Gosford Park: ideological framework and hegemony

Gosford Park: Robert Altman 2001

Interesting discourses on social relations and how they were shifting in the period between the 2 world wars.

Ruling class are dependent on working class for every aspect of their day-to-day life, even opening a flask (contrast with commodity fetishism and mystification of celebrity). Servants are reduced to slave-like identities: not allowed to use their given names and are given status according to who they are employed by. The ruling class are occupied by dinners, dressing up, shooting, social gossip. They believe their status is constant (though there is evidence of hegemony: new money vs old money: marrying wealth, inheriting status). The servants also seem to be acceptant (many have generations of history of being in service). Interestingly it's the Americans who raise this as an issue, in the nature of "research" for a film. The characters who do not belong to either class are the ones who straddle the 2 distinct groups and are not at home in either: the Americans: a jewish gay film-maker and his flirtatious actor-valet.

The shift in dominant ideology is poigniantly represented by Ivor Novello's after dinner songs: this unifies the stratified servants as they down tools to dance secretly and catch glimpses and listen to the popular music, the music of the masses, that echoes through the corridors of society. There is a feeling of the impeding pervasiveness of popular culture: a force that, within mass media, will level the playing field and present the masses with new representations, idenfication, even solidarity. The songs are about their virtues, their concerns: love, romance. Things that are "beneath" or avoided by the upper classes.

We are able to frame and judge the relations in the film by our own contemporary ideological discourses: we judge this critique of the class system by the inevitable values of fairness, equality, honesty, sincerity. The exploiters on the whole are seen as the monsters, and the oppressed as vulnerable and the ones who suffer.

It is not useful to reflect on this film's contents against one particular set of values: ultimately the director wants to make a film that sells, so he wants the film to be commercially viable: the famous cast, and well crafted dialogue and screenplay are key in this. This is a period piece but it describes the values of breaking free of bondage (ie slavery), of power becoming more democratised, of a world being modernised, of bad guys getting their comeuppance. We are scornful of corruption, expoitation of women, inequality in the work place. We believe in the power of the collective human spirit, unity through adversity, the fall of the dictators and feudal system. I have read some reviews about how these values are prevalent in the post 9-11 world: an optimism and view that the world needs to be different.

We can of course enter into a marxist discourse on class system and how the unification and humanisation of the massed workers can bring about change. We can also embark on a feminist discourse on how women are still being oppressed and abused by men in positions of power, and have to carry their secrets for fear of reprisal. In fact the servant who unwisely speaks up in defence of the patriarcial ogre hosting the weekend is dismissed without debate, when in fact she is the victim. This kind of situation still exists. This film could be read on how the balance of power may have changed, but the role of women still needs much re-evaluation.

All in all, you could say this film illustrates how a dominant ideology changes, ie hegemony. You could also say that as a film its main themes and ideas are informed by broad social values current in today's Western world.