MovieChat Forums > The Riot Club (2015) Discussion > Punishing the Thatcherite businessman - ...

Punishing the Thatcherite businessman - Marxist propaganda?

posted 9 years ago by JimBallard
9 replies | jump to latest

Spoilers included. This was a subtle point, but I think deliberate. The brutal treatment of the small businessman who takes the club's money rather than act on their behaviour could be seen as just desserts for a collaborator. Of course the writer wouldn't SAY this, but the message is there, nonetheless.

Is it Marxist propaganda? Not quite if the ending implies that certain people may be headed for punishment. It doesn't suggest the legal system is there to defend the interests of the wealthy. But then maybe he's likely to get off? And if he doesn't then it's just a matter of throwing one person to the Lions to buy off public outrage so things can continue as normal.

[–] JFMJJ88 9 years ago

To my knowledge Laura Wade is not a Marxist. She's a public figure so it shouldn't be hard to find out if you're interested.

[–] timlin-4 9 years ago

Any writer can be assumed to be a Marxist until proven otherwise

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

True, most writers by their very nature are more intelligent and thoughtful than the rest of society, so it logically stands to reason that a high proportion of them will be very left-of-centre in their political outlook.

[–] DeclanCochran 9 years ago

I hadn't considered that but that's a very interesting insight. I thought there seemed like there was a point being made by dwelling on the minutiae of this man's small business, and that's incredibly likely to be the point. In fact, I don't see how the film can't be a complete allegory for Thatcher's effect on the young and small businesses.

This doesn't mean that the film is Marxist propaganda though. There's more to the political divide than Marxism vs Thatcherism. Plenty of centrist liberals would argue that what Thatcher did was wrong. But I do think the film is undoubtedly left-wing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What would you do if I died today?

I'd die tomorrow.

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

I didn't. There is an argument which develops in the tutors office which displays a difference of opinion, even within the group.

I think it's just an observation of the habits of a small section of the community whose behaviour would outrage anyone, rich or poor, who was not directly connected with that class of people.

Do you really want them running your country? Because they do.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

Nonsense. The pub landlord was clearly portrayed in sympathetic terms. He's just like the vast majority of society, decent but sadly deferential to the elite, and scared of rocking the boat with the people who control the country.

Deference existed long before Thatcher, even if the latter exploited it to new extremes.

[–] jd-276 8 years ago

The publican is like most people: he lives on a margin so he has to accommodate them. If I could be allowed a couple of cliches here, it's a case of not biting the hand that feeds you while sticking your head in the lions mouth.

[–] katiekeene 8 years ago

If the premise of The Riot Club took place before the millennium it may have been relevant to today's UK class system. Nowadays you have other fish to fry in "Londistan."

Of course the 'elite still meet and eat' in posh clubs, etc., but your problem is not the upper class, per se, which is more effete than elite. With the rise of middle class millenniums attending public schools, private preps, Oxford and Cambridge, the upper class regimes - just as 19thC Victorians and Edwardians - are history.

The film is entertaining but the story is an anachronism in today's UK society. (Just as the U.S. is no longer predominantly WASP : "white-anglo-saxon-protestant.") Courses are taught in (euphemism) "diversity" textbooks and US history revised to incorporate everyone (e.g. the Broadway theatre hit,"Hamilton" cast are all African and Hispanic actors) and to assimilate the last twenty years of immigrants. It's a good thing because it's pragmatic and that's always been America's
philosophy.
Nevertheless, the rich got richer during the current administration.

[–] jd-276 8 years ago

You don't think it's particularly relevant? I'm interested because of the prevalence of Bullingdons in the current government (Cameron, Osborne and Boris, for starters). It's kind of interesting to know the world they came from...