Modern Times features Chaplin as a factory worker. His job is nothing more than just standing in an assembly line to wrench bolts on pieces of product. As I watch the first two clips of the film, I can see its connections with Braverman (and his discussion on Taylor's principle). The division of labor in detail, described by Braverman, is clearly shown in this movie. Neither Chaplin nor the other workers have the skills to make the whole product, what they know is just the tiny bits that they do on every working day. The man in suit is the one who gets to make the important decision such as to decide the speed of the conveyor belt, but he is not the one who actually pulls the lever to adjust the speed. This is the Taylor's second principle, the separation of conception from execution. By practicing Taylor's principle, the management gain control over the workers. I wonder how much the workers in Modern Times are being paid; but I bet it's not that much. How much do you expect to earn by doing such simple tasks. The workers cannot demand for higher wages or extra lunch hours since they have no or very little skills. And if they dare to do that, they'll lose their job to someone else.
Since it is a mute film, I find it hard to tell whether Chaplin's character really has gone mad or people just misinterpreted his extreme action when he's letting himself being pulled through the gears of the enormous machine just to tighten a bolt he missed as something abnormal. In whichever ways, it portrayed how desperate he is to do his job. Even if we thought of it as just wrenching bolts, it is more than that to him. I wouldn't blame him, as the conveyor belt keeps moving at ever increasing speed, he's responsible to keep up or he'll lose the job. The scenes where Chaplin's character couldn't stop moving in repetitive motion, even during breaks, however funny to watch, is actually a way to demonstrate how damaging the science of mass production under capitalism could be. Repetitive strain injuries, boredom, and de-skilling of workers are just to name a few. Is there any way we can change these scenario?
2 comments:
Although the silent movie was comical, it is a great example of what we talked about in class regarding the division of labor. All of the workers have their one skill to get done and nothing else. The division between the factory workers and the upper management is evident. The workers have a rough work environment and must fulfill their task. If they fail to do so they can be replaced in a heartbeat because the level of skill to do their job is very low making any other potential worker a perfect substitute. The people of the upper-management didn’t look like they had to do much. The man on the monitor seemed to just sit in his office and did not seem like he was doing too much work, except lecturing factory workers for not working hard enough or taking too long on their bathroom or lunch breaks (which didn’t seem like much time to do either). Of course the workers cannot argue or complain for they are on the lower end of the spectrum and like I said can be replaced instantly. But I doubt that this is much of a trend anymore. In class we talked about how it is a common trend now-a-days for companies to deskill their workers by replacing their hands with their heads. Everything is done by machines now and people are rarely twisting bolts on an assembly line. Yet I’m sure it is still the same for the people now who push buttons on computers instead of working on assembly lines. They are still easily replaceable but just don’t have the manual labor that people like Charlie Chaplan in the movie had.
I agree with you. However, I would like to add up some of my opinions. During watching this movie, I could also see its connection with Sara Baase's A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computing and the Internet regarding employee monitoring. Baase wrote," [i]n some of the accounts of the worst conditions in factories.., bosses patrolled the aisles watching workers, prodding them to work faster and discouraging conversation and breaks (Baase 88)" This sentence clearly describes the condition in the Modern Times, where Chaplin was having a short rest in the toilet and smoked cigarettes. But, in a few seconds, his employer scolded him and forced him to continue his work. This clearly shown that Chaplin had his right as a worker being violated as one cannot perform a certain job constantly without taking a time-out. As a result, Chaplin acting awkwardly, which he kept doing the same thing all every single day. Also, as the employer wanted to maintain the M-C-M' paradigm, which illustrates the concept of capitalism, the efficiency of the operation of the factory, was monitored quite a few times. Indeed, the technology such as machine helps to increase the effectiveness of product-making, yet it does not mean that the technology itself making the worker's life easier. The workers' horsepower is still needed to operate the machine and the machine itself has its own limit to do work. If the worker did not meet the employer's satisfaction, they will be scolded or else, they will be terminated instantly. However, this movie could not be compared utterly with today's situation because I do not think that any worker is required to tighten the bolt as it can be done by the machines that are way effective that it used to. But again, this movie is one of the best ways to represent the reality of worker's world.
Post a Comment