This is part seven from a forthcoming book called Collected Essays: Volume Two.
*********************
Economic Decline in the Cinema of
the 1970s
The western world enjoyed a period
of unusually high growth and low unemployment during the Second World War. It
has been called ‘the golden age of capitalism.’ However, by the 1970s the
economy started to stagnate, unemployment went up and so did inflation. The
preceding era, known as ‘Keynesianism,’ had led to ‘stagflation.’ Economists
who had been previously been marginalised seized the moment and proposed a
different agenda. Meanwhile, cinema was experiencing something of a golden
period. ‘New Hollywood’ had produced a spate of subversive and
anti-authoritarian films which reached large audiences. Indeed, during the
1970s Hollywood produced auteurs like Martin Scorsese, Brian de Palma, Michael
Cimino, Terrence Malick, Woody Allen, Sam Peckinpah, Hal Ashby and Francis Ford Coppola. A
sense of economic dysfunction often appears in these films. This essay will
look at four films from the 1970s and examine economic decline. In Being
There (1979), a gardener with learning difficulties is perceived as being
an insightful political philosopher. His talk about the seasons is perceived as
being a comment on economic cycles. Life of Brian (1979) satirises the
trade unions which had paralysed the British economy. Taxi Driver (1976)
vividly recreates the decadence of New York. Finally, Blue Collar (1978)
recreates corrupt American trade unions.
This essay will start
by outlining the parlous state of the economy in the 1970s. The economy prior
to the 1970s has been called ‘the golden age of capitalism,’ as unemployment
was at an all time low, growth was very high and living standards had never
been better, but this came at the cost of mild inflation. Indeed, between 1945
and 1973 the incomes of Americans grew exponentially (p. 420). In the 1950s and
60s, economic growth averaged 4.5%. However, in the 1970s unemployment grew,
growth stalled and inflation reached double digits. This was largely due to the
oil embargo, which already exacerbated rising inflation. During this period,
growth averaged 2.8% and it was believed that Americans lived in an age of
scarcity. Inflation, which had averaged 3% in the 50s and 60s, now raged
between 10 and 15%. Productivity also stalled (p. 421) and inflation reached
13% in 1979 (p. 630). Indeed, in 1972 Richard Nixon had instituted wage and
price controls (p. 454), a year before the Oil Crisis accentuated the existing
problem. The gurus of the New Right, such as Milton Friedman, proposed a type
of ‘shock therapy’ and leaders Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher promised to
‘roll back the frontiers of the state.’ Ronald Reagan had been a liberal – in
the American sense – in the 1940s. Back then, he blamed inflation on
corporations pursuing higher profits rather than higher wages. As a
conservative in the 1970s, he blamed inflation on big government. He channelled
Milton Friedman when he said the following: ‘Inflation occurs when the growth
of the nation’s money supply outstrips the growth in the nation’s productivity’
(Perlstein 2020, p. 408). He went on to say the following: ‘The federal reserve
controls the money supply and is therefore the primary source of inflation… In
truth, inflation is simply another tax imposed by Washington in the name of
easy money’ (p. 408). This theory, ‘the quantity theory of money,’ had lost
credibility after WWII, but it made a renaissance in the 1970s. However, the
incumbent Jimmy Carter did not appear to disagree: ‘If we are to overcome a
threat to accelerating inflation, the government will simply not be able to do
much as it can’ (p. 408). Inflation had increased under Carter up to 8.9%, but
he opposed any further reductions in income tax. He wanted to limit wages and
he created a ‘Council of Wage and Price Stability,’ which established voluntary
price guidelines for businesses to follow (p. 387). The monetarists, however,
were resolutely opposed to these kinds of controls.
The
monetarists wanted to reverse the Keynesian settlement and it was this their
political program that Thatcher and Reagan implemented. This essay will now
establish what they wanted to do. Instead of setting prices, organisations like
the FTC proposed anti-trust laws ban trade organisations from keeping eye
glasses out of ads, making merchants and consumers freer to allow the
marketplace to do its work. Eyeglasses were more expensive in states with these
controls (p. 464). Indeed, liberalising, deregulating and privatising were a
core part of the agenda. Additionally, cutting taxes was a core part of the New
Right. Arthur Laffer argued that a 0% tax rate would yield no revenue, but a
100% tax rate would also yield no revenue. If all gains are confiscated, there
is no incentive to work or invest. Taxes have to be low enough to maximise
economic activity and high enough to maximise revenue. The USA was in its worst
recession since the 1930s because taxes were far too high to do either. The
national economy was being choked by high taxes (p. 283). These ideas were
starting to become more influential during this period of stagflation and it
was a shift away from Keynesianism, which argued in favour of redistribution
and in spending money into the economy to boost demand and keep unemployment
low. In the late 60s, Milton Friedman prophesied that Keynesianism would come
to an end, as he argued that it would lead to both stagnation, inflation and
high unemployment. Friedman argued in 1967 that if inflation kept going up,
which was caused by full employment, then this would conversely lead to
unemployment. Friedman wanted to hold back on the supply of money and let the
free market do its work. Monetarism provided an ideological justification for
conservatives to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state.’ If companies
prospered, it was because they deserved to prosper. The winners in a
competitive market were not prospering due to high regulation and this
distorted the competitiveness of the market (p. 281). Milton Friedman and Paul
Volker proposed a ‘shock therapy,’ as they wanted to contract the money supply.
Jimmy Carter did not want to do this, as he thought that it would lead to a
recession (p. 633). In the UK and the USA, this brought inflation down, but it
destroyed manufacturing, created large unemployment and a lot of money went to
investors rather than workers (p. 634).
This essay will examine how Keynesianism came to an end. Up to the 1970s, Keynesianism was the main economic orthodoxy. Indeed, Richard Nixon said ‘I am now a Keynesian’ (Stein 2019). The ‘golden age of capitalism’ had been in the 1950s and 1960s, since by historical standards unemployment had been exceptionally low, growth in real incomes exceptionally fast and economies were exceptionally stable. This was all achieved at the cost of modest inflation. This was all attributed to Keynesian policies (Skidelsky 2010, p. 125). In the late 1960s, however, inflation and unemployment went up and growth started to slow down, which was before the oil shock of 1973. Having been extolled for its success, Keynesianism was now blamed for failure. Inflation became worse in the late 1960s, which created higher unemployment and this defeated the purpose of achieving full employment. Monetarism gained respectability during this period (p. 133). The worldwide explosion in costs due to shortages, accompanied by the rise in raw material and energy prices, culminated in the fourfold increase in oil prices in 1973, which reduced full employment (p. 133). An ‘incomes policy’ was introduced – a restraint on pay increases – which did not work. More money was pumped into the public sector to deal with these problems, which only made matters worse. After the second oil price rise in 1979, governments tightened fiscal and monetary policy (p. 179). Keynesians at this period were obsessed with incomes policy, which allowed a lot of leeway for monetarists to defend contractual freedom (p. 137). In other words, Keynesians wanted to intervene in all aspects of the economy by setting prices and wages, which made it easy for monetarists to defend the core principle of the free market, of voluntary transactions between consenting adults. Prior to the 1970s, low unemployment was the acceptable price for mild inflation (p. 137), but this was no longer the case. Keynesians wanted to centralise more power in the government, and this was worse in the 1970s, but this ignored the amount of power a government can have in a free society. As such, lovers of liberty and efficiency left the Keynesian camp in droves (p. 170).
This
essay will now analyse Being There (1979) by Hal Ashby and take into
consideration the state of the American economy at the time of its release.
This film was the swan song of Peter Sellers, as it was his last performance
before his death. Peter Sellers plays a character called ‘Chance,’ a gardener
with learning difficulties. He is evicted from his house after the owner dies.
Following this, he runs into an extremely wealthy businessman who lets him stay
at his house. Chance simplemindedly says that he is a gardener and would like
to work for them, but he is instead perceived as a intellectual. In one scene,
Chance tells the businessman that ‘my house was shut down.’ Rand says: ‘You
mean your business was shut down?’ Chance says: ‘Shut down and closed by the attorneys.’
Rand says: ‘That’s exactly what I mean’ and launches off into a diatribe. In another
scene in the film, he says: ‘Businessmen have been harassed by inflation,
increased taxation, all sorts of indecencies.’ He certainly evinces the
Reaganite ethos; that is, that government is causing all of the country’s
problems. The government has taken Chauncey’s business away from him. Taxes are
too high and there is too much government intrusion. Excessive government
involvement shuts down the businesses of earnest entrepreneurs like Chauncey.
One
of the most striking scenes in the film is when Chance talks to the president
of the United States. The president visits Rand and asks for advice on how to
tackle the country’s economic problems. The scene starts with a mid-shot of
Rand with Chance. The décor is elaborate, as there are expensive paintings on
the wall and a stove. There is a butler hovering in the background. There are
elaborate gold-rimmed candles. The mise-en-scene clearly establishes that he is
one of the wealthiest businessmen in the country. Rand says: ‘An old habit
comes with power. Keep them waiting.’ He gets up from his wheelchair and the
camera pans across as the president walks across the hall accompanied by his
assistants. This is followed by a long shot of a spacious room with a large
painting and there are about fifteen men in black suits. Rand says: ‘I thought
about public office, but I found that I could contribute more as a private
citizen. Of course, wealth provided me with considerable influence.’ He says
this just before the president asks him for advice. This is followed by a
mid-shot of Rand walking with Chance and they are accompanied by three other
people who wear suits and bow ties. This is clearly an important room in the
house, as it is a spacious library with many books in the background. The
president is on the second floor of the library and he is framed by a low-angle
mid-shot. The president descends the stairs whilst the camera work alternates
between mid-shots of Rand, Chance and the president. Rand says: ‘I’ve missed
you, my friend.’ The president clearly has a close relationship with Rand.
There is a mid-shot of Chance looking gormless and he emulates Rand by
embracing the president as he did. Indeed, Chance repeats the behaviour of
others, especially when it is something that he has seen on television. There
is a mid-shot of Rand sitting down on a red chair as he says: ‘I want you to
meet my very dear friend, Mr. Chauncey Gardiner.’ This is followed by a
mid-shot of the president flummoxed by Chance’s strange behaviour. Chance
banally says: ‘On television, Mr. president, you look much smaller.’ He keeps
embracing the president who is still perplexed. This is followed by mid-shots
framed from several angles. The president says: ‘Ben, did you read my speech.’
Rand says: ‘You shouldn’t resort to temporary measures. I sympathise with you
and I understand how difficult it is to be straightforward, but I tell you now,
Bobby…’ The editing alternates to a scene elsewhere in the house and we no
longer hear what Rand’s recommendations on the economic crisis. It seems like
Rand is railing against the Keynesian orthodoxies. He already mentions earlier
on in the film how the economy is being choked by high taxes and excessive
intervention. He tells him not to be straightforward and at the time to be
straightforward was to be Keynesian. The president says: ‘Mr. Gardiner, do you
agree with Ben or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary
incentives.’ Indeed, using the government to stimulate growth is Keynesian. All three characters are framed in the same mid-shot as a clock
ticks in the background. There is later a mid-shot from Ben’s perspectives.
Chance says: ‘As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will
be well in the garden.’ The president asks: ‘In the garden?’ There is 90 degree
mid-shot of Chance as he says: ‘In the garden, growth has its seasons. First
comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter.’ This is followed by
a mid-shot of an out-of-focus Chance and a perplexed president. The president
says: ‘And then spring and summer again.’ Chance says: ‘Yes.’ The president:
‘And then fall and winter.’ This is followed by a mid-shot of Rand with a grin
on his face as he says: ‘I think that what our very insightful young friend is
saying is that we should welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we’re
upset about the seasons of our economy.’ Chance says: ‘Yes, there will be growth
in the spring.’ The president says: ‘Well, Mr. Gardiner, I must admit that is
one if the most refreshing and optimistic statements that I’ve heard in a long
time.’ The camera work throughout the scene alternates between the three
characters. The camera work also showcases the spacious library, which
emphasises the seriousness and scholarly nature of the situation. Meanwhile, Chance’s
banal and innocent statements are interpreted as gnomic insights. The economy
at the time of the release of the film, as this essay has established, was in
turmoil. There was double digit inflation, high unemployment and stagnation.
This had followed the Keynesian ‘golden period of capitalism’ of high growth
and low unemployment. Chance’s childlike remarks are interpreted as insights
into economic cycles. There are booms and busts as well as periods of growth
and recessions. Everyone at the time was highly pessimistic – indeed, Jimmy
Carter lost in 1980 to Ronald Reagan partly because he was so pessimistic.
Chance says that ‘there will be growth in the spring’ and the president
compliments him on this ‘refreshing’ statement.
This
essay will now look at the state of the British economy in the 1970s, which was
in a worse condition that the USA and the rest of Europe. Indeed, Britain
became the first developed country to take a loan from the IMF. This was done
so as to stabilise the value of the British pound. The UK Labour Party attained
power by promising to solve the miner’s dispute, who had gone on strike. They
went back into work on the agreement that their wages would be raised, but once
this was done this only accelerated double digit inflation. Inflation went up
to 27% in 1975. Once Callaghan took over in 1976, he took a large loan from the
IMF. After the dissolution of Bretton Woods, the IMF became ‘a global
firefighter’ which imposed stringent spending cuts. These spending cuts were
opposed by much of the Labour cabinet, but they brought inflation down to
single digits by 1978. However, they partly did this by severe wage restraint
on all public sector workers. As such, they all went on strike and this led to
the ‘winter of discontent.’ Rubbish went uncollected, hospitals did not let patients
in and the dead were left unburied (Coyle 2017). Indeed, trade unions played a
larger part in the economy and culture. 13 million workers were part of a trade
union in the 1970s and 1980s. ‘Collective bargaining’ aimed to negotiate better
wages and working conditions between employers and employees without state
interference. However, the worthy achievements of full employment and the
welfare state diminished the reliance of the Labour Party on the trade unions.
In the 1950s and the early 60s, the trade unions were more conservative and
crushed militants. Indeed, industrial relations were better than in other parts
of Europe. However, trade unions moved to the left and the Stalinist Arthur
Scargill became influential. They were more concerned with trade unions than
the national interest and it did not bother them to bring a Labour government
down. Militancy increased in the late 1960s and since the devaluation of the
pound in 1967 led to higher inflation, this led to a ‘statutory prices and
incomes policy.’ The UK increased exports, but it now had to pay more for its
imports and this led to higher inflation. As such, the government had to freeze
prices and wages, which led to resistance from the unions. Cabinet minister
Barbara Castle devised ‘In Place of Strife,’ which aimed to curtail the power
of trade unions, but this was quashed by James Callaghan, who was then home
secretary (Cambert 2021).
Leftist
and trade union sectarianism is featured in Monty Python’s Life of Brian
(1979). The film is set in Roman antiquity and satirises religion and politics.
Left-wing sectarianism is cleverly satirised with two rival political groups
called ‘Jewdian People’s Front’ and the ‘People’s Front of Jewdia.’ Brian wants
to join their group, but they tell him to ‘piss off!’ Brian says: ‘I hate
Romans as much as anybody!’ They say: ‘Are you sure?’ He says: ‘Dead sure.’
John Cleese says: ‘Listen, if you want to join the P. F. J, you have to really
hate the Romans.’ Brian says: ‘How much.’ He says: ‘A lot.’ Cleese says:
‘You’re in. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the Jewdian
People’s Front.’ This is all about ideological purity and sectarian squabbling.
The differences in their ideology are minute, but this does not prevent them
from creating sects and fighting each other. Their raison d’ etre is to be
against the Romans and fighting against injustice, but the other left-wing
group is worse and they spend more energy fighting other leftists than deposing
the Romans. The film was released in 1979, the year of ‘the winter of
discontent.’ The Labour government had been brought down by the trade unions,
which were led by leftists like Arthur Scargills. Dogmatists like Tony Benn
subsequently blamed the government for being insufficiently ‘socialist,’ which
again echoes the ideological purity of the ‘Jewdian People’s Front.’ Figures
like Benn, and organisations like Militant, spent more time fighting Labour Party
politicians than the Conservatives. Indeed, the J. P. F say that they hate the
P. F. O. J. more than the Romans. The behaviour of trade unionists is clearly
satirised here by the Pythons and the film is as much a political satire as a
religious one. The trade unions brought the British economy to its knees due to
this type of sectarianism.
This
essay will now analyse another scene in Life of Brian. The scene starts
with a low-angle close-up of Michael Palin in a small room, which is darkly
lit. We later see a mid-shot of the Jewdian People’s Front in the room and they
all wear black robes. There is faint sunlight in the background. There is a
large group of people packed into the mid-shot. There is a sense that this a
clandestine meeting. Someone says: ‘What exactly are the demands?’ Cleese says:
‘We have two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman imperialist
state. If she doesn’t agree immediately, we execute her.’ We later see a
mid-shot, from the opposite angle, of people shrouded in black robes, jeering.
We later see a 180 degree mid-shot of three leaders of J. P. F. and they say
‘What have they ever given us in return?’ We see a mid-shot from the opposite
angle of the crowd. They say: ‘The aqueduct?’ Cleese says: ‘Oh yes, they did give
us that.’ They say: ‘And sanitation.’ Eric Idle says: ‘Oh yes, sanitation.
Remember what the city used to be like.’ Cleese says: ‘I grant you, the
aqueduct and the sanitation are two things the Romans have done for us.’ The
crowd proceed to list the roads, irrigation, medicine, education, wine, public
baths and safe streets. Cleese then says: ‘Apart from all those things, what
have the Romans done for us!’ The camera work alternates between mid-shots of
the three leaders and the crowd and a mid-shot of everyone in the room. The
room is cramped and the camera work creates the sense that it is forbidden and
secret. There is also an attempt to recreate antiquity with the clothing and
the dilapidated building. This scene once more recreates the sectarianism of
the trade unions and the left in the late 1970s. They find fault with
everything in society and the quality of life has never been better, but they
still cannot help but find fault with it. The economy at the time of the film’s
release had been paralysed by these kinds of sectarians.
This
essay will now look at the parlous condition of New York in the 1970s. Indeed,
‘stagflation’ affected New York more than other cities. It had to lay off city
workers and cut municipal services such as sanitation and school programs. The
high unemployment rate increased throughout the decade. Middle class families,
more than 820,000 of them, fled to the suburbs. Many people turned to violence
due to cuts in social services. Crime rates increased, theft became more common
and power unexpectedly failed on the July 13th 1977, which led to
looting all over the city (American Experience). Indeed, people arriving in the
airport in 1975 were greeted with pamphlets warning them with the following
message: ‘Until things change, stay away from New York City if you possibly
can.’ There was a fiscal crisis in the mid-1970s and the disintegration of the
largest city on earth seemed perfectly possible. Gerald Ford wanted to replace
it as the leading financial centre. However, many of the warnings in the
pamphlet were exaggerated but, still, murders doubled from previous decades.
They went up from 681 in 1965 to 1,690 in 1975. Car thefts and assaults more
than doubled, rapes and burglaries more than tripled and robberies went up
ten-fold. Subway trains were filthy and covered in graffiti. Trains were late
and they were always crowded. Roads were in a bad condition. Public restrooms
were non-existent and they were dangerous and dirty. Men could be seen pissing
in the gutter. Office buildings were allowed to rot away and many of them
showed scratchy prints of pornographic films. Indeed, there were many porn
theatres in respectable neighbourhoods. This comes through in the film Taxi
Driver, as the protagonist frequents porn theatres. Vandalism was rampant.
Major pieces of infrastructure were allowed to rust until they were in danger
of collapsing. By early 1975, New York owed five billion to six billion in
short term debt. The city also had over a million welfare recipients, as the
city had lost a million manufacturing jobs since 1945 and 500,000 since 1969.
Indeed, president Gerald Ford visited the city and said that its mismanagement
was ‘unique’ among municipalities in the United States. He blamed it on ‘high
wages and pensions… its tuition free university system, its city-run hospital
system and welfare administration.’ He would ‘veto any bill that has its
purpose a bailout of New York City to prevent a default.’ This provoked a
headline, which was called ‘Ford to city – drop dead.’ Shortly after, the city had
to lay off 51,768 city workers. Public hospitals had to deal with thousands of
heroin junkies and subway workers had to get deteriorating trains back on the
rails. Americans generally supported aid for New York as long as the city
balanced its budget and tax payers outside New York did not pay for it. Ford
urged congress to pass a bill making $2.3 billion a year available for three
years to New York in direct loans. It quickly passed and it was signed by the
president. There were a lot of spending cuts, but additionally workers had to
deal with a cost-of-living crisis that was afflicting the rest of the world
(Baker 2015). New York, in many, ways symbolised the decadence and economic
decline of the free world.
The
decadence of New York is palpably apparent in Taxi Driver (1976) by
Martin Scorsese. Early on in the film, the character Travis Bickle, famously
played by Robert De Niro, says: ‘Thank God for the rain that has helped to wash
away all the garbage and trash.’ Elsewhere, he says: ‘All the animals come out
at night. Whores, pussies, skunk junkies, queens, fairies, dopers… Sick, venal…
Some day a rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets.’ This is
accompanied by shots prostitutes and drug addicts. The film also depicts porn
theatres and child prostitution. Indeed, the film accentuates the worst
stereotypes that circulated about the city. In one scene, he encounters a
presidential candidate. The scene starts with a mid-shot of Travis Bickles, famously
played by Robert De Niro, driving the taxi. The presidential candidate, called
Pallandine, sits at the back of his cab. His associate says: ‘This is making me
nervous. Maybe we should have taken a limo.’ Pallandine says: ‘I don’t mind
taking a cab.’ Bickle is framed by a mid-shot from the right side of his car,
which is followed by a mid-shot of Bickle driving and Pallandine at the back of
the cab. He turns around, surreptitiously grins and says: ‘I am one of your
biggest supporters. I tell everyone who comes into this taxi to vote for you.’
This is followed by a mid-shot of Pallandine and his associate. Pallandine
says: ‘Why thank you.’ This is followed by a close-up of Travis Bickle’s name
and photograph at the back of the taxi. Pallandine, noticing this, says: ‘Thank
you, Travis.’ We see a mid-shot of Travis, once more from the right side of the
taxi. He says: ‘You are going to win, sir. Everyone who comes in is going to
vote for you. I was going to put one of your stickers in my taxi, but the company
said it was against the policy.’ Pallandine says: ‘I have learned more about
America from riding a taxi than from all the limos in the country.’ Pallandine
asks Bickle: ‘What is the one thing about this country that bugs you the most?’
Bickle says: ‘Well, I don’t follow political issues that closely, sir.’
Pallandine says: ‘There must be something.’ Bickle:
‘Well, whatever it is, you need to
clean up this city. This city is like an open sewer. It’s full of filth and
sometimes I can hardly take it. Whoever becomes the president should just
really clean it up. Sometimes I go out and I get headaches it is so bad. […]
The president should just clean up this mess… Should just flush it down the
fucking toilet.’
Pallandine replies thusly: ‘Well, I
uh… I think I know what you mean, Travis, but it’s not going to be easy. We’re
going to have to make some really radical changes.’ The camera work throughout
the scene alternates between the same angles; it alternates between three
mid-shots around different sides of the taxi. Bickle’s diatribe is inarticulate
and nonsensical, but it reflects the sense of frustration at what New York has
become. The film was released in 1976 and it is set in New York. His diatribe
reflects the crime, the grime and the grottiness of New York. The film was
released a year after Gerald Ford visited the city and acknowledged how
decrepit it was. Pallandine, similarly, recognises that something ‘radical’ is
needed to change it.
This
essay will now look at corrupt trade unions in the United States. Some unions
cooperated with organised crime. Corrupt union officials enriched themselves at
the expense of other unionists and exploited business people (Jacobs 2006). The
transport union, led by Hoffa, plagued it with corruption. Indeed, Hoffa was
killed by his own mob. Hoffa’s death coincided with the decline of America’s
union membership (Cornwell 2010). Many other organised crime groups infiltrated
trade unions, which gained influence, and even control, of trade unions. This
created a climate of fear and intimidation among employers and trade union
members and led to threats and acts of violence (Department of Justice).
Paul
Schrader was the screenwriter for Taxi Driver and he made his
directorial debut two years later with Blue Collar (1978). The film
deals with three operatives in a car manufacturing factory. They are struggling
with a cost-of-living crisis and their trade union is crooked. Early on in the
film, they attend a committee. The scene starts with a mid-shot of a spacious
room filled with people. The union rep says: ‘I’ve got to wait for something
big, not a bunch of little things.’ There is a picture of J. F. Kennedy and
Martin Luther King in the background. There is also a flag of the United States
and a labour confrontation from 1937. The character played by Richard Pryor
feels aggrieved because the rep does not listen to his complaint. He says: ‘I
also want to run for union rep and take your fucking job. […] I give the man
some real representation.’ They all clap and jeer as he says this. The camera
work alternates between mid-shots of Pryor and the union rep, from opposite
angles. The rep looks indifferent, as he smugly smokes a cigar. Pryor says:
‘And when I get your job, I am going to get a private jet… And play golf with Nixon
and president Ford and them motherfuckers.’ However, the union rep continues to
parry all of his concerns.
Later
on in the film, Pryor finally does get the rep job, but he is swiftly
disappointed. He is powerless to change anything and, to his horror, finds that
the union is even more criminal than he ever imagined. He ingratiates himself
with the union and tries to change it from within, but he finds that he cannot
do this. Indeed, they kill his close friend Smokey. Pryor is told this in a
striking scene. The union leader acknowledges that he killed Smokey on a bridge
overlooking a motorway. We see a mid-shot of Pryor as he says: ‘You
motherfuckers lied to me. You said Smokey and Kerry would be ok.’ We see a
mid-shot of the leader, who looks blasé. The camera work alternates between
mid-shots of Pryor and the union leader as the traffic whirrs in the
background. The leader attributes this to an accident: ‘We’ve been having
meetings all morning. We’ve found Smokey’s death as the result of negligence
and improper staff precautions.’ Pryor says: ‘Fuck that, man! You had him
murdered!’ The leader says: ‘Be careful who you call murderer. […] And how do
you think things get changed around here? Not pie-in-the-sky martyrs. […] You
thought being a union rep was going to be easy. Now you know it’s tough and
it’s rough.’ The character played by Pryor becomes a union rep to change it,
but once he gets the job is powerless to effect any change. Schrader is
critiquing the corrupt nature of American trade unions in the 1970s. He is also
representing the precarious position many blue-collar workers were in the
1970s, as it is the cost-of-living that drives them towards the crooked trade
unions in the first place.
The
Keynesian settlement was already running into problems by the late 1960s, but
the Oil Crisis exacerbated it. Keynesianism had been the prevailing economic
orthodoxy, but many figures sought to distance themselves from it. The 1970s
were a period of ‘stagflation’ – that is, high unemployment, high inflation and
low growth. Economists like Milton Friedman and Paul Volker proposed a type of
‘shock therapy’. They wanted to contract the money supply so as to bring
inflation down, which would create a recession. Keynesianism had previously
redistributed wealth and intervened in the economy to keep unemployment low,
but these economists wanted a freer market. At this point, many Keynesians
overestimated the role of the sate in a free society, as they tried to tackle
inflation by setting prices and wages. This sense of economic chaos is apparent
in Being There, as the simpleminded protagonist talks about the seasons and
this is interpreted as an insightful comment on economic cycles. He talks about
‘growth in spring’ and this is interpreted as a comment on the economy. Indeed,
there was a wide sense of pessimism at the time. Life of Brian recreates
the sense of sectarianism of the British left and trade unions. The trade
unions at the time had paralysed the British economy due to their strikes.
Leftists like Tony Benn, meanwhile, lamented the lack of ideological purity in
the government. This comes through in the film as the Jewdian People’s Front
hate the People’s Front of Jewdia more than the Romans. Meanwhile, New York was
in a state of stagnation in the 1970s and fared worse than any other American
city. It had a large deficit and had very high crime rates. At the time,
president Gerald Ford visited the city and lamented its condition. This comes
through in Taxi Driver, as it depicts child prostitution and the
protagonist Travis Bickle talks about the ‘filth’ in the streets. American
trade unions at the time were notorious for their links to organised crime,
which comes through in Blue Collar by Paul Schrader. The lead character
joins the trade union to change it, but they kill his best friend. These are
the ways in which these films recreate economic decline in the 1970s.
Works Cited
Baker,
Kevin. (2015) ‘Welcome to Fear City – the Inside Story of New York’s Civil War,
40 Years On.’ In The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/18/welcome-to-fear-city-the-inside-story-of-new-yorks-civil-war-40-years-on
Cornwell, Rupert.
(2010) ‘The Teamsters, a Trade Union Like no Other.’ In The Guardian.
Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-teamsters-a-trade-union-like-no-other-1924647.html
Coyle, Diane. (2017) ‘When
Britain went Bust.’ In Financial Times. Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/3b583050-d277-11e6-b06b-680c49b4b4c0
Lambert, Stephen.
(2017) ‘Trade Unions from the Beginning to 1979.’ In North East by Lines.
Available from: https://northeastbylines.co.uk/trade-unions-from-the-beginning-to-1979/
Net. E. H. (2006) ‘Mobsters,
Unions and the Feds: The Mafia and the American Labour Movement.’ In EH.net.
Available from: https://eh.net/book_reviews/mobsters-unions-and-feds-the-mafia-and-the-american-labor-movement/
Perlstein, Rick. (2020)
Reaganland: America’s Right Turn 1976-1980. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Skidelsky,
Robert. (2010) Keynes: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wesbury, Brian, Stein,
Robert. (2019) ‘We’re All Keynesians Now.’ In Advisor Perspectives.
Available from: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2019/09/16/were-all-keynesians-now
Unknown Author. ‘NYC in Chaos.’ In American
Experience. Available from: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/blackout-gallery/
Filmography
Being There. (1979) Directed by Hal Ashby.
United Artists. 130 minutes.
Blue Collar. (1978) Directed by Paul Schrader.
Universal Pictures. 114 minutes.
Life of Brian. (1979) Directed by Terry Jones. Cinema
International Corporation. 94 minutes.
Taxi Driver. (1976) Directed by Martin Scorcese.
Columbia Pictures. 114 minutes.
