In an essay on Michael Glawogger's trilogy, of which WORKINGMAN'S DEATH is the middle part, the author makes the following claim: "Omnipresent but never mentioned, globalization is the ghost that hovers over Glawogger’s entire trilogy, the elephant in the room that will not fit within his camera’s frame" (http://www.cine-fils.com/essays/michael-glawogger.html).
Perhaps this claim might give you some ideas about how to discuss the film in the context of "globalization & its discontents."
As the quote Marco references mentions, it is impossible to look at this film without mentioning globalization. The scenes take place in a myriad of locations across the globe and the similarities we see between the different locations and diverse characters require the viewer to suture them together into one interconnecting whole. In every case, we look at the "workingman" and his routine in a capitalistic system. The film is also just as much about the environment they work in as about themselves. In every case, the work is hazardous, strenuous, tedious, and virtually never ending. Although, it seems that most of the worker’s they interview tend to be in good spirits. The Ukrainian man and his wife speak about life being full of happiness. One of the Indonesian workers talks about Bon Jovi music. The Nigerian blesses God for the talents that allow him to do his job well. Even though they reference that they preform this labor to simply “survive,” it seems they are content with their form of survival. Because of their similarities in their everyday life, the film makes the viewer see the globe, and humanity, as cohesive and homogeneous.
The film begins with a montage of enthusiastic workers from the beginning of the 20th century, at the height of European and American modernization. This seems to signify an image of the Workingman that Glawogger wishes the audience to see as the standard to which the other characters are compared to. The Workingman is strong, enthusiastic, untiring and supported by his fellow workers to continue being a great, determined, loyal worker. He takes all of his pride and glory from the labor he endures. This forces the viewer to juxtapose that with the contemporary characters, who merely do the labor because it is their only means to get by, and I started to question whether the Workingman from the beginning ever really existed. I assume the footage was from the Soviet Union, and I get the vibe that it is all just propaganda, just as one of the Ukrainians miner’s does. So, maybe the “Workingman’s death,” is referencing the idea of the Workingman, as being a false illusion. There is no pleasure in the real working man’s labor, no satisfaction. They do it because it is their only choice. Even though the work is disdained, dangerous, rigorous, it is human nature to find forms of contentment in nearly any situation.
The quote that was shown at the beginning of this film about how you cannot eat, drink, make love etc. for 8 hours a day, you can only work for 8 hours a day really sums up the whole thing. People, no matter what class they are, must do some type of work to survive. Some people get to choose what they want to do; others are forced to do a particular job in order to survive. This documentary could have looked at office workers, or any jobs that people do around the world that perhaps are considered “higher class” than the people that we observed in the film. What I enjoyed the most about this film was seeing what all these working class people across the globe had in common. They were all from different backgrounds all doing different jobs, but they had a lot in common. They all stuck together with their coworkers, the people they risked their lives every day with. In Pakistan, one ship worker comments that they do not fight because they do not have the energy so they all get along because that is the easiest way. It might not be because they liked each other but they did it because they needed to in order to survive.
From the article Professor Abel linked to, this quote really stood out to me. “In taking us to twelve countries across four continents, Glawogger does not provide us with off-screen commentary or statistical data; his trilogy’s unifying theme, globalization, is explored largely through its absence.” I think that globalization is in fact the elephant in the room in this film. He really doesn’t try to explain anything for you, he lets the images and people speak for themselves, which I think is so powerful. I really enjoyed the way this film was shot. It didn’t read like a typical documentary to me. I think that the places that they went to film this were magnificent in themselves, like the volcanoes and the shipyards. My favorite thing about this film was how they had those still shots of the workers just standing there and then they compared the workers to the statues that were in the same areas. The comparison was so powerful to me because a statue is of something that people respected and wanted to remember and then these workers are the ones that are making things happen and keeping everything running and I just thought that was so amazing.
I really enjoyed the quote at the beginning. It summed up what these jobs mean to the people in the film. Their jobs are never ending. Just like Elsa and Kyle said, their jobs are dangerous but necessary for survival. Survival is the very essence of humanity, which is needed for globalization to occur. The notion of survival and the workers having no choice to be working in these kinds of conditions is common all over the world as we saw when Glawogger took us through Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa. I noticed that capitalism does not benefit everyone. Although technology is advancing, there are still people on the bottom end of the stick because of it. I noticed resentment from one of the Ukrainian workers and from a Chinese worker towards their government. This reminded me of Dirty Pretty Things when Okwe talks about the government failing them as well. This animosity towards a greater power is synonymous around the world, as we have seen over time during rebellions and wars.
The essay that Dr. Abel posted made a great point about globalization being an elephant in the room. Glawogger did an impeccable job depicting globalization without ever referring to the word. In fact there was no narration at all. While the narration may have “spoon feed” the viewer like in Dirty Pretty Things, it was not necessary. He allowed his camera work do all the talking for him. This reminds me of La Promesse because the viewer is never told what is going on. We had to puzzle things together through the characters’ actions. I totally agree with the author about how Glawogger’s use of extreme close up shots and others convey the realism of these people’s lives. The viewer was able to get down and dirty with the coal miners and see the last breaths taken by the cows being slaughtered. The establishing shots gave the viewer a sense of space and the same time the relation of space to the workers. The shots of the workers just standing still seemed like a photo shoot to me. As a photo speaks a thousand words, we get several thousand through these shots. The diegetic sounds from their conversations put the viewer right in the action. The camera following the workers through the rough sulfuric terrain and the panning shots gave the viewer different angles and more opportunity to learn what they are doing.
The opening sequence was great. I totally agree with Kyle about there being an illusion of the workingman. The extra diegetic sound raised the enthusiasm of what the “workingman” should have. One of the Ukrainian men saw it as a way to entice all coal miners. Another one was skeptical and saw it more like propaganda like I did as well.
The quote that Professor Abel mentioned stumped me for a moment. While originally I felt like the answer was simple, I couldn’t help but dive deeper for a more fleshed out reasoning behind such a claim. But, I slowly came around to my answer, one that many of my peers have already mentioned. I came to the conclusion, like many others, that while not specifically mentioned in an outright way globalization is the driving force behind the film. It is seemingly the cause of the situations these workingmen are posed with rather than the result. This of course doesn’t mean it is a direct cause; in fact, globalization seems to be more of an indirect force. Globalization is acting on these subject in an indirect way, perhaps taking a number of steps before reaching these works on which the film focuses.
Spurred on by other’s posts on this film, I dove into the internet in an attempt to find a source that would once again comment on this film. In this search I found a short article by Clay Steinman. While most of the article remains on point on which my fellow posters have already noted, I believe the closing statement of this article is equally as important to note “By having the people in his film speak casually, without polemic, Glawogger puts forward the ordinariness of suffering in so much of this world's work. By shooting the workers with an artfulness denied them in their own labor, Glowagger and Thaler offer a glimpse of a present of possibilities denied.” (http://0-www.tandfonline.com.library.unl.edu/doi/full/10.1080/10584600701641979). While on the surface this statement might seem rather simplistic, I feel like there is more to this than meets the eye. Bluntly stated, I feel like this film is portraying a fact that we haven’t touched on as of yet. Do these people truly have no other choice? And interestingly enough, I find myself saying yes. These people, as they state in the film, have nowhere else to turn for a large number of reasons, whether it be social class or simply being in the wrong place in the world. All of this is indirectly caused by globalization.
It was then after I found these answers that I tried to apply and tie this film in with the previous two which we have seen and thus came to an interesting comparison. While obviously not a 100% perfect copy, I do find that the idea of the “worker” is a prevalent theme within all the films we’ve so far watched. More importantly, these films are definitely focusing upon the lower classes. In both La Promesse and Dirty Pretty Things, the characters in which we relate are of the lower classes, more or less the same classes upon who we view in this documentary. In addition, in relation to the quote above, many of the subjects within the first two films from which we have watched truly have had many possibilities denied to them. They are unable to do certain things because of their status and have no escape in terms of gaining new possibilities, resulting in extreme results and actions. But in Workingman’s Death, I believe it portrays a much more realistic result in the people simply continuing on and “surviving.”
At first these comparisons might seem rather obvious, I feel like when we dive deeper that we are further able to examine what exactly these directors are particularly trying to say. Personally, I feel like these directors are point out the major subjects upon which globalization might be acting upon. Although, speaking singularly for Workingman’s Death, the director is showing a much wider angle instead of focusing on just one or two characters. This can also be tied in with the quote Professor Abel mentioned as well. The camera isn’t able to encompass everything; instead it is the larger force behind these conditions. To this point, I feel like this film is more successful in terms of portraying these effects rather than simply telling a story of such.
I remember once someone telling me that an eight hour shift is literally hell. After working many eight hour shifts myself I would agree to a point. However I believe that idea should be reserved for who we saw in the film. The quote in the beginning of the film pertaining to the eight hours that your life is devoted to work I see as crucial to understanding what the documentary is actually saying. For most of us we have the option for breaks and time to ourselves, no matter how long the day. The documentary was showing us people who do not have this luxury, people that capitalist progress forgot or hide from our view.
I especially appreciated the contrast of the Soviet era film of the happy workers singing and the workers who are in the old mines illegally. As time moved forward and the focus for states moved towards the market the mines became abandoned and in a sense so did the workers.
In regards to the quote from Marco, I feel the documentary's lack of narration did well to pay homage to the issue instead weighing the film down with analysis. There is no way a documentary or movie could ever pack all of globalization into its run time, but Workingman's Death did well to approach the subject with striking visuals. Yet there was narration that unwound with the actions of the films subjects. The subjects being the workers we followed hauling the sulfur, killing the goats, and mining the remaining coal out of a mine. In a way the elephant in the room is what is moving the documentary along. Workingman's Death is not the work but the movement of the world. Slowly these people are struggling more and more and soon their places of work could become a leisure park where teenagers go to make out.
Globalization is ever present throughout this entire documentary. Rough times with finding ways to just merely survive are seen all over the world and no country is exempt from this pain. This documentary points this out by grouping together all of the hard workers who are working to just barely get by, to survive. I agree with Monica’s point on when she points out the universal tactic of surviving and working hard to survive. This was the easiest film to determine globalization aspects in it in comparison to the two previous films that we watched. The separate locations were stated clearly and no guessing was put into where each scene took place, unlike La Promesse and Dirty Pretty Things.
The words that Glawogger posts in between each country all were different. In case you forgot the words they were Heroes, Ghosts, Lions, Brothers, Future, and Epilogue. I feel that all of these words are used to describe these hard working people who work themselves every day, for months and even years at a time. They are considered to be heroes by their families who depend on them for their own survival. They are ghosts to the others who do not have to work as hard to survive. For example in the scene in Indonesia, the men who were struggling down the mountain tops with their full and heavy baskets on their backs were looked right through by the tourists and children in the scene. The tourists were in their path and didn’t even bother to move out of their way. They are considered to be lions by the animals in the areas, being “king of the jungle” because they slaughtered the other animals. They are considered brothers by those who are working next to them, just like what Elsa points out in her blog. They watch each others’ backs because they don’t have the time or energy to fight with each other. They are the future because their children will be doing the same, working hard to survive life.
An interesting aspect of this documentary is the camera shots. When the workers were moving from place to place while they were working, the camera shot was always following behind them as if Glagwogger was putting the viewer in the same shoes as the worker. While I was watching the film, I felt as if I myself was carrying a heavy basket down the mountain, as if I was dragging the cow’s skin in Nigeria through the muddy grounds. This point of view included me as a part of the working groups and made it easy to identify with these workers.
I agree that Workingman’s Death enters the conversation of globalization, but it does so by depicting the opposite of what globalization really does. I would argue that Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s understanding of the hegemonic position that their “immaterial labor” plays in the growing global sphere is a notion that is fundamentally sound. While Marx saw the manual labor of the 19th century as the dominant form of labor under capitalism, that position has now shifted to labor that is focused more on affect and communication. If Glawogger wanted to show globalization, it would be the workers who occupy the space of the hegemonic immaterial labor: maybe outsourced call centers or flight attendants. Thus, globalization has perhaps caused the situation of the workers in the film, but only because they are no longer in the dominant sector of labor. What is striking about Workingman’s Death is the intense focus that is placed on the actual physical labor being performed because not only does the process become as important as the performer, but it depicts the physical nature of labor that has become less frequent in the dominant regions of the globe while remaining quantitatively significant in other regions. Glawogger makes it clear that, in addition to the attention paid solely to the workers and their stories, the process of their labor is equally as important. Throughout the film, extended shots are centered only on the material that is being harvested. Though the camera pays attention to the laborers, it is difficult to dismiss shots that take lumps of coal as the center of focus, or shots that follow severed cows heads being dragged through the dirt. We see the materials being moved through the streets or up the mountain, while we only see the back of the laborer. In this way, Glawogger consistently and painstakingly depicts the actual process of harvesting these tangible materials. He mentions in a short interview that he has “always been interested in making physical labour itself the subject of a film, and by means of this sensual experience determine its social and political position” (1). Indeed, the sensuous nature of the depicted labor stands out: the miniscule lighting in the cave; the blood and shrieking animals dying in the slaughterhouse; the yellow sulfurous gas hissing from the earth. While the result of this visceral tendency is that Glawogger allows viewers to experience and actually see the labor, his other remarks complicate what the film is attempting to say. In the same interview, Glawogger suggests “Physical labour can be made visible. You can show someone carrying something, using a shovel, mining coal, but it’s hard to make someone sitting in an office thinking obvious as work. Compared to hard physical labour, filmmaking isn’t really work, and it can’t really be made visible in a meaningful way” (1). While he has certainly made physical labor visible throughout the film, the rest of his comments seem to be in contention with the notion of immaterial labor in the sense that physical labor is granted more esteem or value by Glawogger. So on one hand, more value is placed on the physicality of labor, while he foreshadows the demise (or “death”) of those very labor practices on the other. So while globalization certainly plays a role in what Glawogger is saying with the film, I would argue the primary discussion is instead that of labor and the value attributed to it.
Schiefer, Karin. “Michael Glawogger about WORKINGMAN’S DEATH.” Austrian Film Commission. http://www.glawogger.com/images/dokus/E_interv_WMD.pdf
What struck me the most about this documentary was the fact that the camera men took shots that placed them right in the middle of these dangerous and definitely not glamorous working conditions. In the mines, the camera is situated inside small spaces and crevices, viewing the workers through a thin and closed viewpoint. Positioning the camera in this way portrays the claustrophobic smallness of the mines and helps to further illustrate that these workers are "trapped" in this work because they must survive. The camera men are up-close and personal throughout all the working conditions. They must have had to wade through the pools of blood from the slaughter scenes. This was filmed in such a way that the audience is forced to be right in the middle of the nitty-gritty working conditions; there is no chance for detachment. And, always, no matter what part of the world the film was focusing upon, was the constant line of doing these jobs only for the purpose of survival.
Because the viewers are forced into the middle of these scenes, it makes a very unique point to Western viewers. While it has themes of globalization in that all the workers seemed to be using the same script of survival no matter where they were positioned in the globe, it portrays globalization only in the Third World. It would be interesting if the filmmakers had included a First World job that is also dangerous and not so glamorous and that the workers felt they did not choose but were forced into. But, then again, maybe that was the point, to show First World viewers the differences in choice in the Third World; the more primal aspects of survival in these countries. In the first world, while there is still a working class and there are still those who must perform dangerous jobs for survival, there is certainly a higher chance of the workers being able to break free from that situation, whereas the Third World choices are much more limited. While the film shows an aspect of globalization in the Third World, it seems to isolate the Third World from the First World and create a gap between the two worlds.
However, another viewpoint could be that the film actually makes First World viewers identify with the Third World workers by making them think of their own drab 9-to-5 jobs.
One aspect of the film one might point to in response to your comments is the film's epilogue, which takes place in one of the world's riches countries: Germany. What's the point of the epilogue? Of showing the massive industrial park (formerly a ginormous coal mine) now being a leisure park and site for art installations? What's the relationship between these images--defined, I think, by the ABSENCE of (hard) labor--and the rest? And what about the fact that it comes after the talk about the "future" in the brief chapter set in China?
Prior to viewing Workingman’s Death I was anticipating an “orthodox” documentary but was surprised to see the film instead “seamlessly interweave genuine documentary footage with scripted scenes and situations” per Giovanni Marchini Camia in his essay provided by Dr. Abel. Seemingly voyeuristic, yet meticulously placed, shots are juxtaposed with those that were clearly blocked out (fellow classmates please correct me if I’m failing to apply terminology appropriately) in pre-production. This is something director Michael Glawogger defends, “images I would merely term precise are always called aesthetic...you could say that just because I’m not sloppy when filming doesn't mean that I ‘aestheticize’ something” (link to interview - http://www.glawogger.com/images/dokus/E_interv_WMD.pdf).
Camia’s essay identifies two globalization concepts within Workingmans’ Death that we had previously discussed with Le Promesse and Dirty Pretty Things: nondescript locations and the creation of “absent” people. Much like those characters displaced by globalization (regardless of motivation) work “can become invisible though it’s still there” but “hard manual labor is visible, explainable, portrayable” said Glawogger. (link to website - http://www.workingmansdeath.at/about_en.html). In addition Workingman’s Death aligns with our textbook and explores what author Manfred Steger calls “humane forms of globalization.” More specifically this includes “the reduction of global disparities in wealth, wellbeing and the preservation of our wondrous planet.”
Arguably Glawogger does not offer a stance on globalization or attempt to sway viewers by the films end. However the ever shrinking world as a result of globalization is no more evident than in the scene when two sulfur workers happily discuss American musicians, Bon Jovi. Although not outright propaganda, themes do recur throughout the film and even beg the question, does globalization result in the degradation (tourist snapshots), deskilling (extinction of Stachanov era craftsmanship) or/and reduction (miners formerly holding legal employment and a German steel factory now a stomping ground for unruly teens) of manual labor? The idea of work as life’s purpose also remains constant in the film along with future sustainability of manual labor and the generation that awaits us. I particularly like Daniel S’s phrasing, “Workingman's Death is not the work but the movement of the world,” as the characters are engaged what once was celebrated work, but now is painstaking labor as a result of world progression.
For me, the claim Dr. Abel posted, recalls the theme of invisibility we saw in both La Promesse and Dirty Pretty Things. Just as globalization is the "ghost-like" process we rarely see, the subjects of all the films we've watched so far are all "absent" people as Sarah points out via Giovanni Marchini Camia's essay. All these projects, but specifically, Workingmans' Death seem primarily interested in rendering visible the people we never see.
The moral and political thrust of the film is ambiguous; absent too is the voice or image of the director, which gives the illusion of absolute voyeurism. Of course, this is not true. Every image, scene, Q&A section (although, we never hear or see what questions the people are answering, though we might infer on some level) was chosen by someone, ostensibly the director. The locations, too, were chosen, probably for a specific reason. However, no reason is given, for any decision in the film. The apolitical, moral relativistic structure of the film makes it difficult to identify what the film wants you take away.
Let me circle back to my first point about rendering visible the invisible. Over and over, in each locale, someone says something to the effect of: "That is how it is", accompanied by a shoulder shrug or a half smile. I think it's important that the actual act of working is foregrounded in this film--most of what we see are people working. This is how people survive; these are people whose labor we benefit from indirectly, but the actual labor itself we never see.
I remember feeling uncomfortable, watching these people work; I kept thinking "Wow, I don't think I could do that. I'm glad I don't have to do that." But I think what this film really accomplishes--it gets one to consider ones position in relation to someone whose live seems fundamentally different then their own. I think this project is engaged in humanizing the "other", who is often exploited by the process of globalization.
Final thought: This film, more so then the past two, sketches out a structural problem; or in this case, phenomenon may be more apt. As such, I couldn't really identify any real solution offered. Several people in the film mention the government. But they never really offer solutions to their situations, or explicitly identify a structural problem. It would seem then, that awareness is the main goal of this project, which, I think is ultimately achieved.
I also thought the beginning quote by William Faulkner, “It's a shame that the only thing a man can do for eight hours a day is work. He can't eat for eight hours; he can't drink for eight hours; he can't make love for eight hours. The only thing a man can do for eight hours is work” was very powerful and sets the stage for the film. Workers, all over the world, suffer on a daily basis, just to survive.
In a New York Times article )by Stephen Holden, titled "Workers of the World, United by Sweat, Strain and Few Words," Holden presents a very strong opinion on how he believes the film attempts to dispute this quote it starts off with. The article says, "As it observes laborers from around the world going to hell and back, day after day, year after year, to eke out subsistence livings, you are struck by their exuberance, vitality, teamwork and satisfaction in discharging backbreaking duties with a minimum of complaint." Although I agree with what Holden is saying here and was also somewhat shocked with how optimistic and grateful these workers were despite their circumstances, I don't entirely agree that the film tries to dispute the opening quote.
These workers are clearly dealing with what Faulker discusses in the opening quote on a daily basis. Unfortunately these people never had a shot at the “American dream” or doing something they actually enjoy that makes them feel fulfilled and as if they’re serving their purpose in the world. And I’m sure, deep down inside there is unhappiness and sadness somewhere – but of course they try to look on the bright side because what other choice do they have? They know this is their reality and there isn't any other options for them. This is it! If they dwell on what can't be changed then what would be their purpose of living? They would probably commit suicide, and like Kyle said it is human nature to try to find contentment in any situation.
I think the more blatant definition of globalization is presented in this film – that is the exchange of goods and services around the world. Each of these workers acquire some type of material and are somehow part of the process it goes through before it’s traded/sold. Although I don’t recall the film ever really directly addressing how their particular ‘material’ is transported around the world, one Nigerian worker did mention how he was thankful for the ports so the meat could be transported, or something along those lines. All of these workers are just a small part of a much larger system.
In an essay on Michael Glawogger's trilogy, of which WORKINGMAN'S DEATH is the middle part, the author makes the following claim: "Omnipresent but never mentioned, globalization is the ghost that hovers over Glawogger’s entire trilogy, the elephant in the room that will not fit within his camera’s frame" (http://www.cine-fils.com/essays/michael-glawogger.html).
ReplyDeletePerhaps this claim might give you some ideas about how to discuss the film in the context of "globalization & its discontents."
As the quote Marco references mentions, it is impossible to look at this film without mentioning globalization. The scenes take place in a myriad of locations across the globe and the similarities we see between the different locations and diverse characters require the viewer to suture them together into one interconnecting whole. In every case, we look at the "workingman" and his routine in a capitalistic system. The film is also just as much about the environment they work in as about themselves. In every case, the work is hazardous, strenuous, tedious, and virtually never ending. Although, it seems that most of the worker’s they interview tend to be in good spirits. The Ukrainian man and his wife speak about life being full of happiness. One of the Indonesian workers talks about Bon Jovi music. The Nigerian blesses God for the talents that allow him to do his job well. Even though they reference that they preform this labor to simply “survive,” it seems they are content with their form of survival. Because of their similarities in their everyday life, the film makes the viewer see the globe, and humanity, as cohesive and homogeneous.
ReplyDeleteThe film begins with a montage of enthusiastic workers from the beginning of the 20th century, at the height of European and American modernization. This seems to signify an image of the Workingman that Glawogger wishes the audience to see as the standard to which the other characters are compared to. The Workingman is strong, enthusiastic, untiring and supported by his fellow workers to continue being a great, determined, loyal worker. He takes all of his pride and glory from the labor he endures. This forces the viewer to juxtapose that with the contemporary characters, who merely do the labor because it is their only means to get by, and I started to question whether the Workingman from the beginning ever really existed. I assume the footage was from the Soviet Union, and I get the vibe that it is all just propaganda, just as one of the Ukrainians miner’s does. So, maybe the “Workingman’s death,” is referencing the idea of the Workingman, as being a false illusion. There is no pleasure in the real working man’s labor, no satisfaction. They do it because it is their only choice. Even though the work is disdained, dangerous, rigorous, it is human nature to find forms of contentment in nearly any situation.
The quote that was shown at the beginning of this film about how you cannot eat, drink, make love etc. for 8 hours a day, you can only work for 8 hours a day really sums up the whole thing. People, no matter what class they are, must do some type of work to survive. Some people get to choose what they want to do; others are forced to do a particular job in order to survive. This documentary could have looked at office workers, or any jobs that people do around the world that perhaps are considered “higher class” than the people that we observed in the film. What I enjoyed the most about this film was seeing what all these working class people across the globe had in common. They were all from different backgrounds all doing different jobs, but they had a lot in common. They all stuck together with their coworkers, the people they risked their lives every day with. In Pakistan, one ship worker comments that they do not fight because they do not have the energy so they all get along because that is the easiest way. It might not be because they liked each other but they did it because they needed to in order to survive.
ReplyDeleteFrom the article Professor Abel linked to, this quote really stood out to me. “In taking us to twelve countries across four continents, Glawogger does not provide us with off-screen commentary or statistical data; his trilogy’s unifying theme, globalization, is explored largely through its absence.” I think that globalization is in fact the elephant in the room in this film. He really doesn’t try to explain anything for you, he lets the images and people speak for themselves, which I think is so powerful. I really enjoyed the way this film was shot. It didn’t read like a typical documentary to me. I think that the places that they went to film this were magnificent in themselves, like the volcanoes and the shipyards. My favorite thing about this film was how they had those still shots of the workers just standing there and then they compared the workers to the statues that were in the same areas. The comparison was so powerful to me because a statue is of something that people respected and wanted to remember and then these workers are the ones that are making things happen and keeping everything running and I just thought that was so amazing.
I really enjoyed the quote at the beginning. It summed up what these jobs mean to the people in the film. Their jobs are never ending. Just like Elsa and Kyle said, their jobs are dangerous but necessary for survival. Survival is the very essence of humanity, which is needed for globalization to occur. The notion of survival and the workers having no choice to be working in these kinds of conditions is common all over the world as we saw when Glawogger took us through Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa. I noticed that capitalism does not benefit everyone. Although technology is advancing, there are still people on the bottom end of the stick because of it. I noticed resentment from one of the Ukrainian workers and from a Chinese worker towards their government. This reminded me of Dirty Pretty Things when Okwe talks about the government failing them as well. This animosity towards a greater power is synonymous around the world, as we have seen over time during rebellions and wars.
ReplyDeleteThe essay that Dr. Abel posted made a great point about globalization being an elephant in the room. Glawogger did an impeccable job depicting globalization without ever referring to the word. In fact there was no narration at all. While the narration may have “spoon feed” the viewer like in Dirty Pretty Things, it was not necessary. He allowed his camera work do all the talking for him. This reminds me of La Promesse because the viewer is never told what is going on. We had to puzzle things together through the characters’ actions. I totally agree with the author about how Glawogger’s use of extreme close up shots and others convey the realism of these people’s lives. The viewer was able to get down and dirty with the coal miners and see the last breaths taken by the cows being slaughtered. The establishing shots gave the viewer a sense of space and the same time the relation of space to the workers. The shots of the workers just standing still seemed like a photo shoot to me. As a photo speaks a thousand words, we get several thousand through these shots. The diegetic sounds from their conversations put the viewer right in the action. The camera following the workers through the rough sulfuric terrain and the panning shots gave the viewer different angles and more opportunity to learn what they are doing.
The opening sequence was great. I totally agree with Kyle about there being an illusion of the workingman. The extra diegetic sound raised the enthusiasm of what the “workingman” should have. One of the Ukrainian men saw it as a way to entice all coal miners. Another one was skeptical and saw it more like propaganda like I did as well.
The quote that Professor Abel mentioned stumped me for a moment. While originally I felt like the answer was simple, I couldn’t help but dive deeper for a more fleshed out reasoning behind such a claim. But, I slowly came around to my answer, one that many of my peers have already mentioned. I came to the conclusion, like many others, that while not specifically mentioned in an outright way globalization is the driving force behind the film. It is seemingly the cause of the situations these workingmen are posed with rather than the result. This of course doesn’t mean it is a direct cause; in fact, globalization seems to be more of an indirect force. Globalization is acting on these subject in an indirect way, perhaps taking a number of steps before reaching these works on which the film focuses.
ReplyDeleteSpurred on by other’s posts on this film, I dove into the internet in an attempt to find a source that would once again comment on this film. In this search I found a short article by Clay Steinman. While most of the article remains on point on which my fellow posters have already noted, I believe the closing statement of this article is equally as important to note “By having the people in his film speak casually, without polemic, Glawogger puts forward the ordinariness of suffering in so much of this world's work. By shooting the workers with an artfulness denied them in their own labor, Glowagger and Thaler offer a glimpse of a present of possibilities denied.” (http://0-www.tandfonline.com.library.unl.edu/doi/full/10.1080/10584600701641979). While on the surface this statement might seem rather simplistic, I feel like there is more to this than meets the eye. Bluntly stated, I feel like this film is portraying a fact that we haven’t touched on as of yet. Do these people truly have no other choice? And interestingly enough, I find myself saying yes. These people, as they state in the film, have nowhere else to turn for a large number of reasons, whether it be social class or simply being in the wrong place in the world. All of this is indirectly caused by globalization.
It was then after I found these answers that I tried to apply and tie this film in with the previous two which we have seen and thus came to an interesting comparison. While obviously not a 100% perfect copy, I do find that the idea of the “worker” is a prevalent theme within all the films we’ve so far watched. More importantly, these films are definitely focusing upon the lower classes. In both La Promesse and Dirty Pretty Things, the characters in which we relate are of the lower classes, more or less the same classes upon who we view in this documentary. In addition, in relation to the quote above, many of the subjects within the first two films from which we have watched truly have had many possibilities denied to them. They are unable to do certain things because of their status and have no escape in terms of gaining new possibilities, resulting in extreme results and actions. But in Workingman’s Death, I believe it portrays a much more realistic result in the people simply continuing on and “surviving.”
At first these comparisons might seem rather obvious, I feel like when we dive deeper that we are further able to examine what exactly these directors are particularly trying to say. Personally, I feel like these directors are point out the major subjects upon which globalization might be acting upon. Although, speaking singularly for Workingman’s Death, the director is showing a much wider angle instead of focusing on just one or two characters. This can also be tied in with the quote Professor Abel mentioned as well. The camera isn’t able to encompass everything; instead it is the larger force behind these conditions. To this point, I feel like this film is more successful in terms of portraying these effects rather than simply telling a story of such.
I remember once someone telling me that an eight hour shift is literally hell. After working many eight hour shifts myself I would agree to a point. However I believe that idea should be reserved for who we saw in the film. The quote in the beginning of the film pertaining to the eight hours that your life is devoted to work I see as crucial to understanding what the documentary is actually saying. For most of us we have the option for breaks and time to ourselves, no matter how long the day. The documentary was showing us people who do not have this luxury, people that capitalist progress forgot or hide from our view.
ReplyDeleteI especially appreciated the contrast of the Soviet era film of the happy workers singing and the workers who are in the old mines illegally. As time moved forward and the focus for states moved towards the market the mines became abandoned and in a sense so did the workers.
In regards to the quote from Marco, I feel the documentary's lack of narration did well to pay homage to the issue instead weighing the film down with analysis. There is no way a documentary or movie could ever pack all of globalization into its run time, but Workingman's Death did well to approach the subject with striking visuals. Yet there was narration that unwound with the actions of the films subjects. The subjects being the workers we followed hauling the sulfur, killing the goats, and mining the remaining coal out of a mine. In a way the elephant in the room is what is moving the documentary along. Workingman's Death is not the work but the movement of the world. Slowly these people are struggling more and more and soon their places of work could become a leisure park where teenagers go to make out.
Globalization is ever present throughout this entire documentary. Rough times with finding ways to just merely survive are seen all over the world and no country is exempt from this pain. This documentary points this out by grouping together all of the hard workers who are working to just barely get by, to survive. I agree with Monica’s point on when she points out the universal tactic of surviving and working hard to survive. This was the easiest film to determine globalization aspects in it in comparison to the two previous films that we watched. The separate locations were stated clearly and no guessing was put into where each scene took place, unlike La Promesse and Dirty Pretty Things.
ReplyDeleteThe words that Glawogger posts in between each country all were different. In case you forgot the words they were Heroes, Ghosts, Lions, Brothers, Future, and Epilogue. I feel that all of these words are used to describe these hard working people who work themselves every day, for months and even years at a time. They are considered to be heroes by their families who depend on them for their own survival. They are ghosts to the others who do not have to work as hard to survive. For example in the scene in Indonesia, the men who were struggling down the mountain tops with their full and heavy baskets on their backs were looked right through by the tourists and children in the scene. The tourists were in their path and didn’t even bother to move out of their way. They are considered to be lions by the animals in the areas, being “king of the jungle” because they slaughtered the other animals. They are considered brothers by those who are working next to them, just like what Elsa points out in her blog. They watch each others’ backs because they don’t have the time or energy to fight with each other. They are the future because their children will be doing the same, working hard to survive life.
An interesting aspect of this documentary is the camera shots. When the workers were moving from place to place while they were working, the camera shot was always following behind them as if Glagwogger was putting the viewer in the same shoes as the worker. While I was watching the film, I felt as if I myself was carrying a heavy basket down the mountain, as if I was dragging the cow’s skin in Nigeria through the muddy grounds. This point of view included me as a part of the working groups and made it easy to identify with these workers.
I agree that Workingman’s Death enters the conversation of globalization, but it does so by depicting the opposite of what globalization really does. I would argue that Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s understanding of the hegemonic position that their “immaterial labor” plays in the growing global sphere is a notion that is fundamentally sound. While Marx saw the manual labor of the 19th century as the dominant form of labor under capitalism, that position has now shifted to labor that is focused more on affect and communication. If Glawogger wanted to show globalization, it would be the workers who occupy the space of the hegemonic immaterial labor: maybe outsourced call centers or flight attendants. Thus, globalization has perhaps caused the situation of the workers in the film, but only because they are no longer in the dominant sector of labor. What is striking about Workingman’s Death is the intense focus that is placed on the actual physical labor being performed because not only does the process become as important as the performer, but it depicts the physical nature of labor that has become less frequent in the dominant regions of the globe while remaining quantitatively significant in other regions.
ReplyDeleteGlawogger makes it clear that, in addition to the attention paid solely to the workers and their stories, the process of their labor is equally as important. Throughout the film, extended shots are centered only on the material that is being harvested. Though the camera pays attention to the laborers, it is difficult to dismiss shots that take lumps of coal as the center of focus, or shots that follow severed cows heads being dragged through the dirt. We see the materials being moved through the streets or up the mountain, while we only see the back of the laborer. In this way, Glawogger consistently and painstakingly depicts the actual process of harvesting these tangible materials. He mentions in a short interview that he has “always been interested in making physical labour itself the subject of a film, and by means of this sensual experience determine its social and political position” (1). Indeed, the sensuous nature of the depicted labor stands out: the miniscule lighting in the cave; the blood and shrieking animals dying in the slaughterhouse; the yellow sulfurous gas hissing from the earth.
While the result of this visceral tendency is that Glawogger allows viewers to experience and actually see the labor, his other remarks complicate what the film is attempting to say. In the same interview, Glawogger suggests “Physical labour can be made visible. You can show someone carrying something, using a shovel, mining coal, but it’s hard to make someone sitting in an office thinking obvious as work. Compared to hard physical labour, filmmaking isn’t really work, and it can’t really be made visible in a meaningful way” (1). While he has certainly made physical labor visible throughout the film, the rest of his comments seem to be in contention with the notion of immaterial labor in the sense that physical labor is granted more esteem or value by Glawogger. So on one hand, more value is placed on the physicality of labor, while he foreshadows the demise (or “death”) of those very labor practices on the other. So while globalization certainly plays a role in what Glawogger is saying with the film, I would argue the primary discussion is instead that of labor and the value attributed to it.
Schiefer, Karin. “Michael Glawogger about WORKINGMAN’S DEATH.” Austrian Film Commission. http://www.glawogger.com/images/dokus/E_interv_WMD.pdf
What struck me the most about this documentary was the fact that the camera men took shots that placed them right in the middle of these dangerous and definitely not glamorous working conditions. In the mines, the camera is situated inside small spaces and crevices, viewing the workers through a thin and closed viewpoint. Positioning the camera in this way portrays the claustrophobic smallness of the mines and helps to further illustrate that these workers are "trapped" in this work because they must survive. The camera men are up-close and personal throughout all the working conditions. They must have had to wade through the pools of blood from the slaughter scenes. This was filmed in such a way that the audience is forced to be right in the middle of the nitty-gritty working conditions; there is no chance for detachment. And, always, no matter what part of the world the film was focusing upon, was the constant line of doing these jobs only for the purpose of survival.
ReplyDeleteBecause the viewers are forced into the middle of these scenes, it makes a very unique point to Western viewers. While it has themes of globalization in that all the workers seemed to be using the same script of survival no matter where they were positioned in the globe, it portrays globalization only in the Third World. It would be interesting if the filmmakers had included a First World job that is also dangerous and not so glamorous and that the workers felt they did not choose but were forced into. But, then again, maybe that was the point, to show First World viewers the differences in choice in the Third World; the more primal aspects of survival in these countries. In the first world, while there is still a working class and there are still those who must perform dangerous jobs for survival, there is certainly a higher chance of the workers being able to break free from that situation, whereas the Third World choices are much more limited. While the film shows an aspect of globalization in the Third World, it seems to isolate the Third World from the First World and create a gap between the two worlds.
However, another viewpoint could be that the film actually makes First World viewers identify with the Third World workers by making them think of their own drab 9-to-5 jobs.
One aspect of the film one might point to in response to your comments is the film's epilogue, which takes place in one of the world's riches countries: Germany. What's the point of the epilogue? Of showing the massive industrial park (formerly a ginormous coal mine) now being a leisure park and site for art installations? What's the relationship between these images--defined, I think, by the ABSENCE of (hard) labor--and the rest? And what about the fact that it comes after the talk about the "future" in the brief chapter set in China?
DeletePrior to viewing Workingman’s Death I was anticipating an “orthodox” documentary but was surprised to see the film instead “seamlessly interweave genuine documentary footage with scripted scenes and situations” per Giovanni Marchini Camia in his essay provided by Dr. Abel. Seemingly voyeuristic, yet meticulously placed, shots are juxtaposed with those that were clearly blocked out (fellow classmates please correct me if I’m failing to apply terminology appropriately) in pre-production. This is something director Michael Glawogger defends, “images I would merely term precise are always called aesthetic...you could say that just because I’m not sloppy when filming doesn't mean that I ‘aestheticize’ something” (link to interview - http://www.glawogger.com/images/dokus/E_interv_WMD.pdf).
ReplyDeleteCamia’s essay identifies two globalization concepts within Workingmans’ Death that we had previously discussed with Le Promesse and Dirty Pretty Things: nondescript locations and the creation of “absent” people. Much like those characters displaced by globalization (regardless of motivation) work “can become invisible though it’s still there” but “hard manual labor is visible, explainable, portrayable” said Glawogger. (link to website - http://www.workingmansdeath.at/about_en.html). In addition Workingman’s Death aligns with our textbook and explores what author Manfred Steger calls “humane forms of globalization.” More specifically this includes “the reduction of global disparities in wealth, wellbeing and the preservation of our wondrous planet.”
Arguably Glawogger does not offer a stance on globalization or attempt to sway viewers by the films end. However the ever shrinking world as a result of globalization is no more evident than in the scene when two sulfur workers happily discuss American musicians, Bon Jovi. Although not outright propaganda, themes do recur throughout the film and even beg the question, does globalization result in the degradation (tourist snapshots), deskilling (extinction of Stachanov era craftsmanship) or/and reduction (miners formerly holding legal employment and a German steel factory now a stomping ground for unruly teens) of manual labor? The idea of work as life’s purpose also remains constant in the film along with future sustainability of manual labor and the generation that awaits us. I particularly like Daniel S’s phrasing, “Workingman's Death is not the work but the movement of the world,” as the characters are engaged what once was celebrated work, but now is painstaking labor as a result of world progression.
For me, the claim Dr. Abel posted, recalls the theme of invisibility we saw in both La Promesse and Dirty Pretty Things. Just as globalization is the "ghost-like" process we rarely see, the subjects of all the films we've watched so far are all "absent" people as Sarah points out via Giovanni Marchini Camia's essay. All these projects, but specifically, Workingmans' Death seem primarily interested in rendering visible the people we never see.
ReplyDeleteThe moral and political thrust of the film is ambiguous; absent too is the voice or image of the director, which gives the illusion of absolute voyeurism. Of course, this is not true. Every image, scene, Q&A section (although, we never hear or see what questions the people are answering, though we might infer on some level) was chosen by someone, ostensibly the director. The locations, too, were chosen, probably for a specific reason. However, no reason is given, for any decision in the film. The apolitical, moral relativistic structure of the film makes it difficult to identify what the film wants you take away.
Let me circle back to my first point about rendering visible the invisible. Over and over, in each locale, someone says something to the effect of: "That is how it is", accompanied by a shoulder shrug or a half smile. I think it's important that the actual act of working is foregrounded in this film--most of what we see are people working. This is how people survive; these are people whose labor we benefit from indirectly, but the actual labor itself we never see.
I remember feeling uncomfortable, watching these people work; I kept thinking "Wow, I don't think I could do that. I'm glad I don't have to do that." But I think what this film really accomplishes--it gets one to consider ones position in relation to someone whose live seems fundamentally different then their own. I think this project is engaged in humanizing the "other", who is often exploited by the process of globalization.
Final thought: This film, more so then the past two, sketches out a structural problem; or in this case, phenomenon may be more apt. As such, I couldn't really identify any real solution offered. Several people in the film mention the government. But they never really offer solutions to their situations, or explicitly identify a structural problem. It would seem then, that awareness is the main goal of this project, which, I think is ultimately achieved.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the beginning quote by William Faulkner, “It's a shame that the only thing a man can do for eight hours a day is work. He can't eat for eight hours; he can't drink for eight hours; he can't make love for eight hours. The only thing a man can do for eight hours is work” was very powerful and sets the stage for the film. Workers, all over the world, suffer on a daily basis, just to survive.
ReplyDeleteIn a New York Times article )by Stephen Holden, titled "Workers of the World, United by Sweat, Strain and Few Words," Holden presents a very strong opinion on how he believes the film attempts to dispute this quote it starts off with. The article says, "As it observes laborers from around the world going to hell and back, day after day, year after year, to eke out subsistence livings, you are struck by their exuberance, vitality, teamwork and satisfaction in discharging backbreaking duties with a minimum of complaint." Although I agree with what Holden is saying here and was also somewhat shocked with how optimistic and grateful these workers were despite their circumstances, I don't entirely agree that the film tries to dispute the opening quote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/movies/24deat.html?_r=0
These workers are clearly dealing with what Faulker discusses in the opening quote on a daily basis. Unfortunately these people never had a shot at the “American dream” or doing something they actually enjoy that makes them feel fulfilled and as if they’re serving their purpose in the world. And I’m sure, deep down inside there is unhappiness and sadness somewhere – but of course they try to look on the bright side because what other choice do they have? They know this is their reality and there isn't any other options for them. This is it! If they dwell on what can't be changed then what would be their purpose of living? They would probably commit suicide, and like Kyle said it is human nature to try to find contentment in any situation.
I think the more blatant definition of globalization is presented in this film – that is the exchange of goods and services around the world. Each of these workers acquire some type of material and are somehow part of the process it goes through before it’s traded/sold. Although I don’t recall the film ever really directly addressing how their particular ‘material’ is transported around the world, one Nigerian worker did mention how he was thankful for the ports so the meat could be transported, or something along those lines. All of these workers are just a small part of a much larger system.