and evil in the photo. Also, his color, black, denotes his status among his soldiers, the white Stormtroopers, in the image; For him black symbolizes a higher level of military status, evil, and power, while the white Stormtroopers are all the same color--this has the effect of making each Stormtrooper seem generic, as one arbitrary and faceless and indistinguishable face/personality/motive/function among many. This also makes sense considering that the white Stormtroopers have no capes, while Vader, the most powerful figure in the picture, does; the cape denotes power, military status, and strength for Vader. The men on the floor, whose faces are visible, represent the decline of what is natural, organic, and good in humanity in a space-time war; the fact that they, too, are wearing the same uniforms reveals that they, like Vader and his croons, employ military status in times of war. In contrast to Vader and his army, the fallen "men", here, are dressed in simpler and more basic, less technologically advanced garb; this difference symbolizes the dominance of a technologically more advanced Empire over the democratic and humanitarian efforts of simpler men dressed in simpler attire. Altogether, semiotically speaking, the photo is a glimpse into symbols in imagery--it's a statement on the decline of humanity at the foot of technology and power; it's a glimpse into Darwinism and Marxism: the stronger--in this case, technologically more advanced and powerful--force will dominate the lesser advanced despite intent.

Works Cited

http://www.galacticbinder.com/images/vaderfirst1.jpg

Mini Analysis 1

"Survival of the Un-fittest": Aristotlean Logos, Ethos, and Pathos in Michael Douglas' speech arguing that "Greed Is Good"

In the clip above, Michael Douglas' deceptively brilliant character, Gordon Gekko, rebuttals his own defamation as a harmful influence on the Teldar Company. We can see the power of his speech in the way he incorporates Aristotle's three rhetorical appeals; Ethos (appeal to credibility), Logos (appeal to logic), and, perhaps most importantly, Pathos (appeal to emotion). In his speech, Gekko first establishes his ethos when he says that he is "the single largest shareholder" of Teldar, and later appeals to his audience with his credibility again when he boasts of the economic prowess Teldar has enjoyed "Since [he has] been" the largest shareholder of the company. After he establishes why the audience should trust him, let alone continue to listen to him, Gekko establishes a Logos approach; he spits out a plethora of numerical figures to boost his Ethos, while simultaneously erecting a sound Logos; he does this explicitly when he says, "Teldar paper has 33 Vice Presidents--each earning over 200 thousand dollars a year. Now I have spent the last few months analyzing what these guys do and I still can't figure it out". To hammer his point home and elevate his audience's interest and conviction in his case, Gekko offers his way of doing things while shaming the board that has attempted to defame his credibility; he offers, "In my book, you either do it right or you get eliminated" before he tactfully and plainly incorporates his Pathos. Gekko's appeal to the audience's emotion is couched in his Ethos first, and is supported by his intermittent and factual evidence, examples of Logos. He does this with subtlety and affirmation when he uses Democracy to strengthen his Pathos: he says to the audience, "you own the company. That's right, you, the stockholder". In addition, Gekko addresses his own criticisms and flips them on his head in braiding Pathos, and Logos together after he has skillfully incorporated an effective Ethos--"I am not a destroyer of companies; I am a liberator of them!" When Gekko finally has the audience where he wants them, hanging on to his every word and becoming more convinced as he speaks more, he uses Logos and Pathos to realistically address the larger problem of the United States in likening the country to a corporation in itself--he finishes with the line, "Greed will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A." The power and poignancy of Gekko's argument lies in how he weaves Ethos, Logos and Pathos together.

Works Cited

Classical Literary Criticism. Trans. T.S. Dorsch and Penelope Murray. London: Penguin Books, 2004. 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JZp215Bgyk

Analysis 1

"

"Censory Perception": Book II of Plato 's Republic and Pacino's Speech in Michael Mann's The Insider 

In Plato’s The Republic, he outlines a construct for what he deems to be the best society in the wake of reconstructing a people after a war. At the heart of his consideration of such a new civilization is the concept of truth and how it is represented to the public; Plato sets up how the poets’ truth is to be censored. Plato's The Republic is still poignant today, as in Michael Mann’s movie The Insider, one of the central themes in which the story draws tragedy deals with the concept of censorship and the ethics that are involved. In the clip, Al Pacino’s character, big time television producer Lowel, quarrels with the CBS corporation to air a version of the most controversial anti-tobacco interview in U.S. history—Lowel’s source, Jeffrey Wigand, had been working for a major tobacco company when he stumbled onto evidence which suggested that his tobacco company, among others, deceitfully put addictive chemicals in cigarettes, which have been scientifically proven to be toxic to the human body.This clip from The Insider meshes nicely with Plato’s concept of censorship of the poet’s truth, and the problem of what truth is and how it should be conveyed, in his The Republic. 

 

Al Pacino’s character, Lowel, is essentially explaining why his primary insider, Wigand, will not be completely and truthfully represented on the airing of his show, and makes an important assertion regarding the representation of truth. Lowel says, “And Jeffrey Wigand, whose out on a limb—does he go on television and tell the truth? Yes. Is it newsworthy? Yes. Are we going to air it? Of course not. Why? Because he’s not telling the truth? No—because he is telling the truth; that’s why we’re not going to air it. And the more truth he tells, the worse it gets” (Mann, 3:12). This speaks to the idea of censorship of the bad traits of the Gods in book two of Plato’s The Republic. When Plato says that, “founders need to know the patterns on which poets are to compose their stories, and form which they must not be allowed to deviate, but they don’t need to compose the stories themselves” (Plato 17), he makes the point that what ever class is the ruling class, the class of people whose duty it is to guard the imagined city in this case, has the duty to censor the stories of the poets; poets are the conveyers of values and truth. This raises an interesting problem though—the founders, or the ruling class, according to Plato, don't convey the truth, the poets do; the founders or rulers, the ones who decide what truth is best for the masses, essentially censor what the poets tell the people. Similarly, in Mann’s The Insider clip, Pacino’s character, Lowel, makes a statement on this same problem. His role as newsman is superseded by his corporation, CBS’, CEO ruling class; that is to say, that Lowel’s bosses at the top decide what truth his show is to convey to the public, for their means (money), not for his (explicit truth to the public). Lowel’s speech, thus, demarks the innate problem in censorship which Plato hasn’t considered—what if the poet, knowing he is censored by the founders or the guardians or the Philosopher-Kings, sides with ultimate and absolute truth despite his status? In Plato’s day, the poet would probably be killed, but in contemporary America, this concept of censorship is paramount. 

 

Towards the end of the clip, of his corporation’s CEO’s making a decision to cut his segment, leaving out crucial information on his issue from the public, Lowel says, “these people are putting the whole reason for doing what we do on the line” (Mann, 3:51). Aside Plato’s assertion, “god is not the cause of everything, but only of good” (Plato 19), Lowel’s observation on his status as a newsman versus his abdication of rights and power to his superior business man in the corporate headquarters of CBS, sheds new light on an old Platonic concept. Lowel implies that his goal in his role as newsman is to, as objectively as possible, convey the truth of the news to the public with his television segment, while his superiors, the business men who control the money and therefore his content, forget the very reason they hired people like Lowel. This highlights the issue that although the ruling class, the deciders of how truth should be conveyed to the public, are really forgetting the point of the poet, or the newsman; in censoring and choosing their own truth, these people in power undermine the very purpose of the poet and newsman in themselves—undeniable and frank truthfulness.
 

Not only does Plato define God as good, he says that God is not the cause of everything. Aside Plato's characterization of God, Lowel’s assertion gains new meaning. In Lowel’s world, God, or the inspiration for his truth, is symbolized by the CBS corporation. Lowel's  bosses perceive that truth lies in money, and in money only. When Lowel defines himself as a  producer and newsman, and not a businessman, he is fighting an uphill battle; to Lowel, his bosses are like Plato's conception of God because they have the final say on what he airs-- they have the final say on how the truth is represented to the public. In addition, Plato’s conception of God implies that God is relative—that every people thinks their God to be good by definition and that, perhaps, while He isn’t the cause of everything, He should be taken out of the equation when dealing with moral relativism. This is at the heart of The Insider clip. Lowel’s morality, his God, his goodness, is unadulterated truth to the public; the corporation’s God, and goodness, is money on the other hand. It depends whose side you’re on.
 

Works Cited

Classical Literary Criticism. Trans. T.S. Dorsch and Penelope Murray. London: Penguin Books, 2004. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIjpP-XngKA