 |
| Scene from Billions |
If possible, I would like to be very candid about something that seems to be very big right now. I am not a fan of movies and TV shows that use money as the driving force of its plot. With The Big Short racking up Oscar nominations and Showtime premiering its latest series Billions, I am left to wonder yet again why it is that stories about greed just leave me oblivious to the magic. After all, these are people who are inexplicably wealthy while people in the lower classes are incapable of ever understanding their struggles. I'll admit that there's stories that make wealth and fame sound intriguing, but those have often been sidetracked by content that's considered cornerstone to pop culture, whether it be F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" or even Citizen Kane: two noteworthy works that decry wealth as a source of happiness. So why is it then that content about rich people bothers me so much?
I'll be up front: I am not a rich person by any stretch of the imagination. I can be summarized as just "some writer" who is fine with selling his work for accessible prices, or giving it away from free (as such is Optigrab). In a sense, it's an insecurity issue. However, even my regular work outside of this field always has been secondary to my other interests. At my regular job, I was known for not picking up weekly checks solely because I didn't care. I did the work and that was that. Somehow, I have never been defined by a bank account or even how much I made week to week. I barely recognized well enough to notice if people were ripping me off. To me, money has never been interesting. Even in dire straits, I have the guilt of being unable to afford something, but never have he drive to be wealthy. To a large extent, my character defines my interests, and may be the stopping point for this article entirely.
Don't get me wrong, I get why these stories need to be told - even if I don't care for them. Beyond the fictitious, fantastical series like Breaking Bad or Mad Men, I don't care about people who are defined by their ability to make money. I'll start with director Oliver Stone's Wall Street. The film's antagonist is Gordon Gecko, of whom is known for preaching that "Greed is good." True, this archetype is not without purpose in a society often defined by capitalistic tendencies. However, the film is a dull as nails film otherwise, mostly serving to state that Gecko is greedy, so thus he is a bad guy. That's pretty much the arc of the film. He's greedy, so he's bad. End of story. Did I really need to see something that told me that rich people rip off poor people? Am I just projecting myself too much into the poor category and feel like the victim? Probably.
Don't get me wrong. There are films and TV series that have rich people that are compelling. However, that's largely because they have other drives besides money. There Will Be Blood features one of the greediest tragedies in film. Daniel Plainview isolates himself from family and coworkers to get rich off of oil. It's intriguing solely because it does feel like he ends the film ineffectual. One could even argue that films like Top Hat where the characters are rich are exciting. However, it's again going into a fantastical landscape that is more enjoyable than directly addressing my problem with wealthy people on film. I'm talking about the people who are defined by their ability to make money.
There are people like Gecko who are deserving of their story. After all, if people complain about gender and racial diversity in film, one could easily make the case for financial diversity. The issue is that while films are made by the wealthy, it's largely the meager who are contributing profit. The masses want entertainment that doesn't talk over their heads, and in that sense listening to a rich man complain about his problems is very off putting. To the meager, this is a demonized figure who has only really ever gained love when he is somehow put down or an eccentric antagonist. One could even argue that the cinema that depicts these people is often out of touch with the common man, such as when Sex and the City 2 took four white women to Dubai and lead to a series of complicated situations. Yes, the writing could be blamed, but it shows generally how problematic rich people's seclusion could be in cinema.
As much as this is all a big problem, my general issue lies in the issue at the center: money. I know it exists and contributes to a lot of life's motivations. However, I think it's one of the least cinematic tools imaginable. If the goal of an antagonist is to make money, then it's not an interesting movie. We are already aware that corporations are trying to steal from the common folk. Sure, it creates a central antagonist, but money is something that is inanimate and not often seen. It's not like a house or a boat. It's not something with sustainable value that could be achieved in only one way. In fact, it often feels like those in cinema trying to obtain money are basically nagging the audience saying "I got money and you don't!" It is generally why Marvel's Cinematic Universe has been falling apart. Its villains aren't about physical power anymore, but money. As much as it could be an allegory for the modern era, it still manages to feel shallow.
Let me ask a simple thing. If one was to make a film about how healthy, beautiful, or smart they were by analyzing how the audience isn't, wouldn't that feel problematic? True, a person can be beautiful, healthy, and intelligent, but it can't be the defining feature of something. There has to be greater depths to keep it from being shallow antagonism. Maybe it could just be that I grew up believing that Citizen Kane and "The Great Gatsby" were cautionary tales, but I do believe that the path to having a compelling piece of media is to give it a dynamic; a personality that transcends basic needs. I understand that capitalism has usually one dynamic: money. It's about looking wealthier than the last, and frankly cinema hasn't done much to help them look like anything but eccentric. Maybe if rich people could be depicted as something other than money hungry, maybe it would be easier to watch. They don't even have to be sympathetic. They just have to have quirks, like for instance The Wolf of Wall Street and his excessive, clueless personality. Sure, it's a cautionary tale, but it also allows him to occasionally embrace greediness in ways that isn't just flaunting cash.
What is probably my biggest issue lies more in how capitalism is often depicted for the lower class. In the case of The Big Short, director Adam McKay shows the housing collapse in a way that is accessible to viewers. However, there's one issue: it's from the point of view of wise-ass rich guys who seek to lose nothing. They'll profit off of our misery, and that will be that. Yes, it informs a lot of interesting topics in a way that is profoundly accessible. However, it still does feel like an April Fool's Day prank. We are aware that we're being ripped off, but we have to pay to get that acknowledgment. So in a way, this is a form of double-swindling. While The Big Short has good intentions, the disconnect from the rich men presenting the information already makes it hard to enjoy, solely because we can neither pity them (as they aren't the victims) nor hate them (as the tone is clearly comedy found in antagonistic remarks towards the viewer) nor like them (as they ripped US off). It creates conflict and the general notion of cinema becomes problematic in ways that are somehow better left to research through online articles. Having a face attached somehow makes the issues feel more confrontational and bullying.
I know that this is probably a very obvious and not at all satisfying argument. However, it is generally a feeling that I've had when dealing with the recent trend of cinema and film trying to use capitalism as the main draw for its story. Again, I know that it deserves its credit as much as racial and gender diversity need their due. However, I wish that I could understand why it is that having money be the drive of the story is inherently boring and lacks any deeper weight. Is it because it's an inanimate object and greed is a very blatant action? Could it just be my own disinterest in being that guy with a fancy yacht? I don't know, but watching The Big Short and seeing ads for Billions definitely doesn't make me at all excited to find a new found love for money.
Don't get me wrong, I get why these stories need to be told - even if I don't care for them. Beyond the fictitious, fantastical series like Breaking Bad or Mad Men, I don't care about people who are defined by their ability to make money. I'll start with director Oliver Stone's Wall Street. The film's antagonist is Gordon Gecko, of whom is known for preaching that "Greed is good." True, this archetype is not without purpose in a society often defined by capitalistic tendencies. However, the film is a dull as nails film otherwise, mostly serving to state that Gecko is greedy, so thus he is a bad guy. That's pretty much the arc of the film. He's greedy, so he's bad. End of story. Did I really need to see something that told me that rich people rip off poor people? Am I just projecting myself too much into the poor category and feel like the victim? Probably.
Don't get me wrong. There are films and TV series that have rich people that are compelling. However, that's largely because they have other drives besides money. There Will Be Blood features one of the greediest tragedies in film. Daniel Plainview isolates himself from family and coworkers to get rich off of oil. It's intriguing solely because it does feel like he ends the film ineffectual. One could even argue that films like Top Hat where the characters are rich are exciting. However, it's again going into a fantastical landscape that is more enjoyable than directly addressing my problem with wealthy people on film. I'm talking about the people who are defined by their ability to make money.
There are people like Gecko who are deserving of their story. After all, if people complain about gender and racial diversity in film, one could easily make the case for financial diversity. The issue is that while films are made by the wealthy, it's largely the meager who are contributing profit. The masses want entertainment that doesn't talk over their heads, and in that sense listening to a rich man complain about his problems is very off putting. To the meager, this is a demonized figure who has only really ever gained love when he is somehow put down or an eccentric antagonist. One could even argue that the cinema that depicts these people is often out of touch with the common man, such as when Sex and the City 2 took four white women to Dubai and lead to a series of complicated situations. Yes, the writing could be blamed, but it shows generally how problematic rich people's seclusion could be in cinema.
As much as this is all a big problem, my general issue lies in the issue at the center: money. I know it exists and contributes to a lot of life's motivations. However, I think it's one of the least cinematic tools imaginable. If the goal of an antagonist is to make money, then it's not an interesting movie. We are already aware that corporations are trying to steal from the common folk. Sure, it creates a central antagonist, but money is something that is inanimate and not often seen. It's not like a house or a boat. It's not something with sustainable value that could be achieved in only one way. In fact, it often feels like those in cinema trying to obtain money are basically nagging the audience saying "I got money and you don't!" It is generally why Marvel's Cinematic Universe has been falling apart. Its villains aren't about physical power anymore, but money. As much as it could be an allegory for the modern era, it still manages to feel shallow.
Let me ask a simple thing. If one was to make a film about how healthy, beautiful, or smart they were by analyzing how the audience isn't, wouldn't that feel problematic? True, a person can be beautiful, healthy, and intelligent, but it can't be the defining feature of something. There has to be greater depths to keep it from being shallow antagonism. Maybe it could just be that I grew up believing that Citizen Kane and "The Great Gatsby" were cautionary tales, but I do believe that the path to having a compelling piece of media is to give it a dynamic; a personality that transcends basic needs. I understand that capitalism has usually one dynamic: money. It's about looking wealthier than the last, and frankly cinema hasn't done much to help them look like anything but eccentric. Maybe if rich people could be depicted as something other than money hungry, maybe it would be easier to watch. They don't even have to be sympathetic. They just have to have quirks, like for instance The Wolf of Wall Street and his excessive, clueless personality. Sure, it's a cautionary tale, but it also allows him to occasionally embrace greediness in ways that isn't just flaunting cash.
What is probably my biggest issue lies more in how capitalism is often depicted for the lower class. In the case of The Big Short, director Adam McKay shows the housing collapse in a way that is accessible to viewers. However, there's one issue: it's from the point of view of wise-ass rich guys who seek to lose nothing. They'll profit off of our misery, and that will be that. Yes, it informs a lot of interesting topics in a way that is profoundly accessible. However, it still does feel like an April Fool's Day prank. We are aware that we're being ripped off, but we have to pay to get that acknowledgment. So in a way, this is a form of double-swindling. While The Big Short has good intentions, the disconnect from the rich men presenting the information already makes it hard to enjoy, solely because we can neither pity them (as they aren't the victims) nor hate them (as the tone is clearly comedy found in antagonistic remarks towards the viewer) nor like them (as they ripped US off). It creates conflict and the general notion of cinema becomes problematic in ways that are somehow better left to research through online articles. Having a face attached somehow makes the issues feel more confrontational and bullying.
I know that this is probably a very obvious and not at all satisfying argument. However, it is generally a feeling that I've had when dealing with the recent trend of cinema and film trying to use capitalism as the main draw for its story. Again, I know that it deserves its credit as much as racial and gender diversity need their due. However, I wish that I could understand why it is that having money be the drive of the story is inherently boring and lacks any deeper weight. Is it because it's an inanimate object and greed is a very blatant action? Could it just be my own disinterest in being that guy with a fancy yacht? I don't know, but watching The Big Short and seeing ads for Billions definitely doesn't make me at all excited to find a new found love for money.
Comments
Post a Comment