The Menu, Triangle of Sadness, Glass Onion and many other films that have been released in recent years promise to serve up a scathing criticism of the 1%. Collectively, they have become known as ‘Eat the Rich’ movies, promising to criticise capitalism and analyse the class divide in society. However, none of these films are actually able to achieve this, and instead end up playing into the very same system that they are trying to expose.
To be clear, I’m not making a comment on the quality of these films. This is not a review. I actually really enjoyed each movie and there are many different ways to interpret them. For example, The Menu struck me first and foremost as a tale about an exploited artist. Anticapitalism is simply one theme that a lot of recent films seem to be leaning into, and so it’s worth exploring whether any of them actually deliver a valid critique. Just look at the quotes that were used in the marketing of Triangle of Sadness. Did films like this really take-down the wealthy and the privileged? Or is this purely a honeypot to attract more viewers?
Of course, Anticapitalism is trending, which is causing studios to plough huge amounts of money into films that fit the zeitgeist. In doing so, these movies become profit-making endeavors first, and social critiques second, which waters down any real challenges to the status quo. Sure, we can have a debate on the merits of socialism over capitalism, but only if this is fun to watch, and can be used in the film’s marketing material.
So, we often end up with a cast of one-dimensional caricatures of rich people that are mostly played for laughs. Each one being defined by a different personal flaw such as ignorance (SweatShop joke), egotism (Miles Braun) and arrogance (Lillian Bloom).
As I mentioned in my previous video on the rise of super rich satire, the vilification of unsavory wealthy characters that are usually portrayed as deserving, is definitely refreshing. However, as one commenter pointed out, these are all very surface level critiques. It’s suggested that these characters don’t deserve their fortunes for the sole reason they are flawed, meaning that if they could somehow overcome their faults, then their immense wealth would be legitimised, and so would the system that produced it.
This ties in with Mark Fisher’s notion of capitalist realism, the idea that capitalism is seen as the only viable economic system, and that there is no alternative. This creates a pervasive atmosphere that penetrates culture, politics, and general thought to the extent that even anti-capitalist sentiment reinforces the status quo. This is seen most explicitly in modern media where anti-capitalist ideas are freely entertained, yet rarely present a coherent substitute. These recent films are a prime example of this effect.
Triangle of Sadness sets up a golden opportunity to build a better system in the wake of the yacht’s sinking, yet ends up with Abigail recreating the same capitalist power structures that she was previously subjected to. Similarly, The Menu takes on over-consumption and global inequality but fails to offer solutions to these issues outside of a personal vendetta. Finally, we see the disastrous effects of unethical profiteering in Glass Onion, but this is used merely as a narrative device to set up conflicts between characters and fuel the central mystery. Each film raises a valid anti-capitalist concern, only to walk away from any semblance of a solution.
But this doesn’t matter to most viewers. We leave the cinema feeling satisfied that the super rich got their comeuppance. As Fisher puts it:
…film performs our anti-capitalism for us, allowing us to continue to consume with impunity. The role of capitalist ideology is not to make an explicit case for something in the way that propaganda does, but to conceal the fact that the operations of capital do not depend on any subjectively assumed belief. It is impossible to conceive of fascism or Stalinism without propaganda – but capitalism can proceed perfectly well, in some ways better, without anyone making the case for it.
Fisher, Mark (2010). Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?. Winchester, UK: Zero Books.
This is the crux of why Hollywood won’t eat the rich. These films are products that are made possible by the same system that they supposedly criticise. Indeed, because capitalist realism is so entrenched in society, there is no harm in satirising it. To the contrary, treating viewers to an ‘anti-capitalist’ performance is, ironically, a saleable feature, levering each movie towards box office success.
This raises the question of whether a film could ever truly eat the rich. According to Fisher,
Capitalist realism can only be threatened if it is shown to be inconsistent or untenable; if, that is to say, capitalism’s ostensible ‘realism’ turns out to be nothing of the sort.
Fisher, Mark (2010). Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?. Winchester, UK: Zero Books.
A key example of this process in action is the discourse surrounding the climate crisis. The issue is becoming more and more prevalent in the media, exposing a central myth at the heart of capitalism, namely that resources are infinite and we can continue to consume without consequence. Therefore, films that tackle the effects of resource depletion and climate change may just begin to crack the surface of capitalist realism.
The question is, do we actually want to watch movies like this? Do we really want to go to the cinema to be confronted with hard truths that shatter a convenient world-view or would we rather watch the super rich sh*t themselves on a luxury yacht?
I’ll leave that question to you.
Leave a Reply