powdermaker movies

7/28/2019 Powdermaker Movies

1/9

American Academy of Political and Social Science

An Anthropologist Looks at the MoviesAuthor(s): Hortense PowdermakerReviewed work(s):Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 254, The MotionPicture Industry (Nov., 1947), pp. 80-87Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and SocialScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1026143 .Accessed: 03/06/2012 23:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTORto digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1026143?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1026143?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/9

An Anthropologist Looks at the Movies'By HORTENSE OWDERMAKER

WHAT does an anthropologist findwhen he turns his lens on themovies-a lens which is more accus-tomed to viewing the initiation rites ofthe Australia aborigines, the tradingexpeditions of the Melanesians in theSouthwest Pacific, the magic of theUganda in East Africa?

PREMISES

We can use the same general premisesand point of view in the study of motionpictures as an institution of contempo-rary society. We define an institutionas an organized system of human activi-ties which meet a basic human need.Our frame of reference s both functionaland historical. Any study of its func-tioning will reveal the complex mannerin which one institution is intertwined

with others, influencing and being in-fluenced by them. In other words, wearrive at an understanding of an insti-tution not by studying it as if it were aseparate phenomenon, but in terms ofits interrelationships with society as awhole.

For instance, the study of the kula, atrading expedition among the TrobriandIslanders,2 reveals not only its functionas an exchange of goods in the economicsphere but also its intimate and complexrelationship to the kinship system, sex,friendship, magic, ritual, chieftainship,symbols of power, and as an outlet forintense emotions. Through a study ofthe intricate interrelationships of the

kula with all other aspects of Trobriandlife, Malinowski was able to reveal thenature of a Melanesian society. Throughthe study of American movies we shouldlikewise contribute to the understandingof American society. A study of French,English, or Russian pictures should beas revealing of their society.

Every society, whether it is Melane-sian or American, s a network of closelyinterwoven institutions. Each institu-tion centers around human needs, andits function is to fulfill these needs.But there is no simple correlation of oneinstitution to one need. An institutionis synthetic in nature and represents anamalgamation of functions. We do not,therefore, expect that the function ofthe movies will fall under a simple rubricof entertainment.

An anthropologist s interested in boththe overt and the covert phases of cul-ture, behavior being in the former andideals and values in the latter.8 A sig-nificant question for the study of anyinstitution is the degree to which it re-flects the values of the society. Fromthe study of many cultures, we havelearned to expect a greater gap betweenbehavior and values in rapidly changingsocieties than in more stable ones. Weassume that movies will reflect valuesand goals, as folklore, the theater, andliterature (both "fine" and "popular")have always reflected them. In a periodof rapid change and conflict within thevalue system it will be of interest tonote which values are most stressed bythe movies.

As anthropologists, we know thatmores and folkways are instruments ofcontrol and regulate the manner in

1The author is engaged in a long-term re-search study of motion pictures as part ofUnited States culture, under the sponsorshipof the Viking Fund. This paper can onlybriefly indicate a few of the many problemsof the study.

2 Bronislaw Malinowski, Argonauts of theWestern Pacific, London: George Routledgeand Sons, 1932.

SRalph Linton, The Cultural Background ofPersonality (New York: D. Appleton-CenturyCo., 1945), pp. 38-42.

80


3/9

AN ANTHROPOLOGIST OOKS AT THE MOVIES 81

which an institution functions. Mostof our basic institutions, such as thefamily and the church, have their ori-

gins in the past, when, compared withthe present, there was much greater sta-bility in mores and customs. Thisoriginal stability gave a coherence tothe institution which persists to somedegree even after centuries of change.But the institution we have selected forstudy never had this stability. It wasborn and is still developing in a periodof change and conflict within our be-havior patterns and value systems. Wecan therefore expect more confusion inits functioning and greater obscurity andignorance concerning its structure andinterrelations in society than in an in-stitution whose mold was set in a morestable past.

Another and more recent conceptualtool of the anthropologist is the inter-action between culture and personality.Culture and institutions do not operatein an impersonal vacuum. A societyconsists of people as well as institutions.The problem is a double-edged one-that of the impact of the movies on thepeople who see them, and the impact ofpeople on the movies. Part of the prob-lem has been so oversimplified as to losevalidity. Would-be reformers, lookingfor easy solutions, regard the movies asa prime cause of delinquency, crime,and drunkenness. But these are symp-toms of social and individual pathology,with a complex history. As anthropolo-gists, we are more interested in the nor-mal than in the pathological. What isthe effect of the movies on the vast audi-ence who are not criminals, delinquents,or drunkards? How do movies influ-ence their concepts of human relations,their value systems, their notions ofreality?

The anthropologist thus looks at hismovies both functionally and histori-cally. He must analyze the moviesthemselves, study the audience, and

learn about the conditions under whichthe pictures are made.

RELATIONSHIP OF MOVIES TO OTHER

INSTITUTIONS

Movies have a number of functions.They are one of several forms of masscommunication, functioning primarilyon the emotional level through theirproduction of daydreams. They areentertainment, which of course, in anyform, is never "pure," but always hashidden or open psychological and edu-cational subfunctions. They are a formof art-that of telling a story. All theseoperate within the structure of big busi-ness, which in turn becomes anotherfunction of movies, with profits as agoal. The relationship to the theaterand the novel is easily seen, for they tooare concerned with the telling of stories,with tales of the conflicts between menand the resolution of the conflicts, withman's unfulfilled wishes and their fulfill-ment.

Although not made by the folk andquite different from folk art, the movieshave some resemblance to it in theirrepetitive use of well-known themes orformulas which is so characteristic ofprimitive folklore. At the same time,the movies strive for the new, and intheir efforts to be timely they resem-ble the newspapers. Many writers andproducers eagerly scan the papers for"inspiration" for stories, and theirs isthe newspaper attitude of the "scoop,"the first picture on the latest newspa-per interest. Many times the latest"scoop" is set within a well-known for-mula used in the past, and in this waythe seeming contradictions between theold and the new are harmonized.

But the movies are not just a com-bination of the novel, the play, the news-paper, and the radio. While they bor-row from all these, the special qualityof an almost limitless visual imagerymakes the movies a new medium with


4/9


5/9

AN ANTHROPOLOGIST LOOKS AT THE MOVIES 83

dium in our society, must make money.However, there have been some pictureswhich have allowed the audience to

function as intelligent human beingsworthy of respect, rather than as objectsfor emotional and financial exploitation,which have made money. But, mythor fact, it is the belief in the dichotomybetween business and art, even a popu-lar one, that influences and underliesone of the basic conflicts in the institu-tion of the movies. The fact that thegreater power is held by business is an

important aspect of the conflict.REFLECTION OF VALUES

We have already referred to our in-terest in the problem of how far an in-stitution, particularly one which can bethought of as a popular art as well asan industry, reflects the values of thesociety. In primitive societies, the val-ues can be found in folk tales; and sincethe rate of change for these societies isextremely slow, compared with ours,we find their tales realistically reflectinglife. For instance, as Boas says:

The principal theme of the Indians ofBritish Columbia (the Kwakiutl), whosethoughts are almost entirely taken up bythe wish to obtain rank and high positionin their community, s the tale of a poorman who attains high position, or that ofthe struggles between two chiefs who tryto outdo each other in feats that will in-crease their social standing. Among theBlackfoot he principal heme is the acqui-sition of ceremonies, possession and prac-tice of which is a most, mportant elementin their lives.4

The same author indicates that in aperiod of transition and rapid change,contradictions develop and the folk talesmay exist merely as survivals of thepast.5

In studying the value systems repre-sented in the movies, the anthropologistkeeps several premises in mind. In a

society such as ours, with its rapid rateof change, various sections of the popu-lation are in different stages of change.Second, in times of change, values usu-ally lag behind behavior. Third, thereis an inherent contradiction in our valuesystems stemming from diverse histori-cal traditions. The movies, as well asother institutions, choose certain valuesover others for emphasis.

For instance, love is a major themeand value stressed in the majority ofmovies. There is an almost obsessionalemphasis on "romantic love," love asthe end and be-all of existence. Makingmoney, work, friendships, one's place inthe world, are all secondary. In an in-creasing number of contemporary mov-ies, the setting of the story is marriedlife, with a beautiful, rich, neurotic hero-ine threatened by a loss of love object.Her response usually takes an extremeform, such as alcoholism or murder. Inthe picture "Smash-Up" we are pre-sented with a married couple supposedto be very much in love with each other.The husband is shown so insensitive asto be completely unaware of his wife'semotional need to be a part of his every-day life. Nor does he appear to haveany psychological need to bring her intohis life. His insensibility is carried tothe point of his being completely una-ware that his efficient secretary is verymuch in love with him and that his wifeis jealous. The wife's response to thesituation is to become an alcoholic.

In another recent picture, "Unfaith-ful," where an unusually sincere attemptis made to understand a woman's

beingunfaithful to her husband while he wasoverseas during the war, the heroinekills her former lover. Then, she seemsmore concerned with concealing her re-lationship with the dead man, so thather husband will not be "hurt," and to

Franz Boas and others, General Anthro-pology (New York: D. C. Heath and Co.,1938), p. 602.

5 Ibid., pp. 600-601.


6/9

84 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

keep his love, than with the fact thatshe has killed a man who was her loverover a period of time. Guilt feelings

are indicated only briefly in one se-quence immediately following the kill-ing. Nor does she seem concerned overwhether or not she will be punished bythe courts. But her obsessive anxietyis, will her husband find out that thedead man was her lover, and will hetherefore stop loving her? Both ofthese examples are characteristic of in-numerable other films, in which the

portrayal of love has very little psy-chological validity.

Disproportionate stress

Actually, it puts a heavy burden onlove to make it carry the entire weightof living. The excessive nature of theburden which loves carries in our societyis one of the major problems of humanrelationships. The movies exaggeratethis problem to the utmost. Love is animportant part of life, literature, andart. And it is one of the major waysfor an individual to relate himself tolife. But it is not the only one. Workis another." In the pictures just men-tioned, "Smash-Up" and "Unfaithful,"both women had had successful careersbefore marriage. Yet neither one turnedto work or any other interest when thehusband was, in one case, neglecting her,and, in the other, away. In our every-day life, almost everyone works, andwork is important not only as a meansof earning a living, but also as a way ofrelating to society. Yet the importanceof work or the satisfactions to be gainedfrom it are rarely shown in movies.The love object is all that matters, andif he is lost there is no further point tolife. Murder, alcoholism, insanity, aremovie solutions to this problem. In reallife, people do lose a love object, but

go on sanely living, sometimes to loveagain. We think that the majority ofour adult audience know this as well as

the anthropologist.There is much that could be writtenon the nature of love as shown in themovies, but in this brief discussion wepass on to another theme, or rather theabsence of one theme. Rarely do wefind the making of money glorified orregarded as an end in itself. We canremember no movie in which the herois interested just in profits. A man in-

terested only in profits is more likelyto be the villain. Looking at our mov-ies, one would gather that making aliving, or making a lot of money, issecondary to the one and only impor-tant thing in life-love. This emphasison love and lack of emphasis on makingmoney are also essentially true of othermass mediums of communication, suchas radio, and popular and pulp maga-zines; and the problem, therefore, goesfar beyond the movies.

It is strange to find this in a societywhere profits and making a living areamong the chief incentives and goals forthe majority of people. It is interestingto find this in the daydreams manufac-tured by men in an industry primarilyconcerned with profits. Obviously, ourmanufactured tales do not reflect ourlives in the manner in which the folktales of the Kwakiutl and Blackfoot In-dians reflect theirs.

Contradictory values

The anthropologist thinks there areseveral explanations. One may lie inthe contradiction of values within thevery core of our society. We have notbeen able to lose the early Christian be-liefs that making profits is antitheticalto salvation and that money-making byitself is not a legitimate goal of life.Somewhere in our superego lingers abelief in the sinfulness of money, whilein our behavior the accumulation of

6 For the development of this concept, seeErich Fromm, Escape from Freedom, NewYork: Farrar & Rinehart, 1941.


7/9


money is a main goal. This is an in-herent contradiction in society whichhas never been fully realized on a social

or individual level; and in Hollywood itis accentuated by the huge sums ofmoney made by the successful peoplein the movie industry. Rich individualsin our culture attempt to solve the con-flict through giving large sums to charityand by other "good works"; and societyhas attempted some regulation of profitsthrough taxation and other controls.But the conflict is still there. In gen-eral, our manufactured daydreams donot recognize the conflict, and choose toignore the motivation of much of con-temporary behavior and exaggerate theromantic theme.

There are many other themes whichwe might explore. The one of violenceand murder is very important. How-ever, this is part of the bigger study,and the whole problem of themes canonly be indicated here.

Besides themes, there are other datawhich detailed analysis of movies yieldsin terms of problems, culture patterns,hero types, and so forth. Whateverform the analysis takes, it is more sig-nificant if given historical depth througha sampling of films of the last few dec-ades to discover whether there is a re-lationship between the changes in moviesand those occurring in our social life.

THE AUDIENCE

The anthropologist who studies mov-ies as an institution must obviously ex-amine the audience as well as the mov-ies, and the former is more difficult thanthe latter. We know very little eitherabout the effect of movies on the audi-ence or about what the audience wants.Movies fill a real need, and people wantto see them. Because of the particularsystem of film distribution and exhibi-tion, and the stupendous advertisingcampaigns, the audience takes, for themost part, what the studios give it.

The Gallup polls of potential audi-ences (before they see a picture), thepost cards sent in by the audience at

"sneak" previews, the pressing of tinybuttons to indicate reactions from "like"to "dislike," do not give us much realinsight into the audience. The anthro-pologist uses his techniques of interview-ing to find out about the individual'sidentification with the various charactersin the film, his belief or nonbelief in therealities of movie behavior patterns, hisjudgment on their morality, and why he

likes or dislikes the picture. These datacan come from long interviews by skilledfield workers with individuals who haveseen the pictures selected for study.7

We also know something about theaudience through its organized group-ings. There are, for instance, the "fan"clubs and magazines. The fans, usuallya relatively young group, are obsessivelyand possessively interested in their par-ticular stars. The star system of thestudios, combined with the close-upshots on the screen, helps to satisfy andfurther exploit this interest. The close-up of the star reveals intimately everyeyelash, the detail of the hairline, thecurve of the lips, and every shade ofexpression. This view of the star, plusthe details given by columnists of whatthe star eats for breakfast and whetheror not he sleeps in pajamas, gives notonly the fan but the regular movie-goerand reader of newspaper movie columnsa feeling of great personal knowledgeabout his favorite actor.

This need, which has been so wellexploited by the studios, we relate to.one of the significant changes in oursociety, namely, the increasing loneli-ness of man. This is in part due to thedevelopment of urbanism as a way ofliving, with a resultant increase in thenumber of face-to-face contacts, which,

7 The author has directed a limited amountof this type of audience research, and plansto do more before conclusions are drawn.


8/9

86 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

however, become more and more imper-sonal. We sit next to people in the busor subway, we jostle against them on

the street and in shops, and we do notknow any of them. They are all stran-gers. In big cities, we rarely know ournextdoor neighbor. Modern man islonely, desperately in need of personalrelationships.8 He goes to the movies,and for two hours he has the illusion ofclose, intimate, personal contact withexciting and beautiful people. His lone-liness is briefly assuaged. There are

obviously other reasons for the successof the star system, which in this briefarticle cannot be discussed.

Serious and otherwise

We can learn something about ouraudiences from the demands which aremade on the movies by various organi-zations. For instance, parents' organiza-tions want pictures so innocuous thatthey, the parents, can be relieved of theresponsibility of guidance in the selec-tion of pictures. The church wantspictures in which the eternal veritiesare forever exemplified-where black isblack, white is white, where sin is alwayspunished and virtue is always rewarded.The Woman's Christian TemperanceUnion wants pictures in which the drink-ing of alcohol will not be shown. TheState Department wants pictures whichwill not offend the feelings of any for-eign countries and, recently, which willalso serve to "sell the American way oflife." Professional groups want theirmembers shown only in a favorable ight,never as the "heavy." Various reformorganizations, which see movies as thebasic cause of crime and delinquency,want all violence and crime removedfrom pictures. No one can say thatmany of our citizens do not take theirmovies seriously, even if the seriousnessis rather naive and unsociological.

But not all people take their moviesquite so seriously. There are those whowant merely to escape from a humdrum

world into a glamorous one, or one ofexcitement. Others want to be movedemotionally as they are through goodtheater or literature, and gain a deep-ened understanding of themselves andof the world about them. For some, themovies are a way of "killing time," or aplace to drop in when tired, or part ofa courtship pattern. These motivationsare not so separate as the sentenceswhich describe them. They are fre-quently blended within the individual,and one movie may satisfy a number ofthem. Or different motivations takeprecedence at different times for thesame individual. But they representsome of the diversity which we find inthe attitudes of the movie audience.

STUDY OF HOLLYWOOD

Although the effect of- the audienceon the movies appears relatively insig-nificant, we think an important problemfor study is the personalities of thepeople who make the movies, particu-larly of those who are in positions ofpower and have the responsibility ofmaking decisions. Here lies a fascinat-ing problem of the impact of personali-ties on an institution which in its turnis continuously and cumulatively affect-ing millions of people.

The study of the personalities of thosewho make the movies is part of the studyof Hollywood. In this field study, theanthropologist limits his problems tothose conditions which are directly re-lated to the final product-the movies.The key relationships n the actual mak-ing of the movies are, as we see them,those of the producer-writer and thedirector-actor, although there are, ofcourse, other important ones. We areinterested in the social organization orstructure of Hollywood, the way it func-tions normally, and, just as important,

8 Erich Fromm expands this theme in Escapefrom Freedom, op. cit.


9/9


the way the structure is occasionallybent by exceptionally gifted and strongpeople. We examine the struggle forpower and control in an industry whichis essentially collaborative. We see someHollywood patterns as stemming fromthe past, some as contemporary, andsome as portents for the future. Thereis almost no important American patternthat is not reflected in Hollywood. Fre-quently it is exaggerated, sometimes tothe point of caricature.

CONCLUSION

It is obvious by now that the anthro-pologist's view of the movies is not asimple one, and that the movies them-selves are not a simple phenomenon.The anthropologist s not afraid of com-plexity-he has found it in the simplestof societies, such as in the kinship sys-tem of the Australian aborigines. If heis a good scientist, he accepts the com-plexity as one of the characteristics ofthe phenomenon he studies; and while

he tries to understand it, he does notattempt to reduce it to a simple formula.He attempts to see his problem in his-torical perspective. The movies are notyet fifty years old, and the most impor-tant technological change, "the talkies,"happened twenty years ago. He remem-bers that it took several centuries beforesome of the potentialities of the printingpress were used.

The anthropologist uses a conceptualframe of reference from his own andrelated sciences. He uses techniquesadapted to getting data from complexhuman beings, who are not too differentwhether they live in the South Seas orin southern California. He attempts toremain detached from the values of thecommunity, whether they are those ofthe head-hunters or those usually asso-ciated with the owners of swimmingpools. His aim is neither to praise norblame, but to understand movies as aninstitution and as a product of the so-ciety which produces them, and so togain further insight into that society.

Hortense Powdermaker, Ph.D., New York City, is engaged in a study of motion pic-tures as part of the culture of the United States, under the auspices of the Viking Fund.During the past year she has been on leave of absence from Queens College, making a fieldstudy of Hollywood and lecturing in anthropology at the University of California at LosAngeles. She is author of Life in Lesu: The Study of a Melanesian Society in NewIreland (1933); After Freedom: A Cultural Study in the Deep South (1939); ProbingOur Prejudices (1944); and a number of scientific papers.

powdermaker movies

Documents