In this paper, I illustrate the evolutionary role of Netflix as a product of capitalism through Walter Benjamin’s lens. This paper introduces Benjamin’s concept of the shift from valuing traditional art to film. With Netflix as an example, it emphasizes the reproducibility in filmmaking today. It then illustrates the function of Netflix as an appropriation of capitalism, as an emerged digital phantasmagoria. Further, it discusses Benjamin’s hopes for the emancipatory role of films through communism and the potential of mass media today.
Benjamin describes how art is valued differently because of mechanical reproduction. For instance, traditional art has a “cult value,” it is ritualistic and exclusionary. On the other hand, as films are not bound to a geographical location, they are accessible to a wider audience and they have “exhibition value.” Benjamin emphasizes that this shift itself in valuing art changes how art is made. While doing so, he stresses on the “reproducibility” or replication of art and the effect of films on traditional art forms. According to him, film, is a unique artform, a Gebilde or construct, which takes time and careful montage of images in a sequence. This reproducibility cannot be found in traditional art such as sculptures and paintings, giving films the highest ability for improvement.
While emphasizing the reproducibility of filmmaking, Benjamin highlights that the authenticity of the original art is lost, referring to a process where the art experiences “decay of aura”. It is a positive byproduct that in the context of film, emerges from the shift of “cult value” to the “exhibition value.” According to him, films inherently have the quality of reproducibility as they democratize art with decaying aura. If we consider watching films in theaters as an auratic experience to a certain extent, (as humans build connections with spaces and other audience members, Netflix is an evolution (decaying of theater aura) of accessibility and hence towards the “exhibition value” of art. Merely in this aspect, would Benjamin see Netflix in a positive light.
It seems, however, that Netflix does not entirely displace the “cult value” of film. Benjamin stresses how traditional art had led to a negative or exclusionary perception, where famous artworks (such as that of Michelangelo) were denoted authentic, pure artworks. Netflix displays ritualistic behavior, supporting Hollywood, and continues fetishizing film “stars” and individual producers. Netflix, thus, through its disruption in mass media, facilitates a partial reversal of the exhibition value in films to the cult value. Further, the increasing role of technology in Netflix, as opposed to human role, contributes to the cult value too, as its algorithms commodify not only actors and films, but also its viewers, personalizing their space.
Netflix’s data derived content hence can be categorized as automated rapid reproducibility. Netflix thus reveals that films today are appropriated by capitalism, where this rapid reproducibility and increasing user “engagement” or exponential consumption (health depreciating binge-watching) is a means of accumulating capital. Accordingly, as a platform then, Netflix can be categorized as a as a digital phantasmagoria, where the viewers escape digitally (as dream-scapes) to consume and shop, as a distraction. In the process of the bourgeoisie enjoying the “false consciousness” of films, they are alienated from the exploitation of labor occurring in the making of these films. The proletariat or laborers such as writers and assistant directors are not in the ownership of capital to produce films, preventing the ability of the proletariat to produce films. One recent example is the 2023 SAG-AFTRA protests that demanded change against the exploitation of film workers.
Emphasizing the role of communism, Benjamin puts forth the politicization of aesthetics; films can facilitate the emancipation, empowering their roles in the society, by revealing the injustices and truths to the masses, by the masses. According to him, authority can be undermined through mass reproduction, as it can be accessible to masses. Netflix, as a platform though, would disallow such social revolutions. For instance, first, films that reveal the truth can be incremental towards larger movements, but in today’s digital age, only transform into social media activism. Second, if the films are a threat to the platform’s capitalist functionality, the producers will lack the means to make the films accessible to masses, reducing its influence at all.
The SAG-AFTRA writers also wanted guardrails to the use of AI in screenwriting. Netflix’s increasing enablement of mechanical reproducibility can diminish the creativity in the art of making film as a whole. Hence, a critique of Benjamin, is that he does not discuss the role of ‘creativity’ in filmmaking. For instance, if the viewing of films and making of films both is commodified as a cultural output of capitalism, creativity and awakening will be essential qualities of filmmakers towards emancipation. Art and by extension film, has the potential to reveal the truth, as long as the creators attain the freedom to make films the way they want, and if they can exhibit films to larger audiences without mediation.
A radical way to reformulate the emancipatory role of media today would be to create crowd-funded platforms, where technology as well as the managers are primarily responsible to facilitate and not dictate its content. Socializing the costs as well as the profits then, may encourage the possibilities of social movements against elites, as it would provide creators with the capital and the (often diminished) creativity they require to make emancipatory films. While Spotify, a digital music application, pedestalizes famed artists, it can be an immediate solution. For instance, with limited mediation from Spotify, users can upload their songs on the platform too, making it accessible to global audiences.
In conclusion, Netflix reveals that films today lean more towards Benjamin's worries where film is appropriated by capitalism. Only in particular autocratic states would films lean towards fascism. As difficult as capitalism makes it, the emancipatory role of film-making might not be impossible to achieve, but would require an intentional communal shift of making and viewing films, away from its appropriation of capitalism as it remains today.
The following academic paper has been written for the class ‘Philosophy of Technology: From Marx and Heidegger to AI, Genome Editing, and Geoengineering’ taught by Prof. Mathias Risse at the Harvard Kennedy School.
References
“Netflix Invests More than Half a Million Dollars in Machine Learning Role amid SAG, WGA Strikes.” 2023. KRON4. July 26, 2023. https://www.kron4.com/news/netflix-invests-more-than-half-a-million-dollars-in-machine-learning-role-amid-sag-wga-strikes/.
Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media. Edited by Michael William Jennings, Brigid Doherty, and Thomas Y. Levin. Translated by E. F. N. Jephcott, Rodney Livingstone, and Howard Eiland. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008.
Birch, Jenna. 2019. “How Binge-Watching Is Hazardous to Your Health.” The Washington Post, June 3, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/how-binge-watching-is-hazardous-to-your-health/2019/05/31/03b0d70a-8220-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html.
Coyle, Jake. 2023. “In Hollywood Writers’ Battle against AI, Humans Win (for Now).” AP News. The Associated Press. September 27, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/hollywood-ai-strike-wga-artificial-intelligence-39ab72582c3a15f77510c9c30a45ffc8.
Sanchez, Chelsey. 2023. “It’s Official: Hollywood Actors Will Join Screenwriters in Striking against Studio Execs.” Harper’s BAZAAR. July 13, 2023. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a44506329/sag-aftra-actors-strike-hollywood-explained/.
Comentários