politics of bricolage and the double-sided message of the ... · the truth that they are just...

CJMSFall2017/RCÉMautomne2017

57

Criticalessay

PoliticsofBricolageandtheDouble-sidedMessageofTheLEGOMovie

DaliaGrobovaite,UniversityofCalgary

Abstract

With the release of The Lego Movie in 2014, Frankfurt School’s criticaltheory once again finds an application in the contemporary medialandscape. Its main postulates articulated by Theodor Adorno and MaxHorkheimer have never lost significance and relevance. New mediaproducts provide a convenient platform to engage in the discussion andreinforce some of the most influential critiques of the culture industries.Although with less negative dialect, the paper approaches Horkheimer’sandAdorno’scritiqueofmassculture inacontemporarymedia landscapereferencing their most influential work of critical theory - Dialectic ofEnlightenment.ThepapercarefullyexaminesthescriptofTheLegoMovieandproducers’ interviewsandrelates those to thecritical conceptsof theculture industries. From the onset, The Lego Movie brings up a fewcontroversialmessages.First,theideaofcreativityandimaginationappearsto be limited to the use of the brick, namely the Lego brick. Secondly,althoughthebasicmaximofthemovieisthepromotionofself-identityandindividuality,thedevelopmentofthesepersonaltraitsthroughthestorylineisdebatable.Finally,theproducers’aimtocriticizeAmericanmasscultureand the culture industry is dubious as much as their claim to have nointentionforthemovietoserveasacommercial.Theparadoxofthelatterispoignantsincethecritiqueofmasscultureisembeddedintheproductofthe same culture — the medium of the screen — the movie. The Legomovie uses a powerful medium to convey the message of the consumerculture– thecolorfulbrick,which iseasilyrecognizedbykidsallover theworld. It is arguable whether the medium intensifies the messagesdisseminated through themovie. Amassive increase in the sales of Legosetsafterthemovie’sreleasemaysuggestanaffirmativeanswer.

Keywords:Cultureindustry,criticaltheory,massculture,Legomovie


58

Introduction

The term “culture industry” was coined by Max Horkheimer andTheodor Adorno, philosophers of the Frankfurt School, in theircanonical work “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as MassDeception”,firstpublishedoversixtyyearsagoaspartoftheirbookDialectic ofEnlightenment (1972). Since then, it has seennumerousrebirths in scholarly works across different disciplines, has been“reconsidered”andcritiquedinnumerousscholarlyarticles,andhasbeen revised by Adorno himself. In all his subsequent works,analysingpopularmusic(jazz inparticular), film,andradio,Adornoreiterated the same idea; that under monopoly capitalism, cultureandarthavebecomeabsorbedbyeconomicforces.Intheiressayonthecultureindustry,HorkheimerandAdornosawonceautonomousculture as part of the industrial system,where the “authenticity” ofcultureislostandallculturalproductsundercapitalistmonopolyareproduced for the sake of profit, not for the sake of meeting one’sneedsorwishes.

“Undermonopolyallmasscultureis identical,andthelinesofitsartificialframeworkbegintoshowthrough.Thepeopleat the top are no longer so interested in concealingmonopoly:asitsviolencebecomesmoreopen,soitspowergrows.Movies and radio needno longer pretend to be art.The truth that they are just business is made into anideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberatelyproduce. They call themselves industries; and when theirdirectors’incomesarepublished,anydoubtaboutthesocialutilityofthefinishedproductsisremoved”(HorkheimerandAdorno,121).

Culture has been deprived of all its heterogeneity andindividuality. It has become homogenous and industrialized. TheFordist model of the assembly line has moved into the culturaldomainwhere the “modernworkerhasbeen completely integratedinto the industrialmachine, a controlled automatonhenowhashisleisure time and his interiority programmed and controlled bymodernindustrialtechniques”(O’Connor,12).

The culture industry imposes conformity on the massesthroughcommodifiedculturalproducts.Itsmainpurposeistogrowcapital and increase dominance, which is achieved by turning theaudiences into the masses with no autonomous consciousness;


59

masses, who consume “culture” in a constant state of distraction.Throughthisprocess, instrumentalrationalitywastransformedinto“instrumentalinthehandsofHollywoodandtheemergentmonopolyconcentration of capital in publishing, recording and advertising”(LashandLury,2).

This paper is not yet another consideration of the negativedialectics with which Horkheimer and Adorno so harshly critiquedthe culture industry. Nor is it a critique along the lines of theoppositionalphilosophyintroducedbyBritishculturalstudieswhichrejected the idea of commercial “mass culture” as threatening theworkingclass’autonomyofthoughtandlookedforwaysofresistancethat new forms of popular culture (i.e. subcultures) could provide.Rather,thisworksideswiththeideasofmorerecentscholarlyworkto argue that although the culture industry has changed in the lastfiftytosixtyyears, itsmaininfluencesremainthesame.Thecultureindustryhasgrownandexpanded,changing itsshapeandformandpenetratingdeeper into theeveryday lifeof consumers.Thecultureindustry continues to impose conformity on masses and seeks toexpanditsdominancenotonlylocallyornationally,butgloballytoo.As Lash and Lury (2007) propose inGlobal Culture Industry,whileculturecouldhavebeenreferredtoassuperstructureinthelate20thcentury,whenculturalentitiesstillseemedexceptional,withtheturnof 21st century culture has become ubiquitous. They claim that"culturalobjectsareeverywhere:asinformation,ascommunications,as branded products, as financial services, as media products, astransport and leisure services, cultural entities are no longer theexception:theyaretherule"(LashandLury,4).Drawingonspecificaspects of Adorno and Horkheimer’s critical theory, namely theconcepts of individuality, homogeneity and standardization, thepaper will analyse the plot of a popular Hollywood product – TheLego Movie (2014). It will argue that the movie, while seeking tocritique capitalism and the effects of mass culture, is actuallypromotingsamenessand is skilfullyservingasaperfectexampleofproductplacement.

ScopeofCultureIndustryAppliedtotheMovieScriptAnalysis

Adorno’scriticaltheorymightbereferredtoasquiteradical,since“itaimsatchangingnotmerelyspecificaspectsofcontemporarysociety,but itswhole social structure” (ofwhichhe speaks in termsof ‘latecapitalism’)(Freyenhagen,2). Essentially,globalcultureisaradical


60

expansionofwhatwasdefinedas theculture industrybyFrankfurtschool theorists. Lash and Lury (2007) take a new approach to thecultureindustrybyclaimingthatithastransformedtoaglobalscalewhere everything ismediated, that is, “shaped and formed throughmedia” (Couldry and Hepp, 1). While accepting this concept ofexpandedculture industry, thepaperwill refer to the term“cultureindustry” as originally used by Adorno and Horkheimer. In their“Culture Industry” essay, first published in 1947, the scholarsreferredtothecultureindustryastheproductofstandardizationanddistribution of mass culture to serve the profitable interests ofcapitalism.

Given the breadth and depth of Adorno’s scholarship, thescopeofthispaperwillnotpermittoengageinathoroughdiscussionof his critical thinking about the culture industry as well as thechangesthatthecultureindustryhasencounteredandgonethroughsincethefirstcriticalworkswerepublished.Theaimisnottoarguehowmuchmasscultureandthewhole industryhaschangedandtowhatextentitsproductsgot"thingified"(LashandLury4).Althoughthe paper will educe certain claims as relevant to the providedarguments, thegoal is todepictmainclaimsbytheculture industrytheoristsastotheeffectthecultureindustryhasonindividuality,thehomogeneityandconformityitenforcesonpeopleandtoarguethatthey are still relevant in the current cultural landscape. The LegoMovie will serve as a tool illustrating enduring influences of thecultureindustry.

TheLegoMovie

Although the culture industry has grown in scope and it may nolonger by “reduced” to entertainment business (as referred to byAdornoinDialecticofEnlightenment),themainpostulatesofcriticaltheory have found their application in a recent product by theWarnerBros.Inc.—TheLegoMovie. Itwasreleasedin2014andisrated as one of the most successful animated movies to entertainyoungaudiences.Themovie,whichearned450milliondollarsattheboxoffice1,wasdirectedbyPhilLordandChrisMiller,producedbyWarner Brothers and co-marketed by the LEGO Group. Moviecharactersareembodiedbyfavouritebuildingbricksandsofarhave

1http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/LEGO-Movie-The#tab=summary


61

received mostly positive reviews worldwide2. The movie’s plot isstructuredaroundthelifeofthemaincharacter,Emmet(ChrisPratt).HeisanordinaryLEGOfigurinewhoalwaysfollowstherulesandiserroneouslyidentifiedas“TheSpecial”—anextraordinaryindividualwiththemissiontosavetheworld.Togetherwithagroupofmasterbuilders, Wyldstyle, Benny, Unikitty, and even Batman, Emmetembarks on a journey to stop the evil tyrant Lord Business (WillFerrell) and his plans to conquer the world. The group of “MasterBuilders”hastopreventLordBusinessfromgluingtheworldofLegowith“Kraggle”superglue.Inthefinalscenes,Emmetfindshimselfinthe real world, where the story is being played out within theimagination of a boy, Finn. His father, a business-obsessed man,scoldshissonforruiningtheLegosetsbymixingthebricksandre-building his expensive collections. While Finn attempts todemonstratethatLegobricksareforchildren,hisfathergetsreadytoglue the sets. Finally, the father accepts his son’s creativity andbecomes impressed with the creations. The movie culminates in abondbetweenthefatherandthesonthroughthegameofLego.

The Lego Movie has been praised as a brilliant critique ofAmericanmass culture. However, an analysis of the script and thecritical application of Adorno and Horkheimer’s ideas lead toquestionwhether themovie iscritiquing the industry it serves.Thescriptcontainsprovocativemessages.Byexposingtheeffectsoftheculture industry on people The LegoMovie simultaneously expectsthe audience to succumb to the same power of the industry byensuringfurtherconformitythroughtheuseofthemassproduct—the Lego brick. The Lego brand is ingrained in the story line. Thehidden agenda, even if denied by The Lego Movie producers, is toencouragetheviewers"tobuyanduse itsproductseven if theyseethrough them" (Adorno, 167). The LegoMovie’s illustration of thecultureindustrymaybeseenastoodense;however,itisanexcellentexample of what life becomes when entertainment industry andgovernments control the culture industry.We are all subjugated tothe same products of mass culture. The ability to customize is yetanother trickery by those who produce the products to sell“sameness” wrapped up in “uniqueness”. Similarly to the coloredplasticbricksinthemovieweareboundtofollowtherules,adheretoourroutines,anddisplayobedience.

2https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lego_movie/reviews/


62

CommodificationoftheMovieScript

In the guise of a children’s motion picture, the movie is a greatplacementoftheDialecticofEnlightenmentinfrontoftheeyesoftheaudiencewiththegoalofsendingamessagetothewholesociety.Theculture industry produced “paradoxical commodity” which Adornoclaimed“issocompletelysubjecttothelawofexchangethatitisnolonger exchanged; it is so blindly equated with use that it can nolonger be used” (Ibid.). It blendswith advertisement and The LegoMovie blatantly demonstrates it. The movie not only vividlydemonstrates the many uses for the mini Lego bricks, but it also“locksusintocertainformsofconsumptivebehavior”(Gunster,41).With the release of The Lego Movie, one could suddenly buyeverything froma toothbrush to a bedroomset illustratedwith thecharactersandthemesfromthemovie.

Adorno claimed that culture has lost its immunity tocommodification and reification and he famously stated that “thecultural entities typical of culture industry are no longer alsocommoditiestheyarecommoditythroughandthrough”(Adorno,2).Cultural commodity is a good since it can be translated into theexchange value — money. As goods, commodities become certainvalue units which are exchanged on the market for profit and areproduced for the sake of increasing revenues of the industries.Commodity inaglobal culture industry,asLashandLurystate,hastransformedintoabrand,whichnolongercanbereadilyexchanged.It does not encompass value ready units and does not exist as a“good”onthemarket(LashandLury,2007).TheLegobrandservesthepurposetoillustratethispositionandsupporttheargumentthatthecultureindustryhasmaturedintoaglobalcultureindustrywithits own distinctive features and characteristics. According to Lashand Lury, global culture industry does not operate thoughcommodities as the culture industry did, but through brands (Lashand Lury, 5). Culture has not only been commodified, but largelybranded and this is what major corporations, including the LEGOGroup,standfor.LEGOisnotonlyaverysuccessfulproduceroftoys,butithasalsogrowntoembracealmosteveryaspectofitsfans’life:from theme and entertainment parks, branded souvenirs andcommonusegoods,tolaunchingahugelysuccessfulmovie,whichisgoingtohaveitssequelreleasedin2019.

Themovie uses a greatmedium to tell the story – the Legobrick, which was deliberately chosen by the producers. It is


63

recognisable,playfulandwidelyacceptableasa“cool”toybychildrenworldwide. Since themovie is a representationof both theproductandthebrand,itisagoodanalyticaltooltoexaminehowthecultureindustryisnotonlyapowerfuldictatorofsamenessanduniformity,butalsoexpandsitsinfluencetoaglobalscale.TheLEGOGrouphasbecome amass producer of extensive experiences,which iswhat abrandingeneralstandsfor,globally,andthisconcurswithLashandLury’sargumentspertainingtoglobalculture.

MeaningfulCharacteristicsoftheLegoFigurines

EmmetBrickowskyisthemaincharacterinTheLegoMovie.HeisaLegominifigure,“builder”whoembarksonajourneytostoptheevilLordBusiness.The“Lord”seemstohavebeenchosenpurposefullytopointtoothermovievillainssuchasLordVoldemort(HarryPotter)andLordVader(StarWars).Bycombining“lord”and“business”themovie blends totalitarian rule with multinational capitalism and“implies totalitarian omnipotence with the domination ofmultinational capitalism” (Roberts, 2014). The character of LordBusinessrepresentseverythingthatisnegativeinacorporateworld— big name brands exercising the power of control, imposingconformity and creatingmass consumer culture. LordBusiness is avillainwhoownseverypieceofentertainmentandwishestoexercisecontroloverthepopulationoftheLegocityofBricksburg.EmmetisaperfectexampleofAdornoandHorkheimer'sdupedconsumerwhoiscompletelyimmersedintheworldconstructedforhimbyacapitalistsystem. This world consists of repetitive, routinized and mind-numbingactivities,whichresidentsofthecitydonotseemtomind.Theradiorepetitivelyairsapophit"Everythingisawesome"andTVbroadcaststhesamesitcom"Wherearemypants?"

Mass media serve the purpose of molding the listeners andviewersintotheobedientservantsofthecultureindustry:"filmsandradio arenothingbut business and they are used as an ideology tolegitimize the trash they intentionally produce" (Horkheimer andAdorno,42).Allmediaisformedintoasystem,which,asHorkheimerandAdorno argued, enforcesuniformity: “Culture today is infectingeveryonewithsameness.Film, radio,andmagazines formasystem,whichisuniformasawholeandineverypart.Eachbranchofcultureis unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together”(Horkheimer and Adorno 120). Lord Business is well aware of thepower that radio and TV have on imposing uniformity. It is the


64

system that each Bricksburg citizen trusts unquestionably. Whencreativeandfree-spiritedminifigureWyldstyleaddressesallthroughtheenormousTVscreen,sheunequivocallyconfirms:“IamonTVsoyoucantrustme”.

Pseudo-individuationandIndividuality

According to Adorno, any individual in the culture industry is anillusionarysubject.Thisillusionisnotonlyduetothestandardizationofmass-producedcommodities,butalsotothefactthatindividualisonly “tolerated as long as his complete identification with thegeneralityisunquestionable”(154). EachbuilderintheLegocityisuseful and recognized as a lawful resident as long as he/sheunwaveringlycomplieswiththeorderestablishedbyLordBusiness.OnconditionthatcitizensservetheinterestsofLordBusinessandhisOctan Corporation, they can continue to live their miserable lives.Theyarecompletelydevaluedintheeyesofthecorporationthatrunstheircity.Asindividualsthey“disappearbeforetheapparatuswhich/they/ serve” (xiv). Emmet’s life is consumed by the apparatus ofLord Business. His inner life is compartmentalized and regimentedaccording to theneedsof the systemandasabuilderhe turns intothe “proficient apparatus” himself (167). His day is carefullystructuredandfiltereddowntotaking(whatseemstobe)thesamesteps.Themannerinwhichhetakeseachstepappearstobecarefullyplanned as not to disrupt the arranged assembly line of the Legocity’sorder.

Thisisanillustrativeexampleofthecultureindustrywithits“potentialitiesforpromotingorblocking‘integralfreedom’”(Adorno,2).OnlythecorporatepowerintheLegocitydoesnotpromote,butconstantly and diligently suppresses even an opportunity for anindividual thought. Individuality in the city of Bricksburg is soconcealed that later in the movie Emmet goes through numerousstruggles toacknowledge its existencewithin.Every residentof theLego city has ceased to be him or her since individuality has beenswallowed by the corporate power. Uniqueness of an individual isimpossible and this gets reinforced in the statements by the sameLegominifigureswhen they refer to Emmet as “nothing”. Even thepersonal life of a Lego citizen is confirmative of the imposedstructure: “everyone must show that they identify wholeheartedlywith thepowerwhichbeats them…Individualsare toleratedonlyas


65

far as their wholehearted identity with the universal is beyondquestion”(Adorno,124).

Although there is no room for individuality in the Lego city,there is really no identifiable concept of the team either. The term“teamplayer”losesitspositivemeaningofproductivity.BeingateamplayerinBricksburgmeansbeingcompliantandbeinglikeeveryoneelse in the population. Lord Business needs exactly that — ahomogeneous mass which is easily directed and oriented towardsachieving the goals that are only beneficial to him. The cultureindustry is directed towards incorporation and supremacy. It isobsessedwith theunificationof all theobjects overwhich it exertspower. As such it is also oriented towards organizing “free time”,which Adorno calls the “remnant domain of freedom” (Adorno, 4).There is hardly free or spare time for the citizen of Bricksburg.Similarly, there isno real entertainmentandamusement in the cityeither. Radio programs and TV shows are constantly the same andTacoTuesdayseemstobethe“real”andonlyentertainmentfortheLegocityresidentsevenifit,infact,meanscheaptacos.ThebooksinEmmet’s room are illustrative of the sameness ideology beingimprintedonthe individuals: “Howto fit in”and“Everybodyto likeyou”.Evenifeachminifiguresuperficiallyhashisorherownlifeafterwork,itimplies“theprolongationofwork”thatAdornoproposedinhis analysis. The sameness of TV and radio programs or sports inBricksburgisaimedatcontrollingmindlesscitizensbothatworkandoffworkand“recruitingstrengthinordertobeabletocope”withthesame mechanized work (Adorno, 7). The audience which Adornonamed as “dupes of mass deception” with “no autonomy ofconsciousness” is embodied by the Lego minifigures (21). WhenEmmetmeetswithMasterbuilders(intendedtobefreeandcreativeindividualsoutsidetheworldoftheLordBusiness),headmitsthathe“hasneverhadanoriginalthoughtinhislife”.

The culture industry unifies many under one. Any kind ofindividuality is inconceivable sinceonlyamassofmindless citizenscanbemoldedintowhatLordBusinessneeds.Any“weird”structurein the citymustbedestroyed so asnot to threatenLordBusiness’s“stuff”, by which he means everything in the city that is createdaccording to his wishes. Culture industry has nothing in commonwith freedom. As Adorno states, “it proclaims: you shall conform,withoutinstructionastowhat;conformtothatwhichexistsanyway,and to thatwhicheveryone thinksanywaysasa reflexof itspower


66

and omnipresence” (Adorno, 17). Adorno goes further byemphasising that the culture industry suppresses individualconsciousness and silences reflexivity: “the culture industry is thesocietal realizationof thedefeatof reflection: it is the realizationofsubsumptive reason” (Adorno and Bernstein, 11). Builders inBricksburghavelostanypossibilityofreflectingonwhatisgoingoninthecity.Infact,theydonotseemtohavethatcapacityatall.TheideologyoftheLordBusinessandhisOctanCorporationdoesnotgetquestioned:“theorderthatsprings fromit isneverconfrontedwithwhat it claims to be or with the real interests of human beings”(Adorno,17).

Theorderof theLegometropolis isshocking. Allcars in thecity move at the same velocity, with the same distance from eachother, and are parked at the same time. The architecture andbuildings, although clearly resembling possibilities provided by theLegoblocks,areshapelesseven ifcomprisedofdifferentlydesignedbuildings. They are the reminder of a similar real lifemetropolitancity core and reveal a scrupulously planned and developed rigidstructure. The sameness of the Lego city architecture blends wellwiththeuniformityofitspopulation.Monotonyreignsacrossthecityand it is exactly what the culture industry is synonymous with:“culturenowimpressesthesamestamponeverything”(HorkheimerandAdorno,120).SuchastampiseasiertopresswhenallindividualsareissuedfirminstructionsbytheOctanCorporation.Sincebuildersin the city are deemed to have no mental capability to think forthemselves,theyreceiveinstructionsforeverything.WhenEmmetisthrownout into therealmof “otherness”,whichexistsoutsideLordBusiness’skingdom,hestartsfranticallyutteringthewords“whatdoIdo.Idon’thaveinstructions”.

Standardizationanddistraction

InBricksburg,residentsaregreetedbythecatchybeatofthepophit“Everything is awesome” (performed by Tegan and Sara and theLonely Island),which ensures the citizens are compliantwith LordBusiness’splansandhavenospacetogeneratealternativethoughts:“everything isawesome/everything is coolwhenyou’repartof theteam/everythingisbetterwhenwesticktogether/sidebyside,youand I gonnawin forever/weare the same, I’m likeyou, you’re likeme, we’re all working in harmony/ lost my job, it’s a newopportunity/more free time formy awesome community/ aNobel


67

Prize, a piece of string/You know what’s awesome? Everything!”3.Therigorouslycontrolledmeansofmassmedia inthecityallowfortotal control on what is being broadcasted to the population. Thesong airs repeatedly throughout the day and inscribes the“awesomeness” standard into the lives of its listeners.Standardization, especially in popular music, has been profoundlycritiquedbyAdornoanddeservesamuchmoredetailedaccountthanisprovidedhere.ereferredtostandardizationas“thestrengtheningof the lasting domination of the listening public and of theirconditionedreflexes”(Bronner,202).Thepublicis“expectedtowantonly that to which they have become accustomed and to becomeenraged whenever their expectations are disappointed andfulfillment,which they regardas the customer's inalienable right, isdenied." (202). Adorno was explicitly concerned with thestandardizationasbroughtupbythecapitalistindustrialsystem.Themost concerning trait of standardization for him was the “pseudo-individuation”,bywhichAdornomeans:

“endowing cultural mass production with the halo of freechoiceoropenmarketonthebasisofstandardizationitself.Standardization of song hits keeps the customers in linedoing their thinking for them, as it were. Pseudo-individuation, for its part, keeps them in line by makingthem forget thatwhat they listen to iswholly intended forthemorpredigested."(AdornoinAndrea,5).

Theobviouslyinfectiousbeatofthesongaimsexactlyatthis–standardizationof thought.The regressionofhearing is common toall citizensofBricksburg.Everyone is appearing todo exactlywhatthesong is telling themto–behappysinceeverything isawesome.Being happy aboutwho they are andwhat they do, the individualsare taught to be like everyone else. Everybody is content with thestatusquoofbricolage,theyarehappynomatterwhathappens.Theyarehappyevenwhentheyallpullintogetanoverpriced$37dollarcupofcoffee.

PerfectionoftheStatusQuoandHopeforResistance

As much as the culture industry is occupied with retaining theexisting state of affairs without allowing an alternative status quo,

3Songandlyricsathttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTqXEQ2l-Y


68

Lord Business, fearing an upheaval which may end his powerfulreign,makesplans to literally fix the current situationofhisworld.He finds a superglue named "Kraggle", which seems to be theultimate way to glue existing structures. This capitalistic desire tointegrateallanddominateeverysingleindividualofthepopulationinBricksburg permeates all of Lord Business’s intentions andconversations. The glue seems to be a great weapon to freeze thestatusquoandmaintainitindefinitely.

Adornowas critical ofMarx’s belief that capitalist forces areable to generate a free society and themovie demonstrates exactlythis. Capital does not embody emancipatory power. Capitalistproduction “confines them, body and soul, that they fall helplessvictimstowhatisofferedthem”(Blunden,12).Thenucleusofchangelies within a society or within instrumental reason, which Adornoprovocativelydebatedon.Adorno’soriginalpolemiccontaineddeepnegativity towards enlightenment and people’s ability to resist themanipulation of industrialised culture. He argued that whileinstrumental reason may suggest the ways that lead to liberationfromtheinfluenceofthecultureindustry,italsoworksasaschemeoffurtherintegrationanddomination.Inorderfortheemancipationto be true and real, reason must bear the “possibility to judgeparticulars and universal and rationally consider ends and goals”,sincewithout thispossibilityreason“whichwas tobe themeans tosatisfyinghumanendsbecomesitsownend”(AdornoandBernstein,5).

Horkheimer’s and Adorno’s uncompromising critique of theculture industry, its segmentation and mass consumerismnevertheless contained a grain of hope for a possible resistance.Although society, according to these thinkers, is ruled by theexploitativeeconomy,thereisapossibilityforasocialtransformationandautonomy.TheLegoMovieattemptstoillustratethispossibilitythroughthepowerofresistance,embodiedintheforcesofcreativityand imagination. Since this power has been discovered in theordinary builder figure,which has absolutely nothing unique abouthim,theproducersarepossiblyimplyingthateachofuscandiscoversimilar power within. The message is controversial, since it isdeliveredby theLegobrick.Unconsciously,weare reminded that apopular brand has tools, i.e. plastic building blocks, to awaken ourcreativity.


69

ByaseriesofunfortunateeventsEmmetisnamedthe"SpecialOne"andbecomestheonlyhopeof,whatseemstobe,afreespiritedundergroundmovement to liberate theworld fromtheruleofLordBusiness. However, since he, as many others in Lord Business’sworld, was suppressed and controlled for so long, Emmet isstrugglingtodiscovertheneededqualitiesofresistancewithin.Whenhe enters the colorful Lego world “Cloud Cuckoo Land”, Emmetcannotbelievetherearenosignsandnoinstructions.Heexclaimsinastonishment:“nosignsoranything.Howdoesanyoneknowwhattodo? There is no government, no bedtimes, no frowny faces, nonegativity of any kind”. Resistance is constantly suppressed by theculture industry through repetitiveness, sameness, and theubiquityofmassculture,whichensuresautomatizedreactionsbyindividualsandreducesthepossibilityofanyopposition.

Shortlybeforehisdeath,Adornowithdrewthecritiqueoftheculture industry’smanipulation and complete commercialisation. Inresponse to the critical theory of the Frankfurt school, Marxistsattempted to prove the limitedness of the culture industry’sexploitation and claimed that resistance is always alive amongaudiences.However,todojusticetoAdorno’spositionregardingtheculture industry’s domination, historical circumstances must betakenintoconsiderationtobetterunderstandhistheoreticalstance.AfterfleeingGermanyfromtheNazisregime,hebecamepessimisticinwitnessingtheproductionofmasscultureintheUnitedStates.OneofhisstudentsnotedafterAdorno’sdeath:

"Adorno's negation of late capitalist society has remainedabstract,closingitselftotheneedforthespecificityofthedeterminatenegation, thatdialecticcategoryof theHegel-Marx tradition to which Adorno had always been greatlyindebted. In his last work, Negative Dialectics, historicalmaterialism'sconceptofpraxis isno longerquestioned interms of social change in its concrete historical forms,bourgeois forms of communication and proletarian formsof organization. The withering of the class struggle ismirrored in his critical theory as the atrophy of thematerialistconceptionofhistory”(Huyssen,6).

Despite the critique of “total negation”, manipulation of theculture industry still endures. The exploitation, control anddominationbyLordBusinessisanillustrationofthecontrolthatthecultureindustryexercisesundermonopolycapitalism.


70

As a viewer later learns in the movie, Lord Businessrepresents a real person: a father, a man, a businessman whosehobbyistocollectLegobricks.HedoesnotlethissonplaywiththeenormouscollectionofLegosinthebasementand,similarlytoLordBusiness, seeks tokeep thesetsas theyare.The fatherand thesonfinally rediscover their connection when both find their mutualinterestinthegamewithLegobricks.Whilethelattermayimplytheproducers’ intention to encourage kids be creative, the message iscontroversial. A prerequisite for a parentand child bond, free playand imagination appears to be a tiny Lego brick. It is both theliberation from the culture industry hegemony and furtherintegration by the use of its products. The latter has workedphenomenally: after the movie's release, sales of Lego setsskyrocketedandthedemandforreplicasofLegoworldsinthemovieincreasedsignificantly.Itisasifthemovie“prescribedeachreaction,notthroughanyactualadherence—whichcollapseonceexposedtothought — but through signals” (Adorno, 52). Lego bricks havebecomethatsignaltoconsumemore.

Althoughpromotingaway toemancipation, themoviescriptdoesnotreallyanticipateanypossibilityofsuchfreedomintherealworld. Created to increase the capital of both the entertainmentbusinessand thecorporation, themoviearguablydoesnotexpectaviewertoseekliberationfromcapitalistforces,buthopesforfurtherintegrationofhimorherand furtherdominationof the industry. Intheend, theaudience isbeingcontrolledby theverysame industrythatLordandMillersosarcasticallycriticize.AsAdornostates: “theculture industry remains the entertainment business. Its control ofconsumers is mediated by entertainment, and its gold will not bebrokenbyanythingwhichismorethanitself”(Adorno,51).

TheDevelopmentoftheLEGOBrandandItsRepresentationintheMovie

The Lego Movie is more than just a family movie. It is ademonstrationof increasedprofitsandpopularityofLegoproducts.Lego is not only offered to consumers through the screen, butimprintedontheirmindsasabrand,whichfindsitsembodimentinarange of products worldwide. The brand’s global presence isillustrative of the direction that the culture industry is taking ingeneral.Globalcultureindustrytakesovertheworldofcreativityandimaginationwiththeforceof“thingification”(LashandLury,2007).


71

Itssourceisthebrandwhichisalwaysaliveandcomesintobeinginavarietyofways(ibid.).

While the movie is a perfect example of how the cultureindustry influences its consumers, the development of the branditself illustrates the growth of that influence over the years.Therefore,itmakessensetolookintohowtheLegobrandbeganandwhatithasbecome.

Similarly to many global corporations in the cultural andentertainment spheres, LEGO started as a small company. It waslaunchedasawoodentoyproducerinDenmark,wherethecompanyacquired thenameofLEGO(thewords “leg”and “godt”mean “playwell”inDanishwhilethewordLEGOmeans“Iputtogether”inLatin(Lauwaert, 222)). With the introduction of new materials andmanufacturing practices, LEGO switched from timber to plastic andwitnessedachangeininteractionbetweentheproductsandchildren.Plastic figures were easier to put together and the flexibility ofconnectingthemexpandedtheenddesignsfurther.

In 1970s the Lego brick was a simple construction block. Ithad a simple shape, it was easy to connect and it had a fewmaincolors:green,red,brown,blue.Childrenwereabletomakeanythingtheywantedandbuildanyconstruction thatcame into theirminds.TheLegobrickwasachild’stoy,whichallowedhisindividuality,hisuniqueness,hisideasandatrulychildishgametoshinethrough.Asaconstructiontoyitofferedundisruptiveplayfordaysbycreatingnewstories over and over again. In The Lego Movie these bricks arebroughtbacktothescreenasthemainconstructionmaterialof”TheOldWest”.ItdoesnotonlysignifytheolddaysofsimpleLegobricks,which required imagination to be constructed in certain ways, butalsoprovidesaglimpseoftheauthenticcowboyandsalooncultureofAmerica.IntheearlyyearsofLegotoyschildrenwereonlyrestrictedbytheamountsofbrickstheyhad,notbytheinstructionleafletoranimageonthebox.Itispossiblethattheworldof“TheOldWest”istheproducers’ expostulation to the LEGO Group for causing certaincreativity stagnation in the form of a simple child’s play withconstructiontoys.

“The rationality of the Lego system is shocking. You cannotbuild an irregular construction from these blocks, or somethingshapeless,therewillalwayshavetobearightanglesomewhere.Youcanonlydowhattherationalsystemallowsyoutodo.Whatismore,


72

theoretically everyone can build whatever he or she want, but inpracticeyoubuildwhatisshownonthebox”(Varul,4).

Aviewer ispresentedwithpre-existingLegocharacterswhohave their own characteristics, traits and pre-defined roles. Theserestrictchildrenindevelopingtheirownstorywiththeirownuniquecharactersinit.Achildplayingwithan“Emmetttoyisgenerallytiedto thepersonalityTheLegoMoviehasalreadygiven them;childrenare unable to invent a new character for themselves, and thereforeareunabletopracticegenuineoriginalityandcreativity”(Treece,12).With pre-dispositioned traits and set narratives the world ofimaginationisbeingrecreatedintotheworldofapre-designedstory.Imagination “is replaced by a mechanically relentless controlmechanism which determines whether the latest imago to bedistributedreallyrepresentsanexact,accurateandreliablereflectionoftherelevantitemofreality”(Adorno,64).

As a global corporation, the LEGO Group has gone throughmany transformations.Mostof themhavebeenmarket, technology,anddigitalmediadriven.TheLegobrickhasbeenchallengedtomeetmanyneeds;atoy,acomputergame,adesigner’sand/orarchitect’stool,amovieproducer’smedium,etc.Theubiquitouspresenceofthebrandinsomanyaspectsofchildren’slivespointtonothinglessthan“hyper-commercialization of children’s culture which among othereffects,hasseriouslyerodedthecreative, imaginativedimensionsofchildren’s play” (Gunster, 791). LEGO company is not only a toymanufactureranymore; theyhavewoventhewebof internetmediaplatforms, educational programs, theme parks, souvenirs, pens,books,clothing,etc.ReferencetotheGlobalcultureindustrymadebyLashandLury cannotbemoreprecise.The followingquotedefinesthescopewell:

“TheLEGOGrouphas theworld’sbiggest subscription-basedclubforboys,with4.2millionmembersin14countries.Wewanttohelptheseusersbecomeclosertothecompanyandincreasetheiruseoftheproduct.So,welaunchedLEGOM.B.A.,thatis,theLEGOmasterbuilding academy. This is intended to help the kids become betterbuilders and learn more about the brand. If you’re really into theLEGObrandthat’sjustthecoolestthing”(Kalcher,10).

ItisobviousthattheLegobrandhasobtainedglobalpresenceand is undeniably enjoying its benefits. Starting as a toy anddevelopingintoalifestyleforchildrenandgrown-ups,itisnolonger


73

truly promoting free play and creativity. The Lego Movie is justanotherwaytowintheheartsofmoreconsumers.

DubiousMessageoftheLegoMovie

The culture industry is aimed at creating false needs and falsesolutions.TheLegoMovieproducers’intenttofosterimaginationandindividuality cannotbe readilyapplied in real life.Emmet isable toconquer his solitude and unshackle the autocratic rule of LordBusiness; however, this seems to be easily applicable only in theworld of Lego bricks. Moreover, the movie does not suggest anytangible solutions, which could be applied by its viewers fightingsimilar demons in real life, unless one is able to buy preposterousamounts of Lego bricks and start constructing the Lego worlds. Itcould arguably be said that the culture industry “is leading theperplexed, it deludes them with false conflicts which they are toexchange for their own.” (Horkheimer and Adorno, 17). Althoughthis is not to claim thatTheLegoMovie is “deluding audiencewithfalse conflicts”. It could genuinely be offering a solution to escapeinfluences of the culture industry through reason, reflexivity andimagination.Nevertheless,itoffersthesolutionstotheconflicts“onlyin appearance in away that they canhardly be solved in their reallives” (Adorno, 17). The individuality that the movie seeks topromote is questionable as well. What exactly do we define asindividualisticintermsofthecommoditybymassorpopularculture?“The culture industry can only manipulate individuality sosuccessfullybecausethefracturednatureofsocietyhasalwaysbeenreproducedwithin it” (DurhamandKellner, 64).Themovie createsfake identities and the promise of individuality which is centeredaround one resource— the Lego brick. As long as the boy’s fatherallows him to use his expensive collection of Lego bricks he canindulge in a free play. It seems that none of these desired andemancipatory traits exist outside the Legoworld unless you own aLegoset.

LordandMiller,directorsofthemovie,refutetheintentiontopromote Lego products to the viewers. The movie, however, ,isentirely built around their use. Even audiencemembers who werenotfamiliarwithLegoproductsbeforegetacquaintedthrougheasilyidentifiablemoviecharactersandminifiguresembodying them. It isas if Adornohadpredicted it: “advertising and the culture industryaremergingtechnicallynolessthaneconomically.Inboth,thesame


74

thing appears in countless places, and themechanical repetition ofthe same culture product is already that of the same propagandaslogan”(Adorno,69).Bothproducersmeantthemovietobeasatire—laughingattheeffectsthecultureindustryexertsonmasses.Stilltheymakeamockeryof themselvesbycritiquingthesameindustrytheyserve.ThelaughterisreallylaughteratthemselvesorasAdornowouldputit“thereislaughterbutthereisnothingtolaughat”(140).

WhiletheproducersjustifytheutilisationofLegoproductsintheproductionasbeing“cool”mediumstotellthestory,thissoundspreposterous. It is similarly difficult to believe that the producersdenytheintentiontocritiqueconsumerculture,corporatepowerandculture industries. If the producers only needed a fun and coolmedium to engage the viewers and keep them entertained, it isconcerning that they were not able to foresee the effects of theculture industry inscribed in the storyline. It is not the aim of thispaper to dispute the real intent of the producers and probablyneither the production company, nor the corporation can beunconditionallyblamedforcreatingbinaries thatarequitecommonin themedia. The paper is questioning themediumused, the ideasdepictedandthemessagethatthemoviesendstotheaudiences.Thelogicsofthecultureindustryarestillanalyticallythesame.Themindannihilating effect of the movie removes the ability to reflect andresisttheinfluenceofthecultureindustry.

FutureofCultureIndustriesandGlobalization

Despite the discussed controversy, The Lego Movie serves as anepitome to the culture industry. It is a great embodiment of thecritical ideas Horkheimer and Adorno introduced in their seminalessay. The homogeneity, conformity, commodification and mindnumbingeffectsof culturalproducts cannotbedenied.TheirabilitytocompletelydestroyanyindividualityandreasonhasalreadybeenwithdrawnbyAdornohimselfandthus,canprobablyonlystayasanillustrationofsucheffectinTheLegoMovie.Nevertheless,theresultof increased activity in online forums and launch of new onlineplatforms is obvious. Similarly, users’ interaction with the mediaproduced commodities has already been witnessed. We are facingchanges in the culture industries, which not only acquired a pluralform, but are alsomore frequently labelled as “creative industries”.Thelattershiftthefocustode-commodificationwhencertainculturalgoods are identified containing public value. Socio-technical


75

possibilities have opened the stage for a completely differentinteractionandco-creationbytheaudience.Culture industrieshavealso expandedoutside thebordersof theWesternworld.Thewaysthrough which the culture industry exerts influence on consumersare possibly the reasons why it has been transformed to Globalculture industry(LashandLury,2007).LashandLuryclaimthat inGlobalcultureindustrythemediabecomethings.Weliveinaworldwheremedia is operational. In this environmentwedo thingswithmedia and throughmedia. Cultural commodities are no longer justthe products of the culture industry. They have become things ofexperienceanddifference—brands.Mediaasmedium“hasbecomematter and matter has become image: things and things media”(LashandLury,9).Thecultureindustryisshiftingfromhomogeneityto major heterogeneity, however not in a positive sense. Globalindustriesaresearchingformarketnichesanddifferenceswhichcanbe offered to consumers as their ultimate satisfaction of becomingcreative individuals.Culturalproduction toolshold thepotential forcommunication,collaborationandemancipation,butthispotentialisnowturnedagainstthe“powerofglobalandimperialcapital”(182).Theoretical debates on terminology and analysis of thetransformation in culturalenvironmentandwhat it entails requiresfurther analysis. Similarly, the relationships it constructs withaudiencesandconsequencesithasonpeopleneedtobethoroughlyexamined.

AsforTheLegoMovie,itisaperfectwaytodeliverthebrandto global audiences. While demonstrating the dangers we facesuccumbing to the influence of the culture industry, it is a vividrepresentation of it. The omnipresence of the brand has beenstrengthened with The Lego Movie release. The profits that thecorporation reapsareundeniable.Thus, it isdifficult to recognise apositiveeffectthatthemovieallegedlyhasonitsyoungeraudiences.Althoughwe can laugh at the stupidity ofminifigures in themovie,thescriptisactuallyreflectingourownworldanditsexperiences.Itis also disturbing that the individuality, creativity and non-conformismispromotedbytheproductofthesamecultureindustry,whichisnoneofthosethings.

References

Adorno,TheodorW.TheCultureIndustry.Florence,US:Routledge,2005.


76

Adorno, TheodorW., and JayM. Bernstein. The culture industry: Selectedessaysonmassculture.PsychologyPress,2001.

Adorno, Theodor W., and Anson G. Rabinbach. "Culture industryreconsidered."NewGermanCritique6(1975):12-19.

Adorno,TheodorW."TheCultureIndustry,ed.JMBernstein."(1991):12.

Andrae, Thomas. "Adorno on film andmass culture: The culture industryreconsidered."JumpCut20.1979(1979):34-3.

Bronner, Stephen Eric. Critical theory and society: A reader. PsychologyPress,1989.

Couldry,Nick,andAndreasHepp.Themediatedconstructionofreality.JohnWiley&Sons,2016.

Durham,Meenakshi Gigi, andDouglasM. Kellner, eds.Media and culturalstudies:Keyworks.JohnWiley&Sons,2009.

Fonnesbaek,Jeppe,andMortenMelbyeAndersen."Storyselling:howLEGOtoldastoryandsoldatoy."YoungConsumers6.3(2005):31-39.

Freyenhagen, Fabian. "Adorno’s critique of late capitalism: negative,explanatory, and practical." (2012): 175-192.Gauntlett, David. "TheLEGO System as a tool for thinking, creativity, and changing theworld."LEGOStudies:ExaminetheBuildingBlocksofaTransmedialPhenomenon(2014):189-205.

Gunster,Shane.Capitalizingonculture:Critical theory forculturalstudies.UniversityofTorontoPress,2004.

Gunster, Shane. "Global Culture Industry: The Mediation of Things, ScottLash and Celia Lury, Malden MA: Polity, 2007, pp. 240." CanadianJournalofPoliticalScience41.03(2008):791-792.

Habermas, Jürgen. "Theodor Adorno: The Primal History of Subjectivity-Self-AffirmationGoneWild."JürgenHabermas,Philosophical-PoliticalProfiles,trad.FrederickG.Lawrence,London:Heinemann(1983):99-109.

Highfield, Vaughn. "LEGO’s Community Does All the Marketing itNeeds."Http://www.totalcustomer.org/2014/07/07/legos-community-marketing-needs/.N.p.,7July2014.Web.12Mar.2016

Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. "The culture industry:Enlightenment as mass deception."Media and cultural studies:Keyworks(2001):71-101.


77

Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment.SeaburyPress,1972.

Hughes, Zachary, and Jonathan Ascencio. "Poster: The Building Blocks ofHegemonicRepresentation."(2014).

Huyssen, Andreas. "Introduction to Adorno." New German Critique 6(1975):3-11.

Kalcher,Conny."Engagingconsumers:BuildingtheLegobrandandcultureonebrickatatime."(2012).

Lash, Scott, and Celia Lury. "Global culture industry: The mediation ofthings."Historian403(2007).

Lauwaert,Maaike."Playingoutsidethebox–onLEGOtoysandthechangingworld of construction play." History and Technology 24.3 (2008):221-237.

Odgren,Elissa. "LearningHowtoBuildCommunityWithoutFollowing theInstructions."PopularCulture asPedagogy. SensePublishers (2015):31-48.

Roberts, Nathan. "Playing with Lord Business: Structure, Bricolage, and"The Lego Movie" (2014)."Academia.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar.2016.

Rowsell, Jennifer,andDebraHarwood."“LetItGo”:ExploringtheImageofthe Child as a Producer, Consumer, and Inventor." Theory IntoPractice54.2(2015):136-146.

Ringen,Jonathan."HowLegoBecametheAppleofToys."FastCompany192(2015).

Schultz,Majken,andMaryJoHatch."Thecyclesofcorporatebranding:Thecase of the LEGO company." California Management Review 46.1(2003):6-26.

Treece,Jordan."TheDouble-SidedMessageofTheLegoMovie:TheEffectsofPopularEntertainmentonChildreninConsumerCulture."(2015).

Varul, Zick Mathias. "The Lego Movie as Consumer-Capitalist Myth: TheCultural Tragedy of Production and the Expropriation of theBrickolariat."The Lego Movie as Consumer-Capitalist Myth: TheCultural Tragedy of Production and the Expropriation of theBrickolariat.N.p.,Oct.2014.Web.16Mar.2016.


78

Wolf, Mark JP. LEGO Studies: Examining the Building Blocks of aTransmedialPhenomenon.Routledge,2014.

politics of bricolage and the double-sided message of the ... · the truth that they are just...

Documents