Current Forum: Session 5: Ideology and Class	Read 7 times 	
Date: 11-Feb-2001 23:19:29	
Author: FRANK, KYLE G. <kgf4068@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>	
Subject: Revolution vs. ISA 	
 [Remove]	
		
       “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” (George Orwell, Animal Farm).  I am glad that Elizabeth referred to this quote and I also think that it serves as the foundation for the film Trading Places.  Certainly the film portrays a feel good “proletariat revolution”, which dethrones the oppressive Duke & Duke, symbol of the bourgeoisie.  However, I agree with Elizabeth in that the narrative and film techniques in Trading Places create a discourse giving more “equality” to some members of the “proletariat” than to others.  Embedded within the film are multiple elements that establish a hierarchy within the “equal” class (e.g. gender, race, etc.).       
       Thus, there is an ironic contradiction of messages in the film.  On the one hand the film depicts a “revolution” that serves as a metaphor for Marx’s prediction of the “formation of the proletariat into a class, [the] overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and the] conquest of political power by the proletariat” (Marx 109).  However, the film is far from revolutionary—surely this comedy does not impel the working class of the real world to arms.  In fact, the film fits neatly into Althusser’s definition of an ISA, because it reinforces the status quo (e.g. the hierarchy mentioned above).  Thus, the film simultaneously conveys the messages of “revolt against injustices” and “ahhh! you should relax and enjoy the utopia you live in”.  Of course, by the end of the film the latter message mutes the former.
       I would like to explore how these messages relate to the mise-en-scene of the film, focusing on the distinction between the scenes in the city (nearly the entire film) and the final “paradise” scene.  Almost the entire film could be taken as a metaphor for Marx’s description of a proletarian revolution; many parallels could be drawn between the terms and ideas in Marx’s writings and the characters, diegetic environment, and narrative of the film.  For instance, the 
majority of the action takes place within backdrop of downtown Philadelphia, recalling the “cosmopolitan character [of] production and consumption” of the world-market that Marx 
attributes to bourgeois exploitation (105).  
       Second, most of the mise-en-scene concords with Marx’s assertion that the bourgeoisie has “simplified the class antagonisms; Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (103).  The opening sequence of credits juxtaposes shots that gradually widen the gap between “poor” and “rich” as it portrays shots of grocers, butchers, and people waiting for the sub; but these “split” into shots of rich row-houses and homeless people, classical buildings next to “xxx nude” clubs, and finally a close up of the butler Coleman squeezing orange juice for Lewis Winthorp’s breakfast.  But establishing shots are not the only way that Trading Places depict the polarization between social classes.  Janeen showed how clothing distinguished the upper from the lower class.  Names were altered (Billy transforms into William, Lewis transforms into “Lewey”).  Furthermore, the film places each of these elements closer and closer together so as to emphasize class difference and oppression (e.g. “Beggar Billy” outside the Heritage Club, Penelope in the police station, “poor” Lewis outside the restaurant, “Santa Lewis” at the Duke Christmas party, etc.).  
       It is interesting to note that the narrative begins with the “proletariat” in what Marx identifies as an early stage of development, for it is still an “incoherent mass” of various characters “broken up by their mutual competition” (106-7).  However, as the film progresses, the “proletariat” increases in number and becomes concentrated.  Lewis is that “small section of the ruling class [that] cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class” (107).  Billy is part of the “‘dangerous class’, the social scum” who is educated by the bourgeoisie itself to prepare for the revolution (107-8).  By the end of the film, manager, beggar, prostitute, and butler have united their effort to overthrow the opprobrious Duke & Duke “bourgeoisie”.  
       As the “proletariat” forms, the spectator is supposed to join their efforts as he or she identifies bourgeois oppression and feels intimidated and/or enraged.  For example, the extreme 
low-angle, POV shot of the Duke & Duke office tower when William (Eddie Murphy) shows up for his first day of work helps the spectator identify with the character’s intimidation/nervousness.  The fact that Mortimer and Randolph Duke wagered only a dollar emphasizes how little they value the proletariat.  These scenes help the spectator identify with the “proletariat”, even as it is forming.
       However, despite the parallels between Marxist theory and Trading Places, it would be rash to consider the two synonymous.  Instead the two work opposite each other.  If Marx’s work is to instigate revolution, Trading Places is to ensure it never happens.  All of the revolutionary “text” in Trading Places is undercut by the fact that the film is a comedy.  Furthermore, the film encourages the status quo in the final “paradise” scene.  Lewis and William may have seized the 
Duke’s money, but there is no evidence of a communist society.  Granted, that was probably not the goal of the director.  However, the mise-en-scene at this point contributes to the ideology that Mantsios identifies as perpetuating “illusions about egalitarian society” (120).  
       First, the scene takes place on an island, away from the “cosmopolitan” world of capitalism.  Lewis and William have taken the place of the Duke brothers, but are not a threat because they are spending their money in the Bahamas (all signs of poverty have been erased).  Second, the film serves more as what Mantsios identifies as a rags-to-riches story than a revolution.  The dialogue between Coleman and the waiter reinforces this by presenting “before-and-after” characters.  The spectator sees the rich Coleman and what he once was that thinks “his hard work and loyalty paid off”.  Thus, the spectator is encouraged to accept social classes rather than try to change the economic structure behind them.
       One last note: I find this disturbing considering the dynamics of the last scene.  Even though the scene presents what Marx calls a “form of universality” (66), there is a deep division that remains.  Why is Lewis on a fancy yacht, separated from Coleman and William.  A more “equal” presentation would have placed them on hammocks side by side—together ’til the end.