Current Forum: Session 5: Ideology and Class	Read 6 times 	
Date: 12-Feb-2001 19:32:39	
Author: GIBSON, JASON M. <jmg0970@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>	
Subject: Fun but only on the surface. 	
 [Remove]	
		
       Trading Places in my opinion is an absolutely fun movie both to watch as entertainment and as a commentary on Class, Race, Gender, and Sexuality, although somewhat limited. The 
narrative has it all: rich guys, poor-criminal-others, women who are mere sex object or at best a support for the protagonist. When approaching this film for analysis it doesn’t take a great deal of thought to recognize the obvious commentary in the narrative. In fact I believe Landis, Harris and Weingrod mean to express this commentary in the most blatant way, to the point of comedic, in order to make a greater statement about issues of Class, Race, Sex, and Gender. So what is present? 
       Well first we must look at the establishment, the “money,” Winthorp, and more specifically the Dukes. Let us first look at the surface factors. What has been initially established is a 
dichotomy between the haves and the have-nots, with the Dukes representing the haves and for the most part Valentine, Coleman, and for a period Winthorp. We have three levels of society clearly depicted: Aristocrat, Bourgeois, and the Proletariat. In the first we have the Dukes, cleverly titled, they are initially shown in there grand estate. The manner in which they are presented directly resembles that of Winthorp, in that he is introduced through Coleman and their preparation for the new day, in this same manner we shown a POV of the Dukes as they 
descend the grand staircase to their private butlers. 
       Setting and mise-en-scene are very important to this film. The juxtaposition of one society to another and the flipping back and forth between them helps to establish the two classes. It should be noted that Winthorp does not fall into the aristocratic but fits more into the Bourgeois than anything. His initial character is one that marks would label as an individual who controls the mean of production. Through a high angle (possibly crane shot) combined with his aloof lack of recognition to those who greet him, we see that Winthorp is set apart from those who he works with. When this is applied to the Dukes and Winthorp we see the separateness but in reverse. 
       The final block in our scheme is the working class, namely Coleman, Ophelia, and Valentine. Coleman is presented through his daily tasks: the camera focuses in on him making the desert. He is almost objectified as is Ophelia. Ophelia presents the issue of sex and gender. To cross class lines we could lump Penelope into this categories as well. Both women serve purely a subservient role, meant only as sexual objects for the main male characters. We first see this with Winthorp and Penelope where she complains about domestic matters. When 
Ophelia hits the stage she falls into the domestic realm for being literally a sex object. Each of the two world are separate and are depicted formally as so. As Jason Mckahan points out the separation of the two realms by class is very important. They both have knowledge of each other but are separate. The question that has to be asked is in reference to the films idea of the two realms existing independently of one and other, without human intervention. 
       This in fact was the basis for the Duke’s bet. It seems to bring into existence the question of nature verses nurture. In one sense we could view the narrative as a critique on the class structure of society, being that it is all constructed and social breeding is only a matter of affiliation. However, I feel that the film fails to truly question this construct of class despite its attempts and the enjoyment of watching it. In the end we are presented with the triumphs of the haves, more directly money seems to win. I believe Marx would enjoy this film for it point to the fact that every thing is just about materiality.