Why does business look bad in movies? One writer (Anthony Chase, Civil Action Cinema, 1999 Law Review of Michigan State University Detroit College of Law 945, 957) explained that "it is about money. And corporations have more money than everyone else. They can pay their attorneys more and last longer and usually win; certainly when they are dragged into court, kicking and screaming, by the powerless.�
But this general condemnation of business seems an unlikely explanation for films� anti-business tone. Capitalism has brought vast wealth to a broad segment of U.S society, including most moviegoers and the writers, directors and stars who make the movies. One would not be surprised to see occasional criticism of capitalism, or to see moviemakers make good use of the drama inherent in the oppression and eventual triumph of economic underdogs. But why should capital always be the heavy? Why should filmmakers so rarely exploit the dramatic potential of business triumph, or of underdog businesspeople struggling against the tyranny of government? More importantly, films are themselves the product of large companies, many of which are parts of even larger conglomerates. Why would they attack themselves?His answer: "the filmmakers� main problem with capital being in control seems to be that the filmmakers are not." I'm not sure I buy that answer, but it is a provocative claim that is well-executed. But this article also raises a question of my own: How does Larry manage to be such a prolific producer of exceptionally high quality scholarship when he obviously spends so much time watching movies?
Next entry: More insider trading news
Previous entry: Field conservatives in So Cal academy