Pontus Holmgren

Filmvetenskap, forsttningskurs

How is the theory of art form for the masses applicable in todays society?

Almost a century has passed since Siegfied Kracauer and Walter Benjamin published their
texts on how film as an art form can be use to educate the masses. But what I want to
investigate in this essay is what has happened in these year since their articles where
published, and if they are applicable on todays movie industry.
Kracauer writes in his article Cult of Distraction: On Berlins Picture Palaces about films
potential to bring all of society together as one homogenous group. He writes:

Their [the educated class] provincial isolation is, in any case, at an end. They are being
absorbed by the masses and this gives rise to the homogeneous cosmopolitan audience
in which everyone has the same responses 1

In other words, film has the ability to tare down the previous existing gap between different
classes in the society, from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. In the auditorium everyone
has the same experience and impressions from the film screening, according to Kracauer.
Benjamin has a similar approach towards the film medium. In his essay The Work of Art in
the Age of Mechanical Reproduction Benjamin argues that in every art work, besides
those of the Mechanical Reproduction, there exist a aura.2 Benjamin writes: Even the
most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its present in time and
space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. 3 The aura is in other
words the feeling of uniqueness in a work of art. There is only one Mona Lisa, which exist
at the Louvre museum in Paris. The aura of a work of art is the sensation that the specific
artwork has traveled through time and space, from the artist hand to the place where it
now happens to be. It is this aura which photography and film lack, because it can be
reproduce infinitely, with the exact same result. There is no original, which for example
there is with Da Vincis Mona Lisa. These means that theres no real authorship in films,

Kracauer, Siegfried. Cult of Distraction: On Berlins Picture Palaces. New German Critique, 1987. s.93

Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art inte the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.1935. s.3.

Benjamin. The Work of Art inte the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. s.3.
1

like there is in painting. As the viewer of film you experience the film and is totally absorb
by it.4 Thous film can be seen as a medium for the masses with potential to educate.
So to summarise these two articles, both Benjamin and Kracauer sees the potential of the
film medium as a way to educate the masses, and proletariat in particular. Since film in its
nature has the ability to pass the same message to all of its recipients it is in that sense a
democratic art form. Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times is a excellent example of this. In the
film Chaplin plays a ordinary worker at a factory and therefore becomes a clear
representation of the proletariat. He tries his best to keep up with increasing tempo at the
factory and is even used as a Guinea Pig for a new machine which purpose is to feed the
worker while therere working. Through out the movie Chaplin gets fired several times,
goes in and out of jail and participate in both a strike and a demonstration. All of this
happens by accident, he simply is the wrong man at the wrong time, except for one time
when he on purpose tries to go to jail.
Then what does Modern Times has to do with Benjamin and Kracauer? Of course its basic
story line is highly relevant with regard to the proletariat and the working-class versus the
society and capital. However what Modern Times also is able to do is tell a story about the
exploitation of the proletariat where the worker is nothing more then a object which can
become more efficient and produce more profit. Though out the film Chaplin is almost
never in control of the action, except when he is trying to go to jail. This tells us that he is
more happy in jail then he is out working. This clearly is a critique towards the ways the
capitalist is using the working-class for their own benefits. Chaplin would rather spend his
life in a jail cell then on the factory floor.
This brings me to my main question of this essay, how is this applicable on todays film
industry? First of all the whole concept of the proletariat raises some questions. Since
Benjamin and Kracauer's texts where published a lot have happen. The working-class is
now more scattered then before. Factories becomes more and more controlled by
computers and machines, the traditional factory worker is no longer needed. Just the other
day one could read how in Sweden over 450 000 jobs have vanished because of new
technical solutions.5 These have in turn been replaced by new jobs, which requires a

Benjamin. The Work of Art inte the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. s.13.

Owetz, Josefine. Tekniken tog 450 000 jobb p fem r. SverigesRadio, 17/04-14.
2

higher education and in turn have a higher salary. This of course have given rise to a
bigger middle-call and the working-class is getting smaller and harder to define. However
this does not make Benjamin and Kracauer irrelevant. Film still can be used as a political
medium which aims to effects the masses. But the question is, has it? My opinion is that in
most cases the answer is unfortunately no.
The coasts of film making has sky-rocketed in the past decades, with the biggest cause
probably being the block-buster phenomena. It seams as if every Hollywood-movie aims to
be more spectacular and costly, as if that is what the public most desire. Film has become
less and less an art form and more a industry whit one goal: maximum profits. A few major
studios control which movies get to be made and which are not. This result in a narrow
selection for the big masses, basically with just one choice, the one of the spectacle.
In regard to Modern Times I want to give a more recant example to show what has
happened, The Hunger Games. A huge hit, with several sequels realised and another on
its way. There are several similarities with The Hunger Games and Modern Times. In The
Hunger Games we follow Katniss Everdeen and her struggle against the government in a
post-apocalyptic world. In the movie there are several districts, twelve to be exact, with a
all-controlling capitol in the centre. One could easily draw connection between the strict
separation of district which purpose is to serve the capitol, to the class-system which
purpose is to serve the capitalistic system. Much like Chaplin, Katniss Everdeen represent
the small person, stuck in the wheels created by society. But there is a major difference
between the two movies. When Modern Times tries to criticise the capitalistic system, The
Hunger Games becomes a individualistic struggle for Katniss. It is not so much a critique
against the system, which partly of course exist, but a classic story of a person who has to
overcome obstacles in order to survive. This I think represent the state in which film exist
in today. Not so much about criticising and raising questions, but a way to create a
spectacular adventure which works to distract the masses from the world.
Benjamin saw the potential danger in the film medium, that it could be used to manipulate
and distract the viewer and maybe this is what has happened. Today most films, at least
the main-stream movies, has one purpose: maximal profit. The masses are fed with
distraction and in some ways becomes enslaved by mass media because of this. Rarely
is a film released with the purpose of educate and democratise the masses. It has become
a spectacle which main purpose is to entertain and distract. Both Benjamin and Kracauer
3

saw the positive potentials of films but the art form which it has become today is probably
what they dreaded the most would happen. Film has truly become a medium of distraction.

Literature
Kracauer, Siegfried. Cult of Distraction: On Berlins Picture Palaces. New German
Critique, 1987.
Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art inte the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.1935.
Owetz, Josefine. Tekniken tog 450 000 jobb p fem r. SverigesRadio, 17/04-15. http://
sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6143856 (hmtad 17/04-15)

Films
Chaplin, Charlie. Modern Times. United Artists. 1936.
Ross, Gary. The Hunger Games. Lions Gate Entertainment, USA. 2012.