Why do so many American movies have a socialist slant ?

Why do so many American movies have a socialist slant ?

What I mean by this is in about 90% of American movies the main antagonistic force is either a very rich man or some sort of big corporation and the hero is always the little guy.

Why is there such an anti-capitalist message in so many American movies ?

Because who wants to see a film where the big powerful hero kicks the s*** out of some poor nice guy in a wheel chair. Think about it.

General reminder to everyone commenting in this thread to try to keep the question as much about movies as possible; it can't/shouldn't become a proxy for political arguments. Thank you in advance.

Anyway, I'll give two reasons, one that accepts your premise and one that slightly disagrees with:

1) Hollywood is, I think everyone would agree, pretty liberal. It's natural and expected that films will mostly skew left, then, whether you think that's good or bad.

2) The semi-disagree part is that films about underdogs are popular, which means powerful institutions are often going to be hurdles and things to overcome (villains aren't scary if they're not powerful, and not every villain can have superpowers or ridiculous abilities, so structural power is going to be involved a lot). Lots of films, in keeping with this, are also just about powerful agencies or governments, too.

It's not a socialist thing... it's an underdog thing.
People like to see the underdog win. It gives an air of hope and purpose to the escapism of the movie.

Edit: Maybe this is why There Will Be Blood was such a breath of fresh air.
He's a capitalist, totally hellbent on destroying everyone around him, walking over the little-guy... and you actually root for him

__________________

So, I mentioned the first point because "underdog" works against government, too, or organizations that aren't so explicitly business-oriented. That's the part that I think is fair to ask, and fair to attribute to Hollywood's collective ideological leanings, which again, I assume are not really controversial.

Do you really root for him ? Maybe in the beginning of the movie but definitely not towards the end. At least for me personally. He’s definitely an anti-hero not a hero, not that anti-heroes can’t be likeable and relatable. But Day-Lewis’ character doesn’t really come across as that. At least to me personally.

Anyway, it’s too complex a movie to really root for one side against an other. This post is referring to movies with more straightforward ‘good’ and ‘bad’.

You can think that capitalism is great but still acknowledge that large corporations and/or very wealthy people are capable of doing a tremendous amount of harm.

Like, imagine a large corporation was dumping toxic chemicals in away that did damage to the environment and the health of the people in the area . . . oh, wait.

Sorry. Imagine that a company developed a drug that was highly addictive and they knew it was addictive but still pushed to have it widely prescribed despite the huge toll on health and human life. . . oh, wait.

Most people have had experiences going up against a larger entity and the frustration that entails. As many people have mentioned, it's easy to root for an underdog.

I'm also not sure that I totally agree with the premise. Pointing out the flaws and abuses of large corporations/entities is not the same as endorsing socialism.

Robocop doesn't end with Robocop distributing OCP's assets to the masses.

I get the OP's point... just think he used the wrong term

In terms of the OP... socialism is like, everyone is equal, nobody has more than someone else. Money or whatever.
Everyone has the same.
That's kinda how I see it anyways. Probably wrong but not getting into a political argument over it

---

But, in terms of the OP...

Hollywood likes the underdog.
The underdog is the small guy. The little-person.
Oppressed, held down... held back... and the antagonist being a big corporation or conglomerate... maybe the government or a system of control that oppresses the People.
Maybe a system that lies to the People.

Soylent Green.
The Matrix.
Bourne.
They Live.
Even the original Rambo First Blood.

The powers-that-be are either corrupt, or at least at a very basic level, they have something wrong with them.
Usually the powers-that-be also known they're in the wrong, but will do anything to hold onto their power, or maybe don't even realise it, and ignorantly stand fast in the belief they're actually in the right.

The little-guy stands against it. Stands against oppression... shows others there's a better way... and usually wins in the end.

The underdog trope... is a way of taking a relatable persona and making them the hero.
As the audience watches, they're in a world of escapism... and seeing someone who is, well, just like them, winning against a far greater and more powerful entity... or showing the oppressed that they are oppressed, and changing the world... gives the audience a sense of warmth.

Prime example is a line from LOTR throws it straight into your face:
"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future"
"Smallest" being literal in both senses.

Tolkien wrote the Hobbits, and Hobbiton, as middle England.
Small (literally and figuratively) and unassumingly quiet people... from a place that most of the world kinda ignores or doesn't even know exists... and these people have it in them to literally change the entire world.

I used "underdog" as a means of maybe steering the convo away from any political ramifications

But here’s the thing, doesn’t seeing evil corporations in every movie from birth give rise to dislike of corporations themself as an institution ?

Doesn’t looking up to the underdog working-class hero who rebels against the rich and powerful lead to a feeling that the working class should be uplifted and rise up as a whole ?

Yes. Life imitates art imitates life. Cultural norms and stories influence public opinion, and more importantly, they influence in a subtle, under-the-surface way, signaling which things are just obvious (which "everybody knows"), so they sometimes become accepted in ways overt arguments never could, because people are used to critiquing arguments before accepting them.

There's no escaping the fact that all art has the potential to be propaganda, and I think this is true whether we like the thing it's suggesting or not.

I think people inherently feel this way without movies needing to expound it tbh.
Look at Disney and how people view them these days after they bought like, 90% of the entertainment business.

Movies just know that people want to see the little guy as the hero.

There a few exceptions.
Batman and Iron Man for example.
They're the big guy. They are the conglomerate... but they work for the little guy... and that gives the audience the same sense of warmth... to know that there is a super power out there, watching out for the little guy.


Edit:
Also this:

I agree with @LordWhis here with what he said afterwards. I, for one, wasn't rooting for Plainview (or Eli for that matter), but I did find them both to be complex and interesting figures. To keep with the topic, they are both representations of structures (capitalism and religion) and in the end, both of them fail and fall into decay to some extent. In this case, the "underdog" or "little man" is H.W. who apparently manages to escape that structure.

__________________

Talk about jumping ahead of things Bravo, sir

I agree wholeheartedly.

But I will add that I don’t think HW was really a main character in the story. He was a foil to Day-Lewis’ character really.

On the other hand there is a movie that has a socialist kicking ass and he's in a wheelchair.

No, I don't think he was either. The focus is always Daniel, and that's one of the reasons why I think the film is so interesting. To have the focus and lead character to be this despicable human being, while not really providing a contrast for people to latch on, is quite a feat.

Now that’s just fun filmmaking

It's also worth noting that a lot of the time it's a single corrupt individual at the head of the company who is the real bad guy.

It might help if the OP could name some specific films that fit this "socialist" mold.

It seems to me that the message of many films isn't "corporations are bad" it's "evil corporations are bad". I think that many actions taken by corporations in films can be traced back to real things that companies have done in the past and it's not unnatural to have anxieties about the actions that a company will take if their main priority is making money: hiding unflattering medication trials, failing to address known safety issues, taking/using/selling data, and so on.

Having watched this film I was. . . underwhelmed.

I mean, it is hard to live up to that cover.

Do they though? American movies tend to be one person or a small team against all odds. They tend to focus on the triumph on the hero against a corporation or a totalitarian threat. Emmerich's movies, for example, have one guy saving his family in the face of an existential threat that the government is ignoring. I think they use some aesthetics of anti-corporatism, but in the end promote American individualism. The whole boostrap thing.

There's always a missing component of collective action in American media. There are no unions forming, no rallying of the population, none of that. I would consider all those more important to making socialist-themed stories.