Fordism in the film industry.

Fordism and Taylorism is the term which we're going to talk about today. I chose this topic because I mistakenly wrote about James Bond and orientalism and all that lovely stuff. I chose Fordism on Oscar weekend because I wish to discuss how the movie industry has changed into a new world order or disorder of you will indulge me. The original structure included the writers, editors, actors, and directors being under contract to the studio. This allowed for complete studio control which also was creative constraining. This changed in the nineteen seventies and more independent studios formed and changed the layout of the industry.  Most employees became independent contractors and only studio facilities were owned by the studios. This changed the layout of the industry where no one had a lifetime job and securing job security was y. increasingly. As these changes occurred most employees seeking work have had to attain more tools of the trade. Versatility has become more than a trend in the industry. It means you will get hired. Writer and director and actor etc. that is the new world order in the industry.

Writers are easier to hire if they can direct a project. Actors, writers and directors are even more easier to hire by the studios. Think of Robert Rodriguez. Th man writes, operates the camera, directs, edits and often scores the films he directs. He has bought his own equipment and needs little from the studio system. There is a degree of autonomy from the system that this has given to the artists. While there have been a few artists of this caliber who have been able to change the way the auteur has been percieved the majority have not prospered nearly as well. Many people in the industry became unemployed or underemployed. The animation field dried up quickly in the nine teen nineties. Many hand drawing artists were forced to find a new means of conducting animation. I met a middle aged man in the junior college I attended and he shared with me that he had been left behind when the old order was swept away. Computer animation had become the new outlet for the industry and he ad to retrain and learn new skills. In the meantime he was divorced by his wife, lost his children and procured a manuel labor job to make ends meet while attending school. I believe that technology has a place in our ever evolving society. However the human element is often swept away in the process. The old world order created stability for those looking for it. The new world does not have this stability. It feels like we are waiting for the next change in evolution and management of companies are hoping to for see the trend so that they can tap into it and make a greater profit off of it. It is not fair or right of this to occur but it seems to take the form of natural selection or survival of the fittest.

Bond, James Bond.

Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale was written to make men in the United Kingdom feel better with themselves about the decline of their country’s power across the globe. The sun never sets on the British Empire. That is a phrase which was coined from their rule over the globe for centuries. And yet that ended with the end of World War two. Ian Flemying wrote this novel during the infancy of the Cold War where there was tension between the Soviet Union and The United States and yet there was a great deal of distrust and even dislike between the United States and Great Britain. 

"the central paradox of the classic Bond stories is that, although superficially devoted to the Anglo-American war against communism, they are full of contempt and resentment for America and Americans" - Christopher Hitchens

Why would Hitchens think this? Is it about the emergence of the United States as a world power - a power which Great Britain once held? There is some truth to this. Who really like to give up power? I have yet to meet a human being who has done so willingly. Look at our political system for an example. This leads to British Orientalism. A term which means Great Britian’s dominion over the Orient. Could Casino Royale have been a means to inspire British men to regain their mojo so to speak? I wonder. 

On a different topic. I think it is important to discuss the evolution of James Bond. It has been on my mind and I am wondering how my group which is presenting on Casino Royale will be able to do so. I would love to show his evolution from Sean COnnery to George Lazenby to Roger Moore to Timothy Dalton to Pierce Brosnan to the current James Bond - Daniel Craig. It is an interesting evolution. Each in his own way has mirrored society and met the needs of a particular society whether it be the United States or Great Britain.  

Sean Connery truly encapsulated the image of the British man on a conquest. It is said that he was called a panther when he entered the casting room. He killed without remorse as Bond and tossed women around as though they were accessories.

George Lazenby was around too short a time to judge as a Bond save for one thing. He had to live up to Connery’s image which was hard if not impossible to do. 

Roger Moore took the reigns and added a degree of farcical nature to the franchise. From his car chases which mirrored Smokey and the bandit’s to Moonraker which mirrored Star Wars. Moore brought a tongue and cheek appeal to the beloved character.

Timothy Dalton brought a degree of humanity to the franchise. Around the same time - Lethal Weapon was released which denotes that male characters can cry and have feelings of pain and loss which were typically reserved for female character in traditional circles.

Pierce Brosnan brought the faux sincerity that the nineteen nineties are known for. Fast cars, loose women, false sentiments and MTV to go around. On the exterior, he brought charm, class and sophistication. He was the best idea of Bond for the time. 

Daniel Craig is the current incarnation of Bond and is a man displaced from his time. He represents the Orientalism of the old guard yet lives in a world where Bond is a dinosaur - nearly extinct. This is why he works. If the British Empire were at the height of its power then there would be no need for him. He is the character which young British men aspire to. To make the Crown a world power again if you will. I don’t see that in their future but I am short sighted.

Derrida and Saussure, My Buddies.

Okay, so please bear with me as I am a layman and this is all very new to me and yet I feel that I should know it for some reason. Perhaps it is because I have practiced these theories nearly all my adult life yet am just now understanding and differentiating these terms like Structuralism and Post Structuralism. As far as I can tell, Structuralism is the term which was developed by Ferdinand de Saussure which sates that you must know evil to know good. This is the theory of binary opposites. I get this. Cool. Up and down, pain and joy, love and hate etc. Of course then there’s this non-essentialism nonsense which says that it’s not possible to truly understand what it is to be human because there are no known traits which could define a human. Lost? Me too. Maybe a banana is just a banana. But for arguments sake let’s continue. Then comes Jacques Derrida who is considered the biggest name in post structuralism and deconstruction. Let’s define post structuralism. It varies but can be broadly be summed up with this: it challenges the ideas of structuralism. It challenges the norm that you cannot judge evil by knowing good. That these terms are open to interpretation and that truth is relative - as according to Derrida. Okay. Lost? Maybe just a little. I felt like a deer in the headlights in class for several weeks and blurted out the dumbest things possible in an attempt to try to understand this concept. 

Structuralism was developed to give society and those thinking within it an understanding by defining language. This language was meant to be associated with an object. Like giving a berry with a blue color a blueberry. Yes, I know. But I’m new to this. If we accept this then we can call an onion which is colored red a red onion. I know. I’m reaching but it’s the best example I can come up with on such short notice. I procrastinated with my homework. Derrida comes along and says that these terms are relative. Truth in fact is relative. What can I say to that. I can go along. Let’s take a page out of Derrida’s book and apply it to Professor’s Wexler’s class. The class is called Pop Culture. Right? Nonsense. It is a philosophy class. Right? We discuss Derrida, Saussure and other nonsense like the Chiquita Banana lady and what her symbol means. But if Derrida is correct and truth is relative then this class could be an understanding of physical therapy. Perhaps this class is merely set up for our amusement? WH knows. Maybe this class is a gateway to another universe? Perhaps we are being tested? Lunacy? Yes. Derrida’s theories are just such. Theories which an average student just debunked. This class is good for several things. It allows for me to peel away the layers of preconceived notions and allows for me to think about what I am doing in this world. Thank you Derrida and Saussure. 

So. To Clarify. I make no claim to understand women any better than a pimple faced teenager and I am thirty five years old. Therefore, I was floored when I read Woman as Other by Simone De Beauvoir. Are women truly regarded as an other. Does sexism truly exist in a country where we nearly elected Hillary Clinton? IN the world of Margaret Thatcher? Angela Merkel? Christine La Garde? I can name many more. And yet something from within tells me that this is a false argument. the aforementioned names are but a few in a long history dominated by men. As De Beauvoir has eluded to - this originates to the Book of Genesis in the bible. This is a long stemming issue that has yet to be resolved and a clear resolution will not occur on this blog by my meager mind.

I wish to approach the situation with a degree of levity. Tongue and cheek if you will. I see man and women as co-cohabitants of this beautiful world in which we reside. One cannot survive without the other. that is a biological fact. Procreation. Yes. I said it. Men determine the sex of the child but women carry that child to birth and let me tell you that is no picnic. I have witnessed the birth of my son. His mother surpasses the regalia of any formal monarch in my eyes. The pain suffered during the process is one of which I am incapable of enduring.

I also recognize that I originate from a woman. My mother. Aside from the fact that she is capable of breaking a frying pan over my head (I say this because she is a professional chef - not a house wife!) I have the utmost respect for her. It takes great character to raise a child alone. It is the act, regardless of the physical prowess or size of the income which eventually determines character. The same can be said for a man. I suppose that what I am trying to say is that it doesn't matter if the person is a man or woman. Your actions define your character.

I submit you the following clip from a movie which is dear to my heart and relevant to the subject matter. Something's Gotta Give, written and directed by Nancy Meyers - one of the few successful directors in Hollywood (wink wink nudge nudge). The story depicts two clearly defined and radically different people, or are they? Both are successful. One has been married once and now divorced. The other is an habitual love them and leave them artist, yet was once engaged. Both are financially successful. Both are well respected in their respective fields. Both have dated younger people. Both are creatures of habit - meaning that they don't really care for change. What is their connection? They fall in love. One says "either you really get me, or you hate me." The other replies with "I don't hate you." This implies that they understand each other on a level that most people are unable to comprehend much less experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSjI-xiH7j0

I submit this to you because this movie takes the stereotype and turns it on it's huge head. These are two human beings. Both flawed. You could call either a male, right? And if you're feeling especially brave, either a female, right? I try to keep an open mind and try not to judge a book by it's cover. I am not always successful but I believe that if more of us made this effort the world would be a more accepting place for woman and man.