Heather Warner
Oct. 23, 2000
Economics in Film
(Economics 100 (02))
Professor Gabriel
John Sayles uses the movie Men
With Guns to demonstrate the economic system of feudalism.
I have covered this economic system in depth in a previous essay
where I compared capitalism and feudalism (see my essay "Matewan
and Norma Rae-Feudalism and Capitalism: Examined").
However, to further enforce the ideas of what a feudalist system
"requires" and entails many of the concepts presented
in my earlier essay will be readdressed, while using examples
of the circumstances and events presented in this film: Men
With Guns.
Men With Guns contains
in it many of the essential ingredients for a feudalist economy,
some being more explicitly demonstrated than others, but important
and evident all the same. In a feudalist society, distinction
between private rights and public authority oftentimes disappeared
and local control tended to become a personal matter. Feudal leaders
often took over the responsibility for the economic security of
"their" territories and dictated how resources were
to be produced and used. There was also generally a contract of
some sort between the workers and the bosses, such that the bosses
could then more easily count on the "faithfulness" and
obedience of the workers. Under a feudalist system, the bosses
are able to exhibit hegemonic power over the workers as the workers
have few options or choices. As this film demonstrates, workers
can either work, starve, and or be killed. There are really no
other good alternatives, and thus the bosses can extract all monopoly
rent and continue to exercise feudal exploitation. This absence
of "free choice" is one of the most essential ingredients
in separating feudalism from other types of systems, such as capitalism.
Another characteristic of feudalism is that those in charge often
hired other individuals to enforce their established rules and
to keep the workers under control (for example Knights).
Many of the above stated characteristics
are present in Men With Guns. However, it must be mentioned
that Sayles chose to focus less on the actual production processes
involved in feudalism (as he did in Matewan), and instead
give the viewer a more in-depth sense of the conditions that push
people into the feudalist system and how it can be perpetuated.
Through the viewing of the individuals in the movie and the situations
that they are forced to withstand and endure, the audience is
able to grasp a deep understanding for the feudalist system that
is in place and at work. The audience sees the workers throughout
all scenes of the movie. The workers are the plantation workers:
"Sugar People," "Corn People," "Coffee
People," "Banana People," "Gum People,"
etc… We are also shown the various people who are there trying
to help the workers: images of the seven doctors trained by Dr.
Humberto, Dr. Humberto Fuentes himself, the priest, etc…
We also even see the enforcers
of all the rules. These enforcers of the rules are the "men
with guns" and are in a sense the hired "Knights."
It is the plantation owners (and company owners, who purchase
the crops harvested and finished goods produced from these harvested
crops), both groups being the real perpetuators of this feudalist
system (the "feudal lords"), who are absent from direct
view. However, the viewer is constantly reminded of their role
in this system, for it is the plantation owners who "employ"
the workers and hire the enforcers as well. In keeping out of
direct sight, the plantation owners can keep their hands "clean"
of the real "dirty work" that is required to keep the
current system functioning smoothly and without conflict evoked
by the workers themselves.
Doctor Humberto Fuentes comes
face to face with this brutal system as he leaves his sheltered
life in the city. He is forced to change his naïve, ignorant
sentiments and thoughts as he travels in the harsh country in
search for the students whom he had taught for "The Program"
(to work in impoverished native villages). It would seem that
those all too horrible, gruesome stories reported in the media
and spoken of by the American tourists, did indeed happen in his
country, and not "elsewhere" as he originally chose
to believe. The Doctor learns, as does the viewer, that the military
terrorizes the laborers, and depends on this type of force and
violence to retain their dominance and as a way to make and coerce
the laborers into continued work. The "men with guns"
are there to serve the plantation owners, as they move the Indians
not working for the plantation owners off any and all good, fertile,
arable land. They also rape the peasants, destroy their villages,
and kill many of them to keep them constantly in fear and to prevent
any rebellion. Yet, the plantation owners are the only employers
in the country (away from the city), and thus to work (and "survive")
one must work on some sort of plantation under the rule of the
plantation owners. Not to work would ultimately, and probably
more immediately, mean death. Furthermore, the prices paid (wages)
to the workers for their labor are so low, that the workers are
forced to work harder, longer hours than seems reasonable, merely
so that they can survive and purchase the food necessary to keep
from starving to death.
Again, the "men with
guns" are there to instill fear into the workers, and they
certainly do an exceptional job of it. The "men with guns"
are everywhere, and kill often and without sympathy. They kill
to set an example and to prevent the plantation workers from trying
to disrupt the system that is in place and working to the advantage
of the plantation owners-those in charge. The methods of killing
mentioned and displayed in the movie are brutal and extremely
gruesome: such as cutting off limbs, burning people alive, gunning
them down from helicopters, and so on. The "men with guns"
want to set an example, and to instill in the workers' minds visions
which will never disappear. It is through the killings and other
violent acts that they are able to do this. The "men with
guns" then leave the bones and skeletal remains exposed to
the elements for all to see (they refuse to allow them to be buried);
again to set an example and to prevent any possibility of future
incidents from occurring. The audience sees this as a child in
the film tells the Doctor, "It's where they take you when
you graduate."
This violence is seen as necessary for a number of reasons. For
one, to instill fear and prevent disobedience. And secondly, it
is believed that without violence the peasants would not work.
Incentive to work is lacking, as the workers themselves don't
see the rewards of their labor. Furthermore, the peasants can
barely survive off of what minimal amount they are given in return
for their labor. They are virtually starving to death, and yet
not to work would surely mean death in some form or another. They
will die of starvation or from being killed if they do not work.
Therefore, they work for "economic" reasons as well
as for reasons of safety. We see the guerillas and the Army throughout
the entire film. There is no way to escape coming into contact
with them, and they are always there to terrorize the laborers
and others who try to try to escape.
Furthermore, anyone who tires
to help the Indians is viewed as a threat to the system and the
profits that are being made. This is why all of the doctors, priests,
and teachers, etc… are killed. This is not to say that they
were killed just for explicitly talking negatively about the economic
and social system in place at that time (we have no evidence of
the conversations that were had). But instead these "outsiders"
were automatically perceived as a threat because they were not
under the direct control of those in charge of the system. Furthermore,
so long as the Indians and peasants were kept ignorant of any
and all choices that they might potentially have, and or kept
unaware of the fact that they were being exploited, they were
much easier to control. Under these circumstances they knew that
they had to survive, and the only way to do that was by working
under the harsh conditions that the plantation owners had instituted.
The lack of choice is visible
everywhere in the film. The workers must slave day in and day
out on the plantations because their only other choice is to starve.
They could try to escape but many attempts are unsuccessful and
they end up being killed. Also, there is apparently a rumor about
a refugee camp way up in the mountains, but as many do not know
exactly where to find the "Cerca de Cielo" this doesn't
seem a viable choice or realistic alternative. One point in the
movie when the audience is shown the lack of choices available
to the people is with the "Corn People." The "Corn
People" in the movie have the following three choices: They
can either fight back and be slaughtered, run away and be slaughtered,
or sacrifice the men on the Commandante's list and hope that their
village will be spared the brutality that was inflicted on the
other nearby villages. Are these really choices? I do not think
so. Death occurs in every instance. Interestingly, even the very
"men with guns" themselves, who are hired to enforce
the rules any way possible, don't appear to have much of a choice.
They either act as the violent enforcers or they too will be working
on the plantations or starving to death, as outside forces could
probably easily be brought in to replace them.
The man who deserted the Army
and who travels with Doctor Humberto through much of the movie,
shows his dismay of the "Cerca de Cielo" when they arrive
and find that it doesn't have much to offer. He can't believe
that "this is it," and he hopes that if they keep traveling
they will find the real, correct place that they have been searching
for. One can see how it will take time to adjust to, as it doesn't
seem to be an ideal way of life either-although better than being
at gun point day in and day out. Again, however, still not much
of a choice.
The only way to break free
of these horrible conditions, and this apparent terrible system,
would have been if they could have broken the power and apparent
monopoly of the plantation owners. Or perhaps they could have
broken free if they could somehow have loosened the control of
the owners over the enforcers, and in turn the workers, that was
necessary to maintain feudalism. However, it does not appear that
this was going to occur anytime soon. The plantation owners through
the use of the "men with guns" had instilled such fear
in the workers and other inhabitants that they all appeared to
live as subservient people just trying to keep themselves from
being killed. Any type of community, democracy, collusion, or
cooperation was destroyed by the Army as soon as it was "spotted"
so that the chances of the feudalist system being disrupted were
minimized. This is shown with the destruction of the community
of the "Corn People," as well as with the other villages.
Doctor Humberto Fuentes said
at one time, "Bacteria and ignorance are your worst enemies."
He couldn't have been more on target. That is to say, the ignorance
of many people living outside of this system certainly did nothing
to help the peasant, plantation workers. Nor did the ignorance
of those who had to work on the plantations. They were never given
the chance to gain new knowledge of how they were being exploited
because as mentioned, all those who tried to help them were killed.
Yet, without proper knowledge over their situation, they never
could have hoped to escape out of the system and into a better
life.
Taking a moment to reflect back on the two movies: Matewan
and Norma Rae, one will remember how it took the help of
an outside "force" to help establish a union. Through
the help of the outsider and the formation of the union, workers
were made aware of their rights. Yet, if the union had been absent,
one might be able to conclude that there would not have been any
hope of changes being made to better their conditions, as workers.
Furthermore, unfortunately even with the formation of the union
nothing is guaranteed. We see this in Matewan where the
union was apparently unsuccessful in its mission. In Norma
Rae we, as the viewers, can only hope that the established
union would in the end prove to be successful.
From all of this, therefore,
we can assume that with nothing whatsoever in place, and thus
the lack of information for the workers in Men With Guns,
the workers would instead have to continue living a life without
much choice under the feudalist system that was in place. Their
choices being: starvation, being murdered, or living alone in
the wilderness deprived of any of their traditional commodities,
accustomed standard of living, or cherished culture. Unfortunately,
many conditions presented in this film are still occurring and
evident today.