Hi, bogwart-1,
Thanks for your post. I thought about what you said, and here’s what comes to my mind.
First, I don’t think your economic history will bear examination. The US has not been in recession since the Reagan years. Those years were characterized by economic expansion. Not to make a political point: so were the Clinton years. But it’s simply false to say that real standards of living have decreased over the past 30+ years. In fact of course they have gone up, not down. The current recession started not in the 1980s but at the end of 2007. You said that unemployment exceeds 20%. It’s actually under 9%. You said that 40% receive Food Stamps. Actually it’s 14.3%. Don’t take my word for it: a quick Google will confirm these things.
Even so there’s no doubt that economic times have been rough in recent years. I think this movie could indeed have been written and presented as a sort of “economic history.” In fact, though, the recession was presented as a very strong backdrop; but beyond that we aren’t really given much of an “economic history lesson.” Instead, we are given a very human story of what work means to men, and what the loss of work means to men.
So what does work mean to us? I think we are shown work as what most of us see it from the get-go: work is a means of making a living. For us and for our families. That’s where the “economics” comes in for the movie, and for most of us I think.
However, work means more, much more, to the men in this movie. The “company men” are all men for whom their work has come to define, in many ways, their very identity. There’s an old saying that a human is a “human being not a human doing.” But for these men … and for men more generally … identity has long been bound up very closely with a man’s work. There’s been a lot of ink spilled on what work means to a man; but this is the very first movie I’ve ever seen anyway that goes so much into what work means to men.
The men in this movie all give us varying but very closely related visions of what men value in work:
1. Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck). Main character who of course gives us an enormous range of internal and external responses to his job loss. I think your description applies to the Bobby Walker we first meet in this movie; but definitely not to the Bobby Walker who struggles through first one line of work and on into the job we see him in at the close of the movie. Some of the particulars may or may not resonate, but I don’t think there is a man who saw what Bobby Walker went through, and didn’t say “Oh man. Yes. Yes …. That’s for real.” This includes the very credible transformation we see in which Walker confronts his own loss, including his loss of identity; and then asks himself “why” and “who am I really” and “who do I want to be and what do I want to do” In the end, we find a man who has regained both his identity and his confidence, who embraces a very assertive, very risky, entrepreneurial commitment to a new enterprise that is humanistic and competitive and team-oriented and aggressive all at once. That extraordinary scene with Walker and the others in the old factory’s refurbished offices is another picture of man-at-work that I think most men will respond to by saying, “Yeah Man … go for it!” In Bobby Walker, we get a strong vision of what work means to men imbued with a sense of competitiveness and teamwork and desire to build Something Big that Means Something.
2. Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper). I think your description basically gives a picture of a man destined to commit suicide by his job loss. In fact, of course, most men who lose their jobs do not commit suicide. I think we are presented a picture of a man who is struggling with his loss of identity and who could not find a way forward following his job loss. This shows us the truly tragic side of over-identification of a man with his work. In losing his work, he loses himself. In losing himself, he loses his life. But that is (again) not a result of economic tragedy, but of one man’s response to catastrophic personal loss of his own sense of self-worth and identity. I think most men can definitely relate to the blows to male identity; but men who lose a job move forward. That’s part of what work means to a man too: lose one job, then get another.
3. Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones). I think your description is partly right, but misses very much what the “company” has meant to McClary in the past; and what his own odyssey has meant to him after his own job loss. He articulates several times a sense of what he has lost … having come up from the shop floor. One of his losses has been his own independence. By the end, we see a man who is smiling, has regained his independence, with a new job, self-created, and a relaxed sense of humor, regained. And he’s doing what he wants to do.
4. Jack Dolan (Kevin Costner) you didn’t mention but he’s a great example of the “blue collar” man confronted with economic down-times. The mixture of compassion and tough honesty and the “family business” vision are real depictions of yet another side of men & work. I really liked the whole way in which Dolan and his men interact with Bobby Walker. There’s both a distance … white collar versus blue collar – but also a really amazing depiction of how much men have in common, across class lines, when it comes to work.
These four men give very convincing views of what the world of work means to men. You see something of this kind of thing in other movies; but honestly I can’t think of anything that really comes as close to “The Company Men” in giving us as deep and as wide a picture of what work means to men.
As for the economic setting: the Recession of 2007 (and continuing - alas). I think the primary function of this setting is to give the movie a strong sense of immediacy for the audience. After all the recession is pretty much still on everyone’s mind, mine included. But these four men, and the others, who we meet in this movie give us a very deep view of what work means to men that really transcends the terrible tragedy of these days.
We see this in how all 4 men respond to their current challenges. With one (unfortunate) exception, all find ways forward that refuse to accept job loss as meaning the end of life; who find ways to respond that honor the best that is within each of these men; who find new ways to honor what work means to the heart of a man and his family. They cry, they complain, they swear, they get drunk, and they get new jobs and press ahead with what they feel they must do to be true to themselves in the world of Work.
Thanks again for your comments - even if we have to "agree to disagree" about many of these things, I think we agree that this is just an amazing movie at many levels.
All good wishes,
Charles Delacroix
reply
share
bogwart-1
14 years ago
I'm not going to spend long on this, because I'm plainly wasting my time. I'm afraid that you've swallowed the story hook, line and sinker, and you've got to the stage where you will try to verify your statements using Google, but get only as far as a site which confirms your views and then you believe the results.
I've been doing this for ten years. In the beginning there were a handful of professional economists who were able not just to work it out but to dare to publish data they knew would be unpopular. People like Nouriel Roubini, Paul Krugman who are 'proper' economists, not some stenographer from MSNBC of others of the MSM,who write what they're told to write. If you really want it from the horse's mouth, read anything by Paul Craig Roberts, who was Asssistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan and helped coin the word 'Reaganomics'. As an example, read his article in the Austin Report: http://www.austinreport.com/WordPress/archives/3832
Some more figures for you: http://tinyurl.com/4k39cco
I'm not going further with this. It is the case with a majority of Americans that they simply do not want to hear bad news. Most of the MSM are owned by five major companies, the Congress is utterly corrupt and still people acquiesce in their own downfall. Take a guess what the world thinks.
And now you're starting off another bubble. More rubbish bonds, credit card rates at 79.9% APR and where does the money go? It goes to the arms industries. When the Bush mob got their sticky little fingers in the till they helped themself to $2.5 trillion dollars. Where did that money come from? From the benefits you have left - Medicaid, Social Security. Look at all the people who worked all their lives and now have nothing to which to look forward. How do you defend that?
reply
share
cdelacroix1
14 years ago
Hi, bogwart-1,
Easy does it ... I'm really not trying to get into an economics history discussion at all. Believe me. Very important subject, I have no doubt at all. However, I was much more interested in this fascinating movie, not in economics.
The point of my first paragraph was just to respond to what you had said in attributing economics history to this movie. You made a series of statements about contemporary and past economics that sure didn't seem to make much sense to me offhand. So naturally I was curious. Fortunately it's extremely easy to check statements like these out. So I did. And sure enough, the statements are simply inaccurate. Again, you can look it all up. If you don't like Google try Bing or whatever you prefer ... :) The links you gave here were interesting but of course didn't respond at all to anything that was said.
As for the movie itself ... I think it's a wonderful movie, really well-scripted, well-cast, well-executed, well-performed, with great cinematography, and above all a moving and captivating story line that focuses on how men cope with loss of work ... as a synecdoche for a much much wider story about what Work means to Men. It's a fascinating story IMHO.
My own opinion is that at a psychological and sociological and (far more importantly) plain old human level, this movie tells the story with extraordinary sensitivity and humanity and insight and honesty. It's a movie about Men and Work - and honestly I think ... hope anyway ... it will find a deserved place in the history of movies that really tell the story of humanity in ways that transcend one particular time or place. To me this movie should be considered a true classic.
My 2 bits ... or 3 or 4 or ... :)
All good wishes,
Charles Delacroix
reply
share
cdelacroix1
14 years ago
Hi, bogwart-1,
One more thought ... you said "Look at all the people who worked all their lives and now have nothing to which to look forward."
Quite apart from economics, this is just not how men ordinarily look at Work.
Job loss is a lousy experience to say the least. No question about that. But job loss as an expression of hopelessness & helplessness? As loss of anything to look forward to? That was one of the characters' response to losing a job, and resulted in his suicide.
But frankly very few people commit suicide when they lose a job. People lose jobs, and go through a rough but renewing period of adjustment, and then get new jobs.
And continue to look forward to the things they have always looked forward to ... improving things for themselves and their families, etc.
The movie shows men looking at work as (a) source of livelihood; (b) source of meaning and self-esteem; (c) an expression of wanting to "do something that matters"; (d) a social expression; (e) quite a bit more ...
But, with one tragic exception, never - ever - as an excuse for despair. The movie shows the odyssey of a number of men, going from job loss to job gain, and ends on a strong note of hope for the future.
That's how Men approach Work in general don't they?
IMHO ... :)
Charles Delacroix
reply
share
MuchToBeGratefulFor
14 years ago
re Chris Cooper's character:
In fact, of course, most men who lose their jobs do not commit suicide.
No, but unemployment IS a risk factor for suicide, and suicide rates go up with the unemployment rate.
I think most men can definitely relate to the blows to male identity; but men who lose a job move forward. That’s part of what work means to a man too: lose one job, then get another.
But the movie was realistic that men Phil's age can't just "get another". As tough as the job market was for Ben's late-30s character, it's 100 times harder for Phil, if it's possible at all. In an era when 1000 people are applying for each job, what are the chances that they will give the job to a 60 year old who is over-qualified and whose former salary was in the stratosphere? Pretty close to zilch, and Phil knew it.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
reply
share
cdelacroix1
14 years ago
Unemployment is definitely a risk factor for suicide. So are quite a number of other things. But of course bottom line, we all know lots of folks in our communities who have lost their jobs and who do not commit suicide. Because although unemployment is rough, no doubt about that, it's ordinarily not fatal.
The problem for Phil wasn't at all that he had lost his job. Everyone else seems to have gotten jobs; no doubt he could as well. The problem for Phil was that he was so psychologically invested in one particular job that he thought that losing that job meant losing everything, even his very self. For him, this job defined who he was as a person. In effect, he was thinking "either I have this job, or I am nothing, a worthless piece of ****" Of course that kind of thinking guaranteed that when he lost that job, he despaired and felt deeply hopeless and helpless. So he committed suicide.
Horribly tragic. And very much in contrast to how the other men in this movie reacted to their job losses.
I think the movie showed very realistically what a blow job loss is at so many levels. It also showed how men generally respond: they work through their discouragement, and go out and find a way forward. That's true of everyone in this movie, with Phil's tragic exception. They had a rough time, grappled with what to do about it, found ways to cope and move forward, without exception all rebuilt and retooled, and headed back out the door to the next job.
This is a movie full of realism about how men approach work ... and I think on the whole full of hope because of how men approach work.
IMHO ... :)
Charles Delacroix
reply
share
MuchToBeGratefulFor
14 years ago
I don't see Phil the same way. He didn't commit suicide just because he lost his job, he committed suicide after searching and seeing how hopeless it was at his age. I don't see why you say "no doubt" he could find a new job. There are tons of people who have been out of work so long they've used up their 99 weeks of unemployment benefits and are in serious financial trouble. And if that's the case with younger people, someone Phil's age was going to face a huge wait for a new job, if he ever found anything at all.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
reply
share
cdelacroix1
14 years ago
I shouldn't have said "no doubt", you're right, there are no guarantees in this old life. And unemployment is rough for everyone who encounters it.
But of course folks move forward and are moving forward despite the very real trials involved in finding work.
Back about Phil. Phil did very little job searching ... he had already decided he was hopeless from the outset, without the job in which he had found all his meaning. Having decided he was hopeless, of course he guaranteed a self-fulfilling hopeless outcome.
One of the lessons I think of the movie is that although it’s possible to construct all kinds of excuses for hopelessness – including “I’m too old to get another job” – the reality is that most men recognize these as excuses and forge ahead anyway.
Gene had plenty of grey hair. He creatively came up with another job. Jack had plenty of grey hair and despite losing some contracts, found ways for his contracting business to survive. There’s that wonderful final scene with Bobby Walker, who had assembled a team of folks full of grey hair, and also full of moxie and commitment and willingness to charge forward. Hundreds of laid off workers – no doubt many with grey hair – were being called back to work at the shipyard.
Finally … you know, the movie was very gentle with Phil at the time of his horribly tragic suicide and afterward.
However, at the same time, there’s no hint from any of Phil’s colleagues or friends or family that they thought he had done the right thing. And the silent contrast between how Phil handled his challenges, and how everyone else handled their challenges, is really very stark.
There’s an old saying that suicide is an “easy out.” I think most men look at it this way. Phil's investment of his whole being in his job was horribly tragic. But bottom line: the results go far beyond his own suicide. Phil deserted his wife, he deserted his children, he ran away from everything he had labored to build in his home and in his family, by taking a supremely selfish way out, and leaving his children and his wife and his family with a horrific legacy, and an ongoing battle that they had to continue, when their father and husband threw down his rifle and ran from the battle.
In contrast, the other men worked hard, and fought hard, at finding new jobs and new ways to move forward. To them, job loss was a major setback, but not some kind of universal judgement of hopelessness and helplessness. The spirit of Jack, of Gene, of Bobby and his new shipbuilding crew, was very realistic and also very aggressive in a good way: they were fighting for themselves, their families, their coworkers, and more. And the ending was full of the kind of hope that comes from refusing to accept defeat and refusing to allow discouragement to become despair.
Phil alas succumbed to despair. The other men embraced a tough hope. That was the kind of hope that the movie embraced as well.
Phil deserves our sympathy; but not our admiration. The men, and women, who deserve our admiration are Gene and Bobby and Jack and all who chose to fight their way forward, for themselves and their families, not the man who abandoned his wife, his children, and his family.
Charles Delacroix
reply
share
Breast_in_Pieces
14 years ago
ahh, a *good* thread at last !
this is where the intelligent people are !
i'm with you in that i saw the movie more for the character studies of the three/four different 'class levels' that were affected and how different men reacted to the adversity.
it wasn't so much trying to find the 'blame' for a particular group, or how to solve the problem; that said, i do have a question for bogwart-1 who said;
Nobody can foresee the future. The only certain thing is that what was is no more.
so; what would you say is the direction that the US should take to replace 'what was' ?
the movie seems to hint at "back to basics", start a company that actually MAKES something you can see, feel, touch, etc.
but is this really realistic (to you ?) - would a start-up shipyard really have any hope against the global competition in a flat world ?
Lauren Prosnan : Hollywood is God's way of saying America matters.
reply
share
kensa
13 years ago
I'm not bogwart-1 but that's definetely the point.
I think the producing industry, machines, cars, ships, buildings etc is that what has real values.
The people in the Kevin-Costner business will always talk about more or less work and money but the industry workers even computer programmers and farmers more and more decide between yes and no.
I'm German and fortunately we still have some producing industries wich can compete with Asians and others. But we are just part of the world and get eaten at last.
Few month ago HochTief the biggest building enterprise of Germany - healthy and fat order books - has been bought by another building company that was close to bankruptcy.
The banks lend them the money for the deal because the value of the german enterprise garantueed safety for the spanish one too. I hope my english is understandable. In other words. The company that has not enough depts is always in danger of takeover by another company wich wants to make more depts. And afterwards you can't even tell whos fault it was.
In other other words the survival of companies has nothing to do (anymore) with competitiveness, and to me this was the main message of the movie, the Gene McClary part. It has become abstract, a game with numbers and people who don't want to play get fired.
And the only thing people can do is start new with REAL companies far away from the stock exchanges. If you have a good product people will buy it.
reply
share
Breast_in_Pieces
13 years ago
In other other words the survival of companies has nothing to do (anymore) with competitiveness, and to me this was the main message of the movie, the Gene McClary part.
yes, that is the sad way of the world now.
good call on highlighting the Gene McClary part - in other words there *are* those in "top management" who DO have civic responsibility at heart, but are hampered by the 'money' who only have the "shareholders" interests in mind.
I hope my english is understandable. In other words. The company that has not enough depts is always in danger of takeover by another company wich wants to make more depts. And afterwards you can't even tell whos fault it was.
it's fully understandable, but maybe some vocabulary is not quite clear, what do you mean by 'depts' ; "debt" or "depth" ?
if it is the former, then that is seriously a broken attitude to doing business, why does having debt mean a *better* condition for a company ?!
it's madness !
has been bought by another building company that was close to bankruptcy.
this really makes me angry - WHY SELL then ??!!
and in such a case, you *CAN* say WHO's to blame, namely the top management at HochTief !!
are they saying they will "eventually lose" (competition-wise) if they DON'T SELL, ie. 'take on more debt' ???
"I upped my pledge already, up yours" -
Raising Hope
reply
share