On The Corruption of Film Culture: The Possibility of A Critical Theory of Film Through Adorno's Critique of The Culture Industry

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF ARTS AND LETTERS PAGE 1
On the Corruption of Film Culture:

The Possibility of a Critical Theory of
Film through Adorno’s Critique of the
Culture Industry
-------------
A Thesis
Submitted to
Faculty of Arts and Letters
University of Santo Tomas
-------------
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree,
Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy
-------------
By
DANE ARVEE PINEDA NAVARRO

April 2019
ABSTRACT
In this thesis, I discuss the possibility of an Adornoian critical theory of film

despite capitalism’s corruption and commodification of film. In the first part, I
elucidate the regressive effects of capitalist corruption on cultural goods,
particularly film, and the degradation of its emancipatory character. In the second,
I discuss Adorno’s philosophy regarding the arts and its position in society. In the
third, I elucidate his social philosophy and aesthetic theory to formulate an
Adornoian philosophy of film which is capable of immanently combating the ills
of the film culture imposed by the capitalist system. Ultimately, the goal of a critical
theory of film is to engender an emancipated cinema, free from the imposition of
capitalist influence.
Keywords: film, culture industry, aesthetic theory, Adornoian philosophy of film

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………2
CHAPTER I……………………………………………………………………….5
I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………5
II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ……………………………………………8
III. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………..9
A. Adorno on Pop Culture……………………………………………………..9
B. Adorno and the Avant-Garde’s on the Aura of the Arts…………………..11
C. Adorno and Benjamin on the Aura of the Arts……………………………12
IV. RESEARCH DESIGN........................................................................................15
CHAPTER II: ADORNO ON THE CAPITALIST CORRUPTION OF FILM
CULTURE……………………………………………………………………….17
I. The Arts and Its Fetishization…………………………………………………..18
II. Schematization of the Culture Industry………………………………………..24
III. The Capitalist Corruption of Film Culture……………………………………..26
A. The Repetition of Cinematic Schema……………………………………..27
B. The Rise of Fetishized Cinema……………………………………………29
CHAPTER III: ADORNO ON THE ARTS AND FILM……………………......32
I. Aesthetic Theory……………………………………………………………….33
A. Autonomy of the Art………………………………………………………33
B. Arts as a Catalyst for Social Change……………………………………...37

C. Arts as an Antithesis of the Empirical World……………………………..37
D. Adorno and the Cinema…………………………………………………...39
CHAPTER IV: ADORNOIAN PHILOSOPHY OF FILM……………………...44
I. Predominant Characteristics of Existing Films………………………………...45
A. Social Character of Films…………………………………………………50
II. The Immanent Character of Film……………………………………………...54
III. The Emancipated Cinema……………………………………………………..57
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION….61
I. Summary and Conclusion………………………………………………………61
II. Recommendation……………………………………………………………….69
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………..71
CHAPTER I
I. INTRODUCTION
Films, being a modern form of art, possess similar social and aesthetical
qualities with that of traditional art. Advanced capitalism commodified all forms of
art through the rise of the culture industry. Theodor Adorno argued in his essay on
the culture industry how capitalism further destroyed films’ epistemological
character through its extreme commercialization. He argues that arts in general;
film in particular, bear the capacity to emancipate and heighten the consciousness
of mankind to progress towards the liberation of the human spirit from ignorance
and apathy.
The corruption of the film culture occurred when films are commodified by
the capitalists by destroying their emancipatory force and the aesthetic value. The
great technological and socio-economic advancement engendered the emergence
of “Pop Culture,” along with the transformation of different arts including: music,
dance, and theatre. The combination of these arts gave birth to film as a form of
advanced art.
Film was drawn from past traditions of arts, particularly the fields of oral
traditions or storytelling; written traditions or literature; and visual traditions such
as theater. The historical background of film traces as far back at ancient Greek
theaters and dance, which had a considerable lot of similar components in the
present film world.

Film viewing has become one of the most sought after activity of the masses
ever since its popularization. It has become a primary theme for the leisure time of
the masses. The masses made use of film to enjoy, relax, and temporarily liberate
them from the harsh and time-constrained society. It is in the cinema where they
are able to be in an alternate universe where their only role is to view and consume
the images and the storyline of the film.
Furthermore, the aforementioned line of thinking corresponds with
Adorno’s critique of the culture industry. He is considered to be one of the most
prominent detractors of culture industry. He denounced the industry’s destructive
characteristic concerning the aura and consciousness of the arts. His discourse on
film in this thesis, in relation to the destructive character of the culture industry, is
entirely constrained to its aspect of production and function under capitalist system.
Furthermore, following Adorno’s arguments regarding the arts, commercialization
of film hinders cognitive activities and self-reflection of the consumers, by feeding
them a false sense of reality and artificial world which alienates them from the
empirical realities of the world, particularly the social issues surrounding him. This
temporary liberation from the social concerns traps man in an uncritical state of
cognition.
Nevertheless, film is an excellent tool for the cultivation of the masses and
educating them, especially in relation to social issues. Through a cinematic
experience and portrayal of social dilemmas, the masses can critically engage with
the film where they are able to philosophize and rationalize the social issues it
showcases. A film can serve as an alternative view of the world, with the lenses
acting as its eyes, capturing what the human fails to perceive.

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The aim of this study is to formulate a philosophy of film in accordance
with Theodor Adorno’s critical theory, that combats the regressive effects of the
capitalist system to the art of cinema and uphold the emancipatory characteristic of
film as a tool for mass enlightenment. The main question of this research is: “How
does Adornoian critical theory of film counter the corruption of film culture and
aesthetics?” Moreover, it aims to address the following sub-questions:
1. How does capitalism corrupt film culture according to Adorno?
2. What is his aesthetic theory?
3. How does Adornoian film philosophy offer ways to antagonize
capitalism?
III. LITERATURE REVIEW
III.A Adorno on Pop Culture
Traditional music and high European culture were at the core of Theodor
Adorno's philosophy. In his critiques of the culture industry, he demanded high
standards concerning arts. He deemed arts as a representation of one’s culture and
tradition. He does not only see art simply as an object of representation but it is also
a matter of ethical quality and social consciousness. For him, the arts could either
create or discourage social advancement towards greater freedom. But under the
capitalist system, that advancement was constrained by the delimiting influence of
commodification.
Pop culture is a product of the capitalists’ domination of high culture; a
metamorphosis of high arts into varying forms of mass art. It is a profit driven
industry that rides on several forms of art to fulfill its goal of acquiring wealth from
the masses through the use of cultural products. It drowned our consciousness
through our immersion with the world it dominates. The intense influence of this
capitalist scheme on our consciousness denied us of our freedom and curved us to
comply with its needs for profit. Even after all the degrading effects brought down
upon by the capitalists, arts ceaselessly denied these efforts to protect and uphold
its aesthetical value. Arts, even the advanced forms and the corrupted, strive to
fulfill its aesthetical and epistemological characteristic serving as a critique of the
empirical world it reflects. Nevertheless, he did not immediately reject all forms of
popular art; in fact he was very welcome with films produced by Charlie Chaplin
and the anarchistic humor of the Marx brothers.1 He discovered grave issues with
both – and these issues originate from his significant regard and interest for
pleasure, that stems out from his desire to achieve true enlightenment through
strong ethical concerns. Interesting as it may appear, his attacks against pop culture
are driven by the inclination to recognize and avoid obstacles to our enlightenment.
“What Adorno offers is not a judgment of taste but a theory concerning the moral
and political projects inhering in both ‘serious’ art and ‘popular’ art.”2
Adorno adored the talents of certain popular artists, however, sticking to his
philosophy, these talents do not have a place for his ideas, he argued that all that
truly matters is the purpose of the skill or talent and the significance it provides in
the attainment of the freedom. Pop culture isn't just a synthetic form of art (however
it is that, he asserts) yet a destructive form of art – it hinders genuine freedom. For
Adorno, this is about freedom in encountering, deciphering and understanding fine
arts. This freedom requires a fine art to give us existence to occupy it, and to
encounter it as a brought together entirety.
For Adorno, a grave degree of damage incurred by pop culture is the aggress
to our capacity to act freely. No space is left for customers to show 'critical thinking
and immediacy' – rather, they are cleared along in a progression of predictable
1
Robert W. Witkin, Adorno on Popular Culture (London: Routledge, 2003), 1.
2
Ibid.
minutes, every one of which is so natural to process that they can be 'sensibly
engaged even in a state of distraction'.
III.B Adorno and the Avant-Garde’s on Aura of the Arts
Adorno looked at art as a tool for the emancipation of human consciousness
from apathy and ignorance. He argued that arts inclination to its historical context
enables it to relate to its viewers.
Similarly, Herbert Marcuse and other avant-gardes shared the same
viewpoint of art with Adorno. In his essay “Reappraisals of Critical Theory,” Peter
Uwe Hohendahl writes: “In certain ways both Marcuse's and Adorno's definitions
of culture stayed very close to a rather narrow traditional conception of high culture
(Kultur). Their work can positively invoke "culture" as the canonical tradition in
literature or music.”3 These shared ideas on the position of high culture,
particularly the arts, in Adorno and Marcuse’s writings elevated the discourse on
the condition of the aura of the arts during the advanced stage of capitalism in
America. As Hohendahl writes: “For Marcuse and Adorno the ‘core’ of culture, the
advanced art work, escapes cultural hegemony through its own formal structure,
which articulates the opposition against the social relations in which it is
embedded.”4 This explains the role of the autonomy of the art in the era of
3
Peter Uwe Hohendahl, “Reappraisals of Critical Theory,” Reappraisals: Shifting
Alignments in Postwar Critical Theory (New York: Cornell University Press, 1991), 210.
4
Ibid., 211.
commodification. The autonomy of an artwork asserts its indifference and aesthetic
distance to the empirical world. This distancing of the arts to the empirical is further
explained in Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory.5 He states that: “Aesthetic identity seeks
to aid the non-identical, which in reality is repressed by reality's compulsion to
identity.”6 Without a doubt, art must be in accordance with Adorno's negative
dialectic. It is in this context that art is a counter-pressure to society—a society
fixated on identity.7 The non-identical characteristic of the artwork is what enables
it to critique the empirical world through its utopian quality that rests on its
transcendental aesthetic distance. The utopian quality of the art bears its function
as a transcendental reflection of the empirical world through which it views itself.
Modernization of the arts, literature, and music was a development for new
sorts of ways of expression, new ways of materializing the transcendental
characteristic of the arts. Modern art proponents made use of unending
experimentation to express new substances and concepts. The spirit of autonomous
art could, at present, still be found in the Modernists, who endeavored not to
surrender to commodification, taking a position against pop culture to provide the
world with alternatives, with a desire for the freedom of the human mind.8 The
5
Theodor Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, trans. by Robert Hullot-Kentor (Minneapolis,
Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1997).
6
Ibid,. 5.
7
Paolo A. Bolanos, “The Critical Role of Art: Adorno between Utopia and Dystopia,”
Kritike, 1 (June 2007), 29-30.
8
Moya K. Mason, “Adorno: World of Art and What Is at Stake,” Manganese – Metabolism,
Mineral, Bones, Osteoporosis, Diabetes, Cellular Energy (2018)
http://www.moyak.com/papers/adorno-modernist-art.html.
unwillingness of the artworks to fall under the corrupt and degrading schema of the
advanced stage of capitalism sparks a light of hope for the advance forms of arts to
serve as a tool for emancipation and liberation. Through upholding its auratic
quality, the arts maintained its metaphysical position as a transcendental reflection
of the empirical world.
III.C Adorno and Benjamin on the Aura of Arts
Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin had very contradicting views on the
aura of the arts. In his paper, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction,” Walter Benjamin talks about a shift in perception and its effects in
the wake of the approach of film and photography in the twentieth century.
Benjamin writes about the shift in the sense of perception of man when it comes to
art; the manner in which we perceive and see the visual artwork has is different now
and its outcomes continue to strive for resolution. Benjamin here endeavors to
address something explicit about the modern age; of the impacts of modernity on
the work of art specifically. Film and photography point to this development.
Benjamin, in his paper, discusses about the decay of the aura through the
mechanical reproduction of art itself. The aura for Benjamin speaks to the
authenticity and essence of an artwork that has not been duplicated.
As Benjamin proceeds, a strain between new modes of perception and the
aura emerge. The removal of authority (the duplication of a work of art) within the
work of art infers a loss of its historical context and authority, be that as it may,
with respect to mass utilization, this freedom isn't unforeseen. The cameraman, for
instance, mediates with what we find in a way which an artistic creation can never
do. It coordinates the eye towards an explicit place and an explicit story; in the same
time as it is radical and progressive it is likewise authoritarian. It guides us to a
specific side of a story and neglects different parts. It dulls our observation towards
the work of art and presents diversion as a mode of reception.
For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction

emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on
ritual. To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes
the work of art designed for reproducibility . . . but the instant the
criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic
production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being
based on rituals it begins to be based on another practice, politics.9
Benjamin clarifies that in this new period of mechanical reproduction the
cogitation of a screen and the idea of the film itself has changed so that the
individual never again thinks about the film per se; the film thinks for them. An
always moving picture in the disjunction of the physical capture of watching a
moving picture move, changes the structure of perception itself. Inside the
reproducibility of pictures there is an increase towards man's submission to the film
itself.
9
Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of mechanical Reproduction,” in
Illuminations (London: Fontana, 1992), 218.
IV. RESEARCH DESIGN
This study aims to provide an analysis of the dilemma of film culture in
correspondence with Adorno’s writings on “popular culture” and aesthetic theory.
In this research task, I aim to create a study regarding Adorno’s social philosophy
and aesthetic theory and its relation to film culture. The study ends with the
formulation of an Adornoian philosophy of film to counter the degradation of film’s
art value and consciousness under modern capitalism.
The study is divided into 5 parts. In the first chapter the study focuses on
the background of the study and the review of literatures. This part aims to relate
scholarly articles to strengthen the argument of the thesis. On the second Chapter
“Adorno on the Capitalist Corruption of Film Culture,” focuses on his take on the
dilemma faced by arts in general; film in particular, during the advanced stage of
capitalism. In this chapter, the study discusses the commercialization of film, the
rise of film as an industry under modern capitalism, and the degradation of film’s
aesthetic value and emancipatory power. The third chapter entitled “Adorno on the
Arts and Film,” focuses on Adorno’s notion of arts and film and its value in
accordance to his Aesthetic Theory. This part explains how film is considered as an
art and an emancipatory tool. Fourthly, on “Chapter IV: Adornoian Philosophy of
Film,” I formulated an Adornoian philosophy of film by understanding and the
application of Adorno’s aesthetic theory that shall serve as a film’s framework. In
doing so, I infused Adorno’s social philosophy on the consciousness of films to

give rise to a new kind of film that can counter its corruption under advanced
capitalism. Lastly, the fifth chapter serves as the summarization and concluding
part of my thesis, wherein all the arguments and concept are put together to fortify
the social function of film as an emancipatory tool for mass enlightenment.
Furthermore, this chapter also includes the recommendation part of my thesis
wherein it shall serve as a stepping stone for further researches concerning the arts.
This shall provoke future researches to endeavor in the fields of aesthetic theory
and critical social philosophies.

CHAPTER II
ADORNO ON THE CAPITALIST CORRUPTION OF FILM CULTURE
This chapter discusses the dilemmas faced by the film culture under the
capitalist era, using his essays on the emergence of mass culture namely; “On the
Fetish Character in Music and the Regression of Listening,”10 “The Schema of
Mass Culture,”11 “Transparencies on Film,”12 “How to Look at Television,”13 and
“Culture Industry Reconsidered,”14 through these texts I connected the condition of
the different arts under the capitalist era to the condition of present-day film culture,
particularly its commercialization, degradation, and its loss of emancipatory power.
Adorno’s philosophy strongly denounces the “culture industry.” For him, it
poses great threats not only to traditional culture and high arts, but also to the main
goal of humankind which is liberation from barbarism to enlightenment. The
culture industry represents the shift of traditional culture and high arts to a
capitalistic mode of existence. The regress of culture and arts to its capitalistic
condition brought about the commodification, commercialization, and destruction
of its basic tenets and the aesthetic quality of its products.
10
Cf. Theodor Adorno, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture,
(London: Routledge Classics, 1991), 29.
11
Cf. Ibid., 61.
12
Cf. Ibid., 178.
13
Cf. Ibid., 158.
14
Cf. Ibid., 98.
I. The Arts and Its Fetishization
This subchapter discusses the shift of the high arts into its regressed and
commodified form due to its extreme commercialization under the culture industry.
Advancements in the field of technology and socio-economics brings forth the
greatest threat to the high arts. The extreme commodification and
commercialization in the capitalist system of production has transgressed even the
aura of high arts. The dominating influence of the capitalist schema penetrated the
aesthetic distance of the high arts through its use of mechanical reproduction to
massively disseminate the works of art which disregard the object’s autonomous
essence and ‘particularity.’15 The constant reproduction of the arts has regressed its
essence and authenticity in a pure form of commodity. As Bernstein opines in his
introduction of the anthology of Adorno’s essays, “Under capitalism all
productions is for the market,”16 wherein the market consists of the masses, are
duped to be passive and uncritical of their choices as main consumers of the
products of the capitalist system. Every cultural goods produced by the culture
industry are curtailed to be passively consumed by the masses through its
fetishization.17 The commodification of arts not only destroyed its essence, but also
robbed it of its capacity to serve as an emancipatory power to liberate the
15
Referring to the uniqueness and individuality of an object or a work of art that separates
it from the other.
16
Theodor Adorno, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, (London:
Routledge Classics, 1991), 5. An introduction by J.M. Bernstein.
17
The fetishization of the cultural products shifts the focus of the masses into tricking them
to put greater importance on the exchange value rather than the use value of the product.
consciousness of the masses. Following Adorno’s reasoning, the destruction of aura
of high arts led to its commodification and fetishism that further regressed its
aesthetic value and authenticity. As one of his commentators, Witkin puts it:
The products of the culture industry, in Adorno’s view did not come
from the people, were not an expression of the life-process of
individuals or communities but were manufactured and
disseminated under conditions that reflected the interests of the
producers and the exigencies of the market, both of which demanded
the domination and manipulation of mass consciousness.18
The capitalist influence on the consumerist consciousness of the masses into
tricking them into buying the cultural products of the culture industry, further
increases the fetishization of the cultural goods through commercialization. The
cultural products of the culture industry as Witkin has stated are not made to satisfy
the necessities of the masses, but rather are created to accelerate the capitalist aim
for domination. This dominative fetishization of the cultural products immensely
affected the consciousness of the masses.
Furthermore, Witkin also explained Adorno’s rejection of the
commodification and fetishization of the art on the ground of alienation of the social
relations on the production of the corrupted form of art. In his writing he stated that:
Adorno’s whole argument concerning the fetish-object turns on the

fact that objects of mass production and mass consumption are
abstracted from the social relations through which they are produced
and, therefore, from the constitutive of the subjects who both
produce and consume them.19
18
19
Ibid., 54.
Capitalists found a way to exploit the masses and at the same time oppress
them by being both the consumer and producer of the cultural goods that further
alienates them from the empirical realities surrounding them. Through this system
of oppression, the masses fall under the illusory scheme of the culture industry by
providing them fetishized products or cultural goods disguised as auratic or
authentic cultural goods. Adorno on his analysis of the man’s spending of his free
time explains that “… the individual in his leisure time, where the Hollywood
dream machine, radio television, music industry, were disempowering him further
rendering him even more conformist and dependent,”20 this fetishized cultural
goods further damages the consciousness of the masses by serving as a false
emancipatory tool. This illusory character of the culture industry’s products further
alienates the masses away from real enlightenment or critique of the empirical
world.
In his essay “On the Fetish Character in Music and the Regression of
Listening” Adorno stated that: “it can be asked whom music for entertainment still
entertains. Rather, it seems to compliment the reduction of people to silence, the
dying out of speech as expression, the inability to communicate at all.”21 The
intense commercialization of the high arts and music turned the masses into passive
spectators and listeners of culture. This passivity is caused by the destruction of the
20
Ibid., 2.
21
Theodor Adorno, “On the Fetish Character in Music and the Regression of Listening,”
The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, ed. by J.M. Bernstein, (London: Routledge,
1991), 30.
aura of the arts. The masses being uncritical in their consumption of cultural goods
are now incapable of uplifting the level of discourse. This is due to the reason that
they absorbed no new thing that can improve their consciousness; rather they are
fed with the same schema of cultural goods in different appearances. Witkin
explains that: “Those persistent themes of Adorno’s critique of modern culture ̶ the
commodification, fetishization and standardization of its products, together with
the authoritarian submissiveness, irrationality, conformity, ego-weakness and
dependency behavior of its recipients…”22 These are the effects brought upon by
the commercialization of the arts, the masses have become uncritical of the products
they acquire or consume. The effect of the capitalist production of cultural goods
on the consciousness of the masses regressed their ability to comprehend and
critique what is handed down to them.
On his discussion regarding the destruction of the aura of the arts, Adorno
argues that in the advanced capitalist system, the aura of the art, the wall that
separates it from the social norms, is constantly being torn down by the corruptive
powers of the mechanical production.23 Espousing this line of argumentation, it
can be said that art loses its autonomy due its commodification. The aura of the arts
is where its aesthetical distance lies, the autonomy of the art is what separates it
22
Witkin, Adorno on Popular Culture, 3.
23
Theodor Adorno, “Paralipomena,” Aesthetic Theory, trans. by Robert Hullot-Kentor
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 315.
from the regressive social conditions that hinder it from providing an alternate view
of the material world.
The aura of the art introduces the utopian characteristic of art as an antithesis
of the material world. In this utopian characteristic of the art, it is able to critique
the empirical world through its perfection or aesthetic characteristic. With the
emergence of the commercial value of the arts in the advance capitalist period, the
distance between art and the empirical world in criticizes diminished. With the
demolition of the aesthetic distance of art and the empirical world, the functionality
of the arts was distorted. In the distortion of the function of the arts came its
degradation to a simple form of amusement and product of the culture industry for
monetary and escape24 purposes. Furthermore, in his essay “The Culture Industry
Reconsidered,” he stated that “the total effect of the culture industry is one of anti-
enlightenment,”25 the cultural arts subjugation to the culture industry robbed it of
epistemological characteristics and its ability to serve as an antithesis of the
material world. The Marxist and Hegelian influence on his aesthetic theory and
notion of the arts argues that arts are both autonomous and a social fact.26 In order
for an art to be able to fulfill its societal function it must first be autonomous and
24
Today, modern arts like pop songs and Hollywood films are used as a temporary
liberation from the present condition of an individual.
25
Theodor Adorno, “The Culture Industry Reconsidered,” The Culture Industry: Selected
Essays on Mass Culture, ed. by J.M. Bernstein, (London: Routledge Classics, 200), 106.
26
Adorno, “Art, Society, Aesthetics,” Aesthetic Theory, (Minneapolis, Minnesota:
University of Minnesota Press, 1997).
distant to the empirical world to serve as an alternate view or model of reality.27
But under the influence of the culture industry, the arts are unable to fulfill its duty
as a critic of society due to its commodification. The commodification of the arts,
to stress it again, demolishes the aesthetic distance of the arts and sucks the arts in
its empirical space which destroys the arts aura and autonomy. The autonomy of
the arts is destroyed by it being influenced by other societal facts which transform
the former autonomous artwork to a biased critic of society. Furthermore, arts
emancipatory aesthetics is replaced by the illusory essence of the culture industry
posing as an agent of enlightenment. Adorno on his essay “On the Fetish Character
in Music and the Regression of Listening” writes: All ‘light’ and pleasant art has
become illusory and mendacious. What makes its appearance aesthetically in the
pleasure categories can no longer give pleasure, and the promise of happiness, once
the definition of art, can no longer be found except where the mask has been torn
from the countenance of false happiness28
The illusory characteristics of the products of the culture industry dupe the
masses into a state of false happiness or enlightenment. This ‘barbarism of
perfection’29 that the culture industry constantly implements, through schematic
standardization and duplication of the autonomy and aesthetic value of high arts,
27
Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 224.
28
Adorno, “On the Fetish character in Music and the Regression of Listening,” The Culture
Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, 33.
29
Ibid., 44.
increases the stupidity of the masses as the main consumer of cultural goods. The
confusion brought about by this mimetic characteristic of the culture industry’s
product steer the masses consciousness into the inauthentic and duplicated cultural
goods that further adds up to their regression as a passive consumer. As Adorno
argues on his critique of the products of the culture industry:
The forms of hit songs are so strictly standardized, down to a number

of beats and the exact duration, that no specific form appears in any
particular piece. The emancipation of the parts from their cohesion,
and from moments which extend beyond their immediate present,
introduces the diversion of musical interests to the particular sensory
pleasure.30
II. Schematization of the Culture Industry
One of the main characteristics of the products of the culture industry that
Adorno strongly despises is its repetitiveness and the standardization of its
qualities. For Adorno the repetition of the essence of cultural goods threatens the
ability of the masses to be critical of the products they consume, as he writes:
“Regressive listeners behave like children. Again, and again and with stubborn
malice, they demand the one dish they have once been served.” With the culture
industry putting the same essence in varying appearances in all of its products, the
mass are stupefied in the same event. Being unable to distinguish the authentic art
from the illusory, the masses are subjected to the schematic force of oppression by
the capitalists. The inability of the masses to reject the illusory products of the
30
Ibid., 49.
culture industry is due to the fact that the distance between the authentic
autonomous arts and the empirical world are constantly being torn down by the
commercialization of the arts. The constant destruction of aura and the repetition
of the arts poses a threat to its duty as a social antithesis as for Hegel and Adorno.
As Adorno writes:
It is only a play as repetition of the prescribed models, and the

playful release from the responsibility which is thereby achieved
does not reduce at all the time devoted to duty except by transferring
the responsibility to the models, the following of which one makes
into a duty for himself.31
For Adorno, cultural goods produced by the culture industry are
functionless and has no real aesthetic value and is only created to confuse or
mislead the masses in their plight for liberation and genuine happiness. The
appearance of the products of the culture industry as the ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’
objects of the new system of economy is only a mask it utilizes to further deceive
the masses.
What parades as progress in the culture industry, as the incessantly

new which it offers up, remains the disguise for eternal sameness;
everywhere the changes mask the skeleton which has changed just
as little as the profit motive itself since the time it gained
predominance over culture.32
The only real use of the products of the culture industry is for the benefit of
the capitalists. This repetitive characteristic of the cultural goods produced by the
31
Ibid., 57.
32
Adorno, “Culture Industry Reconsidered,” The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on
Mass Culture, 100.
capitalists only traps the masses in an unending cycle of suppression and
stupefaction that they are unconsciously under the spell of. Moreover, the very evil
of the culture industry is its autocratic characteristic that aims to control and
manipulate the consciousness of the masses under its illusory scheme of oppression
under the guise of cultural goods that pose as an emancipatory tool, but in reality,
are also the same tools utilized by the capitalist to take hold of the masses money,
time, and consciousness.
III. The Capitalist Corruption of Film Culture
The focus of this subchapter is to correlate the corruption undergone by the
high arts under the monopolistic influence of the capitalist system. I limited the
discussion of cinematic corruption purely on its repetitive and fetish character. Film
is considered to be one of the modern forms of art due to its technological origin
and production. Bearing similar aesthetic characteristics of that of the high arts,
particularly the epistemological character, film is also subjected to the same
dilemma faced by the high arts under the capitalistic system of production.
The progression of the corruption of film culture worsens along with the
advancement of the capitalist system, where the purpose for every cultural good
produced under it is made for acquiring capital. Similar with the other forms of art,
film possesses its own aesthetic value and autonomy. The film being under the
system of capitalism had its autonomy and aesthetic value degraded. Being a
descendant of the cultural goods of the modern era, film is robbed off of its
functionality to serve as an antithesis of society and fully realize its aesthetic value
and duty. Film consciousness was influenced by great capitalist schemes into
conforming to its repetitive illusory appearance as a tool for the amusement of the
masses and to temporarily liberate them from the social conditions that they face.
III.A the Repetition of Cinematic Schema
In the repetitive schema of culture industry influenced films, masses are
duped down to being a passive spectator of the film, not being able to critically
engage with it due to its low and unoriginal depictions. “Every commercial film is
actually only the preview of that which it promises and will never deliver.”33 The
illusory appearance of commercialized film as an agent of enlightenment mislead
its consumers into consuming useless and inauthentic emancipation, all they
receive is the temporary liberation brought upon them by the same cultural goods
that oppresses their consciousness and choices in life. With this followed the
conformity of the masses to the schema of the culture industry unconsciously.
In his tirade with the culture industry, Adorno stated, “The power of the
culture industry’s ideology is such that conformity has replaced consciousness.”34
The masses were ‘confirmed in their neurotic stupidity’ of the inauthenticity of the
culture industry. As Adorno argues: “The repetitiveness, selfsameness, and the
33
34
Adorno, “The Culture Industry Reconsidered,” The Culture Industry: Selected Essays
on Mass Culture, 104.
ubiquity of modern mass culture tend to make for automized reactions to weaken
the forces of individual resistance.”35 The repetitive and standardized characteristic
of the culture industry influenced films destroyed the ability of the masses to
formulate or engender critical thought by subjecting them to unoriginal aesthetic
facades that offers no space for critical reflection. Following the inability of the
masses to critically engage with the standardized films, the resistance to these
products also diminished. They were regressed as passive spectators of the very
same cultural goods that they treat as a form of amusement and liberation, that cages
them in ideology and stupefaction with its regressive quality and false emancipatory
capability that further digs their hole in the unending fall on intellectual suppression
and oppression. The masses are furthermore reduced to mere consumers of the
same cultural goods that oppress them. As Fuchs opined “Adorno’s hatred of the
commodity form of the media and culture can be read as an appeal for the creation
and sustenance of non-commercial, non-profit media and culture,”36 It is in this
sense that Adorno proposes the way on how the arts could regain their autonomy
and emancipatory power as an agent of enlightenment. The creation of film and
other similar arts that is not allied with capitalist ideology but purely for the service
of the masses and their liberation from the oppressive and stupid schema of cultural
35
Adorno, “How to Look at Televison,” The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass
Culture, 159.
36
Christian Fuchs, "Theodor W. Adorno and the Critical Theory of Knowledge," Critical
Theory of Communication: New Readings of Lukács, Adorno, Marcuse, Honneth and Habermas in
the Age of the Internet, (2016), 80.
goods produced by the culture industry. This type of films and arts shall pave the
way for the rise of immanent criticizing of the empirical world through aesthetical
techniques.
III.B the Rise of Fetishized Cinema
With the formulation of the standardized and repetitive schema of culture
industry films, came the rise of the fetishized cinema. In this advanced stage of
capitalism, culture industry films are merely produced to incur wealth and attain
the desired economic ends. The very focus of this type of films is purely
commercial, undermining the emancipatory character of films. Culture industry
films are consumed purely for their illusory characteristic as a tool for liberation.
The domination of the capitalist influence on films subjected it to an
extreme form of commodification. Following this, came the rise of the box office
type of cinema; a purely commercial oriented cinema that greatly relies on celebrity
power, stereotypes, and standardized plots. Hollywood films are a testament to this
kind of standardization. The great interest on achieving economic ends subjected
Hollywood films into a standard that enables it to be a tool for earning profit. A
facet of this capitalist standardization is its utilization of good-looking actors to
attract viewers through their physicality and conventional appearances rather than
their acting skills. Similar with the trend on the field of music, Reyes opines that:
Miserably, the popular music industry has now degraded into an agora of
entertainers/performers and not anymore of artists. These capitalist-authored artists
see each other as commodities and no longer as unrepeatable subjectivities. Under
this new simulated landscape, physical appearance is given primacy over artistry
and rendition, and the qualities of dissonance and pedagogy are put into oblivion.37
The degradation of film culture into a predicament of physical appearances and
conventionality regressed its aesthetical value into a spectacle of laughs and
romantic excitement.
This commodified form of leisure, entraps the consciousness of the masses
into a temporary state of liberation from the social realties that turns them into
passive and uncritical individuals. Furthermore, this passivity to the illusory and
regressive products of the culture industry affects their consciousness. As the
consumers of films, the masses fall into a state of standardization engender by the
capitalist system to further control the buying consciousness of these individuals.
As Witkin opines: “The repetitive and formulaic character of cultural goods, their
utter standardization, makes them more ‘cozy’ and predictable and capable of
answering to the individual’s need for security and for meeting the producer’s need
for predictability for the market.”38 The capitalist influence on the cultural products
and its effect on the insecurity of the masses made them more suspectable to the
corruption of consciousness. Our need for compliance and social anxiety of missing
Raniel SM Reyes, “The “False” of Contemporary Philippine Society: Adorno,

37
Immanent Critique and Popular Music,” Baybayin vol.1 no.1 (August 2015), 77.
38
out further entraps us into consuming standardized goods and obliterating our
resistance to the dominating influence of the capitalist system.

CHAPTER III
ADORNO ON THE ARTS AND FILM
Theodor Adorno’s view on the arts centered the gist of his critical social
theory. His critical social theory is his response to the growing influence and power
of the capitalist system. Along with the emergence of modern capitalism, the
commodification of the high arts also came along. He gave much importance on
the state of the high arts during his time; his critiques on capitalism are mostly
concerned with the state of high arts and its destruction. Due to this, he wrote
countless accounts and essays grounded upon this issue. Furthermore, he
formulated an analytic theory on high arts. Adorno’s Aesthetic theory is heavily
influenced by the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, and G.W.F. Hegel.39
In the first sub-chapter, I will discuss the Theodor Adorno’s Aesthetic
Theory and the influences of Immanuel Kant and his notion of formal autonomy of
the arts. The influence of Karl Marx and his notion on the function of art as a
catalyst for social change that is grounded on his social philosophy and his critique
of capitalism. And lastly, G.W.F. Hegel influence on Adorno and his argument on
arts as an antithesis of society, in line with Hegel dialectical process. The book
starts and finishes with reflections on the social character of art. These reflections
gave rise to two inquiries. Firstly, the modernized Hegelian inquiry of whether art
39
Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1997).
can survive in a late industrialist setting. Secondly, a modernized Marxian question
whether art can add to the change of this world. While tending to the two inquiries,
He holds from Kant the idea that art is characterized by formal autonomy. He
consolidates this Kantian accentuation in line with Hegel's accentuation on
intellectual import and Marx's accentuation on arts embeddedness in the society all
in all.40
On the second sub-chapter, I discussed Adorno’s view on the film as a
formal form of art, and its similarities with the qualities possessed by high arts.
Although burdened with his limited writings on film, I incorporated his aesthetic
theory on arts in the field of film. Furthermore, this serves as an aesthetic critique
of film that proves its capacity to be autonomous and distant from the binds of
capitalist production and its capacity to serve as an alternate view of the world,
therefore as an alternate tool for critical thinking.
I. Aesthetic Theory
I.A Autonomy of Art
Following Kant’s philosophy on the formal autonomy of art, Adorno
contends that “the truth of an artwork lies in its autonomous aesthetic logic that is
not subsumed under the logic of domination so that it constitutes a different, non-
40
Adorno, “Art, Society, Aesthetics,” Aesthetic Theory, (Minneapolis, Minnesota:
University of Minnesota Press, 1997).
instrumental logic. Art becomes social by its opposition to society, and it occupies
this position only as autonomous art,” 41

the assertion of arts’ transcendental
aesthetic distance as an opposition of the society it empowers itself to serve as an
alternate view of the empirical world through reflective manner. In line with Kant’s
notion of the formal autonomy of art, he argues that art must be functionless.
Adorno states that: “By “crystallizing in itself as something unique to itself, rather
than complying with existing social norms and qualifying as something “socially
useful,” it criticizes society by merely existing.”42 In this functionlessness is where
art can assert its autonomy. Being detached from the world, art is able to emancipate
itself from the political and economic influences. The liberation of art from the
influences of the political and economic sphere enables itself fully to realize its
value and aesthetic qualities. Along with this, the full realization of arts’ aesthetic
engenders its critique and commentary of the material world, while being detached
from it. As Adorno contends:
At the center of contemporary antinomies is that art must be and

wants to be utopia, and the more utopia is blocked by the real
functional order, the more this is true; yet at the same time, art may
not be utopia in order not to betray it by providing semblance and
consolation. If the utopia of art were fulfilled, it would be arts
temporal end.43
For Adorno, art has a natural utopian quality that permits it to transgress the
utilitarian conventionality of commodification and exchange value. Through this
41
Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, 225-226.
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid., 41.
manner it can work within reality as a nuisance that delivers a negative knowledge
of existence. This social quality of its aesthetics perceives the world from a point
of view that would take into consideration its redemption of aura, free from
exploitive aspect of capitalist production practice and the overall regress of
humanity. In this sense, it is the art theory's task to bring about this type of art, as
Bell argues, is similar to an examiner endeavoring to bring what is quelled in what
is being examined to the dimension of articulation.44 Furthermore, in doing as such,
we can see the artworks connection to the material condition of its creation on
which it reflects and represents.
Moreover, Adorno, in Aesthetic Theory criticized the psychoanalysts’
notion of the autonomy of the arts as a product of the unconscious of an individual.
He anchored his critique on Kant’s subjectivist approach to the autonomy of the
arts, which aims to magnify the effect of art on its spectator. As he writes:
“Psychoanalysis treats artworks as nothing but facts, yet it neglects their own
objectivity, their inner consistency, their level of form, their critical impulse, their
relation to non-psychical reality, and, finally, their idea of truth.”45 We often forget
or set aside the true essence of art by failing to grasp its authenticity, by only
looking at its surface or its root. “Artworks are not Thematic Apperception Tests of
their makers. Part of the responsibility for this philistinism is the devotion of
44
David M. Bell, “Art’s Utopian Function,” (April 2011)
https://nomadicutopianism.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/art-and-utopia/.
45
Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, 9.
psychoanalysis to the reality principle: Whatever refuses to obey this principle is
always merely "escape"; adaptation to reality becomes the summum bonum.”46 This
phenomenological and psychoanalytic approach to art devalues it to simply as a
material object born out of certain experiences which individuals use to cope up or
ignore the trauma brought about by the past experiences.
The degradation of the arts to this state threatens its autonomy. It is in this
state is where arts metaphysical walls are torn down, and be absorbed by the world
outside. In the process of absorption, the art loses its ability to critique and reflect
on the material empirical world at a distance. Following the Kantian aesthetic
analytics, arts should not be condemned to the experiences of the creator, for
Adorno and Kant, arts must be subjective, in this subjectivity, the arts are able to
assert its autonomy by being free from the objective grasp of its creator. In this
liberation from its creator, it will be able to reflect and critic the material world
subjectively.
I.B Arts as a Catalyst for Social Change
Adorno’s critical theory regarding arts aesthetic social character stems from
his Marxist foundations. Annexing from his previous arguments, he argues as well
that art has the ability to serve as a catalyst for social changes. Without abandoning
its autonomy, the arts can serve as a tool through asserting its emancipatory powers
by engaging and criticizing the material world in a distance. This distance, for him
46
Ibid.
is where the aura of the arts lies, along these boundaries, arts are able to analyze
and reflect with the material world without being absorbed into the material world’s
domain. He explained:
Art's double character as both autonomous and fait social is

incessantly reproduced on the level of its autonomy. It is by virtue
of this relation to the empirical that artworks recuperate, neutralized,
what once was literally and directly experienced in life and what was
expulsed by spirit. Artworks participate in enlightenment because
they do not lie: They do not feign the literalness of what speaks out
of them. They are real as answers to the puzzle externally posed to
them. Their own tension is binding in relation to the tension external
to them.47
Following his Marxist materialist roots, Adorno proposes the social
characteristic of an artwork as a reflection of the material world, although still not
endangering its own autonomy. Art, following this line of thinking, and its social
characteristic, can serve as a catalyst for social change by relating itself to the same
condition as that of the material world.
I.C Arts as an Antithesis of the Empirical World
Annexing the Marxist ideology of art as a catalyst for social change, Adorno
correlated this proposition in Hegel’s dialectic notion of arts’ aesthetics. In
Adorno’s relationship with Hegel’s dialectics and aesthetic theory he opines that
“art exists within reality, has its, function in it, and is also inherently mediated with
reality in many ways. But, nevertheless, as art, by its very concept it stands in an
47
Ibid., 5.
antithetical relationship to the status quo.”48 Similar with the Marxist view, he
follows the Hegelian notion of art as something that is both social and distant and
autonomous of itself. He states:
Art, from the empirically existing, takes up a position to it in

accord with Hegel's argument against Kant: The moment a limit is
posited, it is overstepped and that against which the limit was
established is absorbed. Only this, not moralizing, is the critique of
the principle of l 'art pour tart, which by abstract negation posits art
as absolute. The freedom of artworks, in which their self-
consciousness glories and without which these works would not
exist, is the ruse of art's own reason. Each one of their elements binds
them to that over which, for their happiness, they must soar and back
into which at every moment they threaten once again to tumble. In
their relation to empirical reality, artworks recall the
theologoumenon that in the redeemed world everything would be as
it is and yet wholly other.49
In here Adorno argues for the dialectic perception of the arts, “Art perceived
strictly aesthetically is art aesthetically misperceived. Only when art's other is
sensed as a primary layer in the experience of art does it become possible to
sublimate this layer, to dissolve the thematic bonds, without the autonomy of the
artwork becoming a matter of indifference.”50 For him, the purely aesthetical
approach to the perception of art delimits its capacity to assert its emancipatory
capability. It is important to have a dialectical approach or a dualistic point of view
on the process of perceiving of a work of art. This dualistic point of view enables
48
, Theodor W. Adorno “‘Extorted Reconciliation’. On Georg Lukács’ Realism in Our
Time,” Notes to Literature, Volume 1, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), 224.
49
Ibid., 6.
50
Ibid.
us to engage both in the aesthetic and social qualities of the arts being perceived.
The work of art's fundamental and illusory autonomy, thus, is the way to arts' social
character, to be specific, to be "the social antithesis of society."51
I.D Adorno and the Cinema
Adorno was not very fond of the idea of film or it being regarded as an art.
As he contends, the film is a product of the mechanical production which is devoid
of authenticity and aesthetic in itself.52 This characteristic of film, according to
Adorno, is a threat to our consciousness for it eliminates our ability to critically
engage with it. As Adorno writes:
It is undeniable that Daddy’s Cinema indeed corresponds to what

the consumers want, or, perhaps, rather that it provides them with
an unconscious canon of what they do not want, that is, something
different from what they are presently being fed. Otherwise, the
culture industry could not have become a mass culture.53
The cinema, for Adorno, dumbs us down to a passive spectator of the film,
leaving us without new critical knowledge. Despite his tough denouncement on
films, he did not fully reject film as something that can align itself with those of the
high arts. In his essays on the culture industry, he proposed some aesthetical
theories on how film can assert its aesthetical qualities and emancipatory prowess.
51
Ibid, p.8
52
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass
Deception” Dialectic of Enlightenment (New York: Continuum, 1947).
53
Theodor Adorno, “Transparencies on Film,” The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on
Mass Culture. (London: Routledge, 1991), 184.
His critique on film follows his thought, rooted on the combined theories on art by
Kant, Marx, Hegel. Adorno, following the Hegelian theory of arts as both
autonomous and social, critiqued the film’s fictitious technique. For him “fictional
characters never resemble their empirical counterparts no matter how minutely they
are described…,” with regards to its authenticity and autonomy “film, therefore,
must search for other means of conveying immediacy: improvisation which
systematically surrenders itself to unguided chance should rank high among
possible alternatives.”54 The fictitious technique of film representing the empirical
world through unrealistic appearances, further stirs away the capability of film to
pose as an aesthetical reflection of the empirical world. This inauthentic and
infantile technique of description and representation ceases to emancipate critical
thought due to the lack of logical consistency and inability of the masses to reflect
on it.
Adorno’s critique on the autonomy and authenticity of the film is grounded
on its technique and technological aspect. “The late emergence of film makes it
difficult to distinguish between technique and technology as clearly as is possible
in music… Film suggests the equation of technique and technology since, as
Benjamin observed, the cinema has no original which is then reproduced on a mass
scale: the mass product is the thing itself.55 As for him, film is both the product and
the means that the product is created. In this, he asserts the unification of the films’
54
Ibid., 179.
55
Ibid., 179-80.
technique and technology, films use technology in accordance to film techniques
in order to capture and create images and scenes. As for the case of Adorno, he
argues against the objectivity of the technology of the film which drowns its
subjectivity. He argues that certain film techniques and technology imposes to us
only a certain or limited view, it is in here that it only focuses on its own objective
projection by solidifying its subjective definition of itself. “Irrespective of the
technological origins of the cinema, the aesthetics of film will do better to base
itself on a subjective mode of experience which film resembles and which
constitutes its artistic character.”56
The social embeddedness of film as a social art transgresses its aesthetics,
furthermore its consciousness. Adorno, on “Transparencies on Film,” writes: “By
virtue of this relationship to the object, the aesthetics of film is thus inherently
concerned with society. There can be no aesthetics of the cinema, not even a purely
technological one, which would not include the sociology of the cinema.” 57 This
strengthens the role of film as a social tool for change. It is here, where it can relate
and reflect on its societal context. “The lesson to be learned from this phenomenon
is dialectical: technology in isolation, which disregards the nature of film as
language, may end up in contradiction to its own internal logic.”58 Films must not
neglect its social characteristic and function. The forgetting of its function denies it
56
Ibid.
57
Ibid.
58
Ibid., 184.
of its own nature and aesthetic value. Films’ incapability to assert its characteristics
deems itself functionless in society, therefore contradicts its own nature.
Film, in its full realization of its own authenticity and autonomy, can serve
as an alternate view of the empirical world that shall challenge the status quo. It is
in here that film, without withdrawing from its position as autonomous, is able to
critique and reflect on the empirical world and its condition. Through this reflection
and critique, it enables its emancipatory capability by challenging the material
world. As Adorno writes, “among its functions, film provides models for collective
behavior is not just an additional imposition of ideology. Such collectivity, rather,
inheres in the innermost elements of film. The movements which the film presents
are mimetic impulses which, prior to all content and meaning, incite the viewers
and listeners to fall into step as if in a parade.”59 Without abandoning Adorno’s
philosophy and its own autonomy and relation to society, the very characteristic of
film, as mass art, can serve as a facilitator or generator of critical thought through
a greater number of spectators. As he contends: “Art unrelated to the objective spirit
of its time is equally unimaginable as art without the moment which transcends it.
The separation from empirical reality which pertains to the constitution of art from
the outset requires precisely that moment.”60 This separation of the film from the
empirical reality endangers, not only its authenticity but as well as its spectators.
59
Ibid.
60
Mass Culture. (London: Routledge, 1991), 185.
This separation engenders the alienation of both the film and the mass that further
regress their consciousness into something uncritical and passive. As for Adorno:
“The conformity to the consumer, on the contrary, which likes to masquerade as
humanitarianism, is nothing but the economic technique of consumer
exploitation.”61 This exploitation of the masses as passive consumers shall make
sense of the following chapter addressing the corruption of the arts, particularly
film.
61
Ibid., 185.
CHAPTER IV
ADORNONIAN PHILOSOPHY OF FILM
As the concluding chapter of this study, this chapter aims to infuse the
knowledge and theories acquired to formulate an Adornoian philosophy of film. It
shall serve as a philosophical framework for the consciousness of future films as a
critical medium for emancipation. I used the first subchapter “Predominant
Characteristics of Existing Films,” to deliberate the varying characteristics or genre
of film. This subchapter discusses the characteristics of film as bastardized,
commercial, and critical. I presented several films that were reviewed and analyzed
through their storyline and genre. This subchapter serves as the basis on what genre
of film best fits the characteristics of the criteria of an Adornoian philosophy of
film.
Furthermore, I used the subchapter on “Social Character of Films,” as the
main discussion of the characteristic of film as bearer of social ideologies and
reflection of social realities. Ideologies are a primary object to the formulation of a
film’s consciousness. Ideologies in this particular subchapter are not to be utilized
for certain political ideas; the main purpose of ideologies is to clarify the line of
consciousness of films. Film as a reflection of social realities revolves around its
function as a cinematic portrayal of pervading social conditions.
In the second subchapter “Immanent Character of Film,” I put forth the
social function of film. This subchapter focuses on the function of film as an

immanent critique of the social and empirical world. Without foregoing its
aesthetical character, film shall take upon its relationship with the empirical world
as an antithesis.
I used the last subchapter, “The Formulation of an Adornoian Philosophy
of Film,” to incorporate all the arguments and ideas presented in the previous
subchapters to engender a philosophical framework of film as a critical and non-
commercial medium for philosophizing. This final subchapter discusses I the
characteristics of film that coincide with Adorno’s social philosophy and aesthetic
theory. This subchapter incorporates these characteristics into a philosophical
framework that shall serve as the basis for the creation of future films that shall
embody the epistemological function of art as an emancipatory tool for the
cultivation of the masses’ consciousness and reason. Through this philosophical
framework grounded on Adorno’s thoughts and philosophy, my thesis will be able
to fulfill its goal of engendering new kinds of film that shall serve as an
emancipatory tool and critique to put forward higher level of discourse and a
heightened masses consciousness.
I. Predominant Characteristics of Existing Films
Films are characterized by certain genres and comprised of techniques and
standards; are grouped to a genre that best fits the characteristic of their storyline,
may it be fiction, comedy, or romance. In the advanced stage of capitalism, these
genres are the most popular and commercialized for their great appeal to the
masses. This subchapter created a socio-philosophical analysis of certain films that
characterize the commercial, bastardized, and social characteristics of certain films.
In particular, I used (not in chronological order) Not Another Teen Movie62 to
showcase the commercial and bastardized characteristic of film. I will also use Lav
Diaz’s Ang Babaeng Humayo63 (The Woman Who Left) to highlight the social
characteristic of film, and Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Time64s to contextualize the
ability of film to bear both the bastardized and social characteristics. Furthermore,
with the help of the varying techniques of the capitalist schema, I critically
examined the standardization of films’ formulation.
Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times possesses the social critical consciousness
of film. The film is set during the industrial revolution, where capitalism is gaining
more and more power. It portrays the ills of society during the era of machineries.
The film depicts the aspects of alienation suffered by the protagonist, particularly
alienation from the product of his labor. It portrays the position of proletariats in
the capitalist system as cogs of the machines. In a particular scene, Chaplin’s
character mindlessly works in the production line, repeating the same action needed
to continue the function of the production line. The protagonist, being unable to
62
Not Another Teen Movie, Directed by Joel Gallen, (USA: Columbia Pictures, 2001). The
selection of this particular film is due to its parodical and idiotic character which constitutes one of
the prevailing genres of capitalist films that generate high box office success.
63
Ang Babaeng Humayo, Directed by Lav Diaz, (Philippines: Cinema One Originals,
2016). This Lav Diaz masterpiece’s cinematic portrayal of the pervading social conditions in the
Philippines bears the social character of film through its socially conscious elucidation.
64
Modern Times, Directed by Charlie Chaplin (United Artists, 1936). This timeless
masterpiece of Chaplin still proves to be one of the best socially critical film. The comedic, yet
realistic illustration of social conditions justify it artistic conception of critical thought.
keep up with the pace of the machines was accidentally fed into the machinery.
This scene depicts the uncritical and mindless influence of the capitalist system on
the producers and the domination of the machineries over the rational individuals.
Chaplin, however, chose to showcase this dilemma through a comedic and
metaphorical manner. Nevertheless, it did not fail to assert its critical characteristic
by engaging itself with the social critique of the growing influence of capitalism in
the economic sphere. Through making light of the social ills that man is subjected
to, Chaplin was able to engage the masses to the consciousness of his work.
Not Another Teen Movie in summation is a parody movie produced to
criticize the repeating storyline of other teen movies that fall under the genre of
comedy and romance. Most of its scenes are compromised by the repetitive plots,
techniques, and standards of teenage films. Although it bears the characteristic of
critique it falls short on its emancipatory function by producing no critical thought.
Moreover, it also serves as repetition of the schema of other parody films that do
not bear the emancipatory capability that an artwork must possess. Every cliché
romantic woes of every capitalist film are embodied in this film. The complete
bastardization and commercialization of films due to its idiotic scheme and
storyline that Not Another Teen Movie clearly portrays, weakens the capabilities of
cinema to position itself as a tool for emancipation.
However, there are films that embody the function of art as an emancipatory
tool. Lav Diaz’s masterpiece Ang Babaeng Humayo, tells the story of a wrongly
accused woman, imprisoned for thirty years for a crime she did not commit. Losing
both time and family during her imprisonment further enraged her to exact revenge
on her tormentor, moreover, the mastermind behind her suffering. Along with this,
Diaz critically presented and portrayed the dominant social ills of our country
through his films. His films mostly revolve around the themes of justice and crime,
coinciding the socioeconomic plague of extreme poverty and the polymorphous
facet of class distinctions existing in our country. In the film, a particular frame
captures the make shift homes of those in the slums from those of the homes of the
ruling class. This portrayal of the division of the demographic society represents
the pervading class distinction existing within the country, moreover, it showcases
the disconnection of the ruling class from the masses. This critical representation
of society embodies the social character of film and its aesthetics as grounded on
society.
Adorno’s critique of the schema of mass culture focused mainly on the
psychosocial effects of the standardization of culture industry films, nevertheless,
he also put importance to the critique of certain film techniques that confine cinema
to the standards of the capitalist system. In one of his essays, he critiqued the time-
constrained characteristic of culture industry films. As he opines: “In commercial
film production, however, the aesthetic logic inherent in the material is caught in a
stage crisis even before it is given a chance to really unfold.”65 This time-constraint
65
Mass Culture, (London: Routledge, 1991), 184.
of the capitalist standards hinder films to fully convey its meaning, resulting to the
omission of certain important aspects of its storyline. Furthermore, the time-
constraint also shortens the amount of time for critical reception and reflection. This
fast-paced projection of films, the fast transition from one frame to another, hinders
its audience to absorb the aesthetic of the film. This dominant characteristic of film
technique pervading the aesthetic of existing films adds up to its alienation from
emancipation. This film technique can be clearly seen from the present-day
Hollywood films; following the two-hour standard of presentation, represses the
cinematic narration of its aesthetics and meaning.
Nevertheless, there are films who rejected this dominating economic
character of film techniques. Lav Diaz’s films are a great example of these films
and its deviance from the capitalist standards. His slow-paced and novelistic
approach to film making enables his masterpieces to fully convey its meaning and
function as a cinematic representation of social realities. In relation to Adorno’s
critique of film, “It is in the discontinuity of that movement that the images of the
interior monologue resemble the phenomenon of writing; the latter similarly
moving before our eyes while fixed in its discrete signs.”66 Diaz’s lengthy
technique of film making, allowing scenic nuances to enter his frames, allows the
audiences to deeply engage with the film, allowing them to perceive the naturality
of the shot, furthermore the realness of its aesthetics. Moreover, this nuanced
66
approach to shooting, deviate from the focused and limiting shot of capitalist
influenced films, countering the standardized notion of film making and allowing
the audiences to freely examine the frame of the shot.
I.A Social Character of Films
As the capitalist corruption of film culture is considered as an on-going
threat to its epistemological characteristics; films adapted to the dilemma by
solidifying their aesthetic wall through embodying social philosophies and critical
reflection of social realities. These two go hand in hand to engender a critical
portrayal of pervading social conditions. Unlike the higher forms of art, film tends
to be closer the empirical world and its ideologies in order to reflect on it at a better
standpoint. Films being a form of socially grounded art bear social philosophies or
ideologies within their cinematic plot. As Adorno opines, “There can be no
aesthetics of a cinema, not even a purely technological one, which would not
include the sociology of the cinema.”67 These philosophies are which supports the
consciousness of a film and its line of storytelling. Films’ aesthetic is deeply
imbedded in these social philosophies through utilizing them as the main
foundations of its emancipatory function.
67
These social philosophies support films in its critique of the empirical and
lay out new information and ideas to further improve the level of discourse in a
society. The sociology of film refers to the relations of film to different societies
and institution. The relation of film to society and social institutions bear that social
philosophies these social realms possess and puts forth. In a sense, film or the
cinema acts as a representation of these social philosophies by integrating them in
its consciousness. Moreover, films assimilation of these social philosophies in its
consciousness enables itself to disseminate the ideologies possessed by these social
philosophies to a greater number of audiences. Following this line of argument,
justifies films’ social characteristic and function as an epistemological tool for the
emancipation of the masses.
To further explain the social characteristic of film as a tool for social
philosophy and reflection of social realities, I analyzed films, particularly the
aforementioned Modern Times and a Lav Diaz masterpieces Ang Babaeng Humayo
and Norte: Hangganan ng Kasaysayan68, through a socio-philosophical approach,
that had incorporated social philosophy in their aesthetic consciousness and
portrayal, and how these films engendered mass emancipation through cinematic
immersion.
Charlie Chaplin’s film Modern Times as a representative of the integration
of Marxist philosophy in films, his film, in context, was set during the age of
68
Norte: Hangganan ng Kasaysayan, Directed by Lav Diaz, (Philippines: Wacky ‘O
Productions, 2013).
industrial revolution which showcases the dilemmas faced by man in the said era.
During the age of industrial revolution, men were constantly being replaced by
machineries for capitalist production’s sake. Individuals were therefore displaced
and disoriented with the growing change in the field of production. This analysis
focuses on the film’s representation of the Marxist ideology of alienation that is
faced by individuals during the advanced stage of capitalism. In the said film,
Marxist ideologies were showcased through Chaplin’s character as a factory worker
who was displaced in his job due to the changes in the factories line of production,
later on to a full-blown alienation of Chaplin’s character with his labor through its
repetitive and uncritical movement. Chaplin’s character was treated as an
appendage to the machine of the capitalist system. Disoriented and alienated, his
character was consumed by the machine, a metaphor to the domination of the
capitalists’ influence on the consciousness of the proletariats during that era. The
Marxist consciousness of Chaplin’s film enabled him to showcase the social ills
brought upon by the oppressive capitalist system on the individuals.
Lav Diaz’s films are truly a gem in this age of cinema, his outright and
critical portrayal of social realities existing in the country is truly captivating and
illuminating through his powerful and socially conscious films. His films mostly
revolve around the dilemma of seeking justice and fairness in a country plagued by
crime and incompetency. Referring back to one his critically acclaimed and award-
winning film Ang Babaeng Humayo and the addition of Norte: Hangganan ng
Kasaysayan, these films’ portrayal of our failed justice system and the detachment
of the ruling class from the masses critically showcases our country’s grave
condition, particularly its citizens struggle to seek justice and fairness in the cruel
state of our nation. Much of the scenes capture the different facets of poverty and
class distinction prevalent in the country. In a particular scene in Norte: Hangganan
ng Kasaysayan, captures the polymorphous facet of class division. In the scene,
Eliza, portrayed by Angeli Bayani, faces the authority in an attempt to vindicate his
husband; falsely accused with murder. In the scene, the authority converses the rule
of law with Eliza through the English language in which the latter couldn’t
understand, thereby resulted to the imprisonment of his husband. The scene
discloses the concealed elitism of language in the country that jeopardizes those
who are illiterate in the English language. Both of these films’ cinematic aesthetic
deeply concern the demographic condition of the Philippines.
In this sense, and following Adorno’s argument on the sociological
aesthetic of films, film must bear within its social character; social realities,
regardless of social ideologies, that will direct its consciousness on its function for
emancipation. Furthermore, he states that, “among its functions, film provides
models for collective behavior is not just an additional imposition of ideology. Such
collectivity, rather, inheres in the innermost elements of film. The movements
which the film presents are mimetic impulses which, prior to all content and
meaning, incite the viewers and listeners to fall into step as if in a parade.”69 The
films social character is also its basis for the critique of the empirical world which
will be discussed in the next subchapter. The social philosophy possessed by the
film will serve as its criteria for its examination of the empirical world and its
condition.
II. The Immanent Character of Film
Following Adorno’s aesthetic theory, which is on the autonomy of arts, the
metaphysical distance possessed by the arts; enables arts in general, and films in
particular to position itself as a critique. He stated that the arts function as both
transcendental and immanent critique of society. This subchapter focused on the
function of arts in general, films in particular, to a tool of immanent critique. In
doing so, I can focus on the social function of art as an antithesis of society.
Going back to Adorno and Hegel’s relationship concerning the aura of the
arts as something both autonomous and social applies to films as well. This dual
characteristic of film enables to align itself with the high arts. Films’ function as a
social antithesis of the empirical world lies on its ability to assert its function as a
critique by withholding its position as autonomous on the influence of the empirical
world. As argued in the previous chapters, films’ aesthetic distance enables it to
view the empirical world transcendentally. The dualistic point of view on film as
69
Adorno, “Transparencies on Film,” The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass
Culture, 183.
something both transcendental and social enables it to enter the social sphere
without completely abolishing its aesthetical distance.
In the era of advanced capitalism, film can be deemed as one the arts that
evolved to continue its function as a tool to unsettle the human mind and trigger a
critical thought. Film enables itself to fulfill its social duty through a cinematic and
technological manner. With the technological advancements, technological arts like
film became accessible to a greater number of audiences through its fast and easy
reproduction. The greater reach of influence enabled film to position itself as a mass
art. The mass consumption of films gave it a great leverage to unsettle greater
amount of minds, heightening the level of social discourse. All of these can only be
possible if film fully asserts its social function as an immanent critique of the ills
of society. As discussed in the second chapter of this thesis, arts in general, film in
particular are not immune to the said ills. Corruption in the arts in the arts aura
distorts its ability to provoke critical thought. Under the advanced capitalist era,
film and other arts were greatly influenced by the repetitive schema of the
capitalists’ goal of psycho-social control.
Moreover, arts in general, films in particular ceaselessly strive to continue
to fulfill its social duty emancipate the minds of the masses against the stupefying
influence of the capitalist system. It positioned itself as a critique of the pervading
capitalist schema. The profit-driven schema of the capitalist system duped down
the masses’ minds to a passive consumer of its cultural products. The capitalists
continue to exploit the uncritical masses by feeding them more repetitive and
illusory products that further alienates them to the goal of liberation of the human
consciousness from the chains of capitalist influence.
Arts in general, film in particular; offer us alternative approaches to the
traditional immanent critique of the society. Films’ aesthetical cinematic approach
to society and its structure as a critique; allows itself to be accessible and
apprehendable to the masses. Through the characteristic of film as mass art, its wide
grasp and influence on the masses, can easily transcend and disseminate its critique
of the society to the consciousness of the people. Film is able to communicate and
disseminate its critique of the society through its cinematic language 70 that the
masses, as consumers of film, will be able to ponder and reflect on and adapt the
critical consciousness of the film for their own conscious liberation.
In Bernstein’s introduction of Adorno in The Culture Industry, he states
that: “the goal of immanent criticism, achieved through careful analysis of the
meaning and structure of the object, is to reveal the contradiction between the
objective idea offered by the work and its pretension… immanent critique involved
the comparison of society’s ideological claims.”71 The immanent characteristic of
arts in general, film in particular, rises through its contradiction with the empirical
reality it reflects upon. Within this clash of ideologies; arises the synthesis of the
70
Refers to the manner of story-telling that films utilize to promulgate the essence of
their plots and technique
71
J.M. Bernstein, ed., The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, (London:
Routledge, 1991), 19.
contradiction that bears the emancipatory product of the critique. As argued in the
previous subchapter, films’ bearing of social philosophy engender its capability to
examine the other existing social ideologies present. Through this, films’ social
consciousness can be said to have the capacity to serve as a tool for immanent
criticism through a dialectical analysis of the society. In utilizing films’
consciousness as the antithesis against the pervading social ideologies, we will be
able to extract the synthesis or a better understanding of the society that shall further
improve the level of thinking and freedom of the masses.
III. The Emancipated Cinema
The main discussion of this subchapter is on the emancipation of films’
from its commercial nature to assert its autonomy to counter the empirical influence
of the capitalist system and the integration of social philosophy in film’s function
as an immanent critique of the empirical world. Films’ consciousness is the very
object of its aesthetical value. It is what enables it to assert its autonomy amidst it
commercial character. The inability of film to transcend its commercial function is
the greatest dilemma for its consciousness. The capitalistic influence on film
hinders it to fully utilize its emancipatory character. This discussion furthermore
concerns how film can assert primarily its nature as a critical medium and putting
its commercial nature secondary. It cannot be denied that it is in the nature of film
to be a commercial tool. Being brought about by the era of technological
advancements, films were heavily commodified by the capitalist system which film
later adapted as a part of its nature. As Adorno states, “Every commercial film is
actually only the preview of that which it promises and will never deliver.”72 By
putting the commercial nature of film as its primary character, film will not be able
to fully assert its emancipatory function. Commercial films main goal is the
accumulation of wealth to serve its economic end. This goes against the very
character of art being for art’s sake; it neglects the aesthetic and social function of
art. The capitalist influenced function of art further adds to the increasing corruption
on films aesthetic and social function. The greater the attraction of film towards the
commercial side, the greater the effect of regress it applies on the consciousness of
film.
Commercial leaning films are considered to be the lowest form of film
consciousness. In Adorno’s words, “In commercial film production, however, the
aesthetic logic inherent in the material is caught in a stage of crisis even before it is
given a chance to really unfold. The demand for a meaningful relationship between
technique, material and content does not mix well with the fetishism of means.”73
A commercial film cannot fully assert its aesthetical character and emancipatory
function due to the deep rooted fetishization in its production. The fetishization of
the production as a means to achieve the economic end not only damages the
consciousness of films but also regress its social function. Following this line of
72
73
Ibid., 184.
thinking, an Adornoian film must reject extreme forms of commercialization that
aims to corrupt its consciousness. The commercialization of films’ techniques and
production greatly affects the meaning and standard of produced films.
An Adornoian film must strive to put forth its aesthetics and emancipatory
function primarily, and its commercial nature secondary. Through diverting the
focus of film production to pure aesthetics and social function, films can fully assert
its emancipatory power. The liberating and cultivating aspect of film as a source of
truth and critical knowledge must be preserved in order to alleviate the masses’
consciousness from the suppressed and limited schema of capitalism.
An Adornoian film liberated from the constraints of the commercial
influence of the capitalist system --- positions itself as an immanent critique of the
society. As Adorno states, “The liberated film would have to wrest its a priori
collectivity from the mechanisms of unconscious and irrational influence and enlist
this collectivity in the service of emancipatory intentions.”74 The collectivity being
discussed here by Adorno refers to the social philosophies integrated into films that
result into collective behaviors acquired by the masses’ subjection to the film. As
discussed in the previous subchapters, social philosophy and film aesthetics are
inseparable. Social philosophies serve as the main foundation of film
consciousness. Films adaptation of social philosophies’ consciousness directs their
critique of the empirical world. Social philosophies serve as guiding ideologies for
74
Ibid., 183-84.
films’ consciousness in its act of critiquing. With these characteristics, an
Adornoian film will be able to fulfill its duty and end as an emancipatory tool for
the liberation of mass consciousness to the fulfillment of mass enlightenment
enabling the masses to assert their critical thinking skills.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECCOMENDATION
I. Summary and Conclusion
From the very conception of ideas, through the actual writing of this thesis,
its main goal is to formulate a philosophical framework of film that will counter its
degradation and engender its emancipatory character. In order to accomplish the
desired outcome, I incorporated Theodor W. Adorno’s aesthetic theory and social
philosophy into the art of film. His high regards for the arts and its function in the
society firmly supports the conception of my thesis. In his quest on fortifying and
elevating the arts against the cunning efforts of the capitalist system for domination,
enabled me to reflect on the present condition of film in the age of advanced
capitalism. Being endowed with his social philosophy and aesthetic theory
regarding the arts, I aim as well to fortify and elevate the position of film as a
philosophical tool for the emancipation and cultivation of the masses.
In the first chapter of my thesis, I presented the background of my research.
I stated how the ideas and arguments of this thesis are conceived through the past
and present social condition of films. After giving a brief background of the origins
of film art; as a product of the metamorphosis of different forms of art during the
post-structuralist era, I also introduced Theodor Adorno’s social critique of the
condition of the arts in the age of advanced capitalism. In the “Culture Industry:
Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” a chapter of Adorno and Horkheimer’s book

Dialectic of Enlightenment, presented the deep disapproval of the corruption
incurred by the high arts that resulted to the commodification and degradation of
its aesthetical value. These are the same dilemma shared by film under the influence
of the capitalist scheme.
Furthermore, I also presented the research questions to be discussed and
resolved in the succeeding chapters of this thesis Moreover, the research questions
serves as the supporting inquiries of the main research question: “Can an
Adornoian philosophy of film counter the corruption of film culture and
aesthetics?” Following this, I presented several scholarly literature related to the
gist of my thesis. The first part of my literature review focused on Adorno’s view
and stand on the growing “Pop Culture.” I incorporated the works of Robert Witkin
and his study on Adorno’s aesthetic theory and social critique of “Pop Culture.”
This part further elaborated the disapproval of Adorno on the growing
commodification and destruction of aura of the arts. At the second part of my
literature review, I presented the arguments shared by Adorno and other avant-
gardes regarding the aura of the arts and its social function particularly Herbert
Marcuse on the condition of arts’ aura and autonomy under the age mechanical art
production. On the third, and last literature review, I presented the contradicting
arguments raised by Adorno and Walter Benjamin. In the latter’s essay “The Work
of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” favored the commodification of the
aura of the arts in order to support its social function and mass dissemination. In
the last part of the first chapter, I presented the research design of my thesis which
serves as the guideline for the flow of my research.
The second chapter of my thesis “Chapter II: Theodor Adorno on the
Corruption of Film Culture,” discusses the dilemma suffered by the arts in general,
and film in particular, under the capitalist system. The first subchapter focuses on
the extreme commercialization of the arts under the capitalist system. The constant
threat of commercialization hindered the arts to fully assert its epistemological
capacity. Being subjected under the dominating commodification, the aura and
autonomy of the arts were further deteriorated and destroyed, followed by the
corruption of its emancipatory powers. With the aura of the arts destroyed, the
capitalist influence took over the consciousness of the commodified art works. This
fetishization exploited the masses’ consciousness into tricking them into buying
illusory cultural goods as a means to achieve the desired economic end. The
schematic approach of the capitalist consciousness on the aura of the arts greatly
affected its aesthetical quality and social function. In the second subchapter I
discussed how the repetitive schema of the products of the culture industry regress
the critical consciousness of the masses into passive consumers of its cultural
goods. In the essay of Adorno, “On the Fetish Character in Music and the
Regression of Listening,” he discussed the growing passivity and stupidity within
the consciousness of the mass on their consumption of cultural goods. The
repetitive schema of the advanced capitalist arts offered no emancipatory function

for the liberation of the masses from their social condition; in fact it further
alienated the masses to the goal of enlightenment. On the last subchapter I
discussed the relation of dilemma incurred by the high arts onto film. The
dominance of the capitalist influence on the consciousness of films hindered its
capability of serving as a tool for mass emancipation. The capitalist corruption of
film degraded the aesthetical standard of film; resulting to repetitive and
bastardized forms of films. Films’ regress into pure a pure form of commodity and
an escapist tool is where the corruption of film lies. Being transformed into a tool
for amusement and temporary liberation robbed film of its social function as a
social antithesis of society.
In “Chapter III: Theodor Adorno on Arts and Film” I presented his aesthetic
theory and its origins. His aesthetic theory is deeply influenced by those of Kant,
Marx, and Hegel’s. In the discussion I presented the philosophies of those of Kant,
Marx, and Hegel in which Adorno’s aesthetic theory is espoused to. In his relation
with Kant, Adorno focused on the autonomous character of art. Following the
latter’s notion of art as an autonomous object of reality, he asserts arts’
transcendental distance with the empirical world. This distance enables art to affirm
its function as a transcendental critique of the empirical world. Furthermore, this
autonomy of the arts, as they both argue, engenders the utopian nature of art.
Furthermore, in his relationship with Marx’s philosophy, he contended the
revolutionary characteristics of the arts as a catalyst for social change. He argued

that arts’ bearing of the imprints of social relations enables itself to pose as an
emancipatory tool. The truth content possessed by the arts justifies its position as a
critique of the empirical world as a social fact. Moreover, Hegel’s influence on
Adorno’s aesthetic theory is rooted from his dialectics. As they contend art stands
in an antithetical position with that of the empirical world. Similar with the Marxist
point-of-view, art is both autonomous and social in nature. Following this lie of
thinking, arts is able to serve its social function only by asserting its aesthetic
autonomous distance Only by its aesthetic separation can it engender its negative
character in relation to the empirical world. The negative character of the art is
where the antithetical function of art lies, where it serves as a negative reflection of
the empirical world. In the last part, I presented Adorno’s primary view of film as
an art. In his early critiques of the culture industry, Adorno greatly rejected the
cultural products of this capitalist scheme. He regarded films as commodified and
uncritical medium of expression. His view on arts is deeply focused on its technical
production which he argues is bastardization to the aesthetics high arts due to its
reproducibility. The deep commercialization of the film separates it from those of
the high arts. Nevertheless, Adorno did not fully reject the idea of film aligning
itself with those of the high arts. In his several commentaries on the products of the
culture industry, he regarded art as a complex medium of expression composed of
complex aesthetics. In the latter part, I discussed the similarities of high art and film
in relation to its transcendental and social functions and the dilemma it is facing
under the dominating influence of the capitalist system. This serves as an
introductory part to the succeeding chapters.
In the last main chapter of my thesis, I discussed the characteristics of an
Adornoian philosophy of film. The very aim of this chapter is to arrive at the
resolution of the corruption of film culture. These characteristics are derived from
the extensive research on Theodor Adorno’s aesthetic theory and social philosophy
shall fortify and justify films’ position as a tool for mass emancipation and
enlightenment. In the first subchapter I presented the present characteristics of
films. In this subchapter I reviewed the several genres and classification of films
that appeal most to the masses. Furthermore, I also reviewed several films and their
characteristics as commercial, bastardized, and social.
The “Social Character of Films,” discusses the characteristic of film to be
bearers of social philosophies and societal reflection. For as Adorno argues, there
can be no aesthetic of film that does not bear its cinematic sociology. Social
philosophies fortify the aesthetic wall of film serving as the guiding pillars of its
consciousness. Dissimilar with the high arts, films tend to be more socially inclined
due to its technological origins. Furthermore, in the discussion, I presented films
that possess social philosophies, specifically Marxist and revolutionary themes.
The discussion of films’ social character strengthened the arguments of
film’s position as an immanent critique of the empirical world. In the third
subchapter “Film as an Immanent Critique” discussed the antithetical position of

film from the society. It is in this position can film serve its function as a critique
of society. Following the characteristic of film as bearer of social philosophy, it
enabled itself to position itself as an immanent critique of the pervading capitalist
schema. Only through the grounding of film as an immanent critique can it assert
its dialectical analysis of the pervading social philosophies. Through films’ critical
consciousness are we able to engage the masses in a critical cinematic experience
that will extract the synthesis of the dialectical critique for a better understanding
of the societal conditions.
In the last and concluding subchapter of my thesis “The Formulation of an
Adornoian Philosophy of Film” discusses the very goal of this research work. This
part integrated Adorno’s social philosophy and aesthetic theory to the
consciousness of films to serve as a philosophical framework for future films. From
the very first chapters, the discussion on film has been focused on its social function
and epistemological character as a tool for mass emancipation. This last part
endowed future films with the appropriate characteristics to fortify its emancipatory
capability and position itself as a critique of the pervading social conditions that
entraps the masses. Films rejection of its commercial nature is the very first step of
the assertion of its aesthetics and social consciousness. As argued throughout the
research task, the extreme commercialization and commodification of arts,
particularly film, corrupted its aesthetics and hindered the attainment of function as
a tool for mass enlightenment. The corruption brought upon by the

commercialization of the film destroyed films consciousness by turning it into
repetitive cultural products that offer no authentic liberation. In correspondence
with Adorno, films should be made for films sake. Future films should put forth its
aesthetic and social characteristics as its primary concern and its commercial nature
secondary. This liberation from the bonds of commercialization enables film and
future films to assert their social function as an immanent critique of the empirical
world by withholding its autonomous character and distancing itself from the
corruptive influence of the capitalist schema. A non-commercial and critical film,
in correspondence to Adorno’s aesthetic critical theory and social philosophy, can
serve as a medium for the liberation of the masses from the pervading social
conditions and enlightenment of the masses’ consciousness from the dominating
influence of the oppressive systems. An Adornoian philosophy of film shall put
forth a new breed of cinema that engenders critical knowledge through its cinematic
critique of the society without foregoing aesthetical technique that produce visually
pleasing imagery and shots that capture the very essence and condition of the
empirical world.
II. Recommendation
Inasmuch as this thesis would want to discuss and resolve the long-standing
dilemma of the arts under the influence of the capitalist era, it can only do so much
to cover the corruption of the arts, particularly film. Its limitations challenge future
researchers into endeavoring into the field of aesthetics and critical theory to
examine the present condition of the arts within the society. The dilemma of the
arts does not end in this thesis alone or through Adorno; it begs to be salvaged from
the oppressive schema of commodification. Certain philosophers, such as Deleuze
and Marcuse endeavored in the field of social philosophy through their
commentaries on the polymorphous capitalist corruption of the arts.75 The
corruption of film culture does not fully embody the dilemma of the arts. Different
forms of arts encounter different forms of corruption.
In the goal of this thesis to resolve the particular dilemma of film culture, it
also takes into consideration the queries that shall emerge in relation to the other
arts and its own dilemmas.
 Engender further extensive researches on other forms of mass such as
television, music, and literatures that are also capable of functioning as a
tool for mass enlightenment.
75
In their literary works, they critically examined the varying facets of capitalist
influence on the cultural products. Deleuze on his writings focused on film studies, particularly in
his works: Cinema: The Movement Image, (University of Minnesota Press, 1985) and The Time
Image (University of Minnesota Press, 1985). Marcuse on the other hand, focused on the
technological aspect of capitalist standardization particularly in his work One-Dimensional Man,
(Beacon press, 1964).
 A more exhaustive and critical analysis of critical theories concerning the
universal qualities shared among the varying forms of arts.
 A more in-depth analysis and exploration on the presence and existence of
Adorno’s negative dialectics in the field of the arts.
 A more in-depth exploration and discussion of the effect of socio-critical
arts on human consciousness, rationality, and liberation.
This thesis shall serve as a guide post for the future researches on film and other
arts in their search for the redemption of their position within the society as an
antithesis and a critique of the pervading social conditions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
Adorno, Theodor W. Aesthetic Theory. Edited by Gretel Adorno and Rolf
Tiedeman. Translated by Robert Hullot-Kentor. Minneapolis, MN.:
University of Minnesota Press, 1997.
________________, and Max Horkheimer. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York:
Continuum, 1947.
________________. Negative Dialectics. Translated by E.B. Ashton, London:
Routledge, 1973.
________________. Notes to Literature, New York: Columbia University Press,
1958.
________________. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture.
Edited by J.M. Bernstein. London: Routledge, 1991.
SECONDARY SOURCES
Books:
Jarvis, Simon. Adorno: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Schafhausen, Nicolaus, Vanessa Joan Muller, and Michael Hirsch, eds. Adorno The
Possibility of the Impossible. Translated by James Gussen and Steven
Limberg. Frankfurt Kunstverein: Lukas & Sternberg, 2003.
Witkin, Robert W. Adorno on Popular Culture. London: Routledge, 2003.

Scholarly Articles:
Brantlinger, Patrick. "The Dialectic of Enlightenment."Bread and Circuses, 1983,
222-48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1g69xnz.10.
Bolanos, Paolo A. “The Critical Role of Art: Adorno between Utopia and
Dystopia.” Kritike, vol. 1, no. 1, June 2007, pp. 25–31.,
www.kritike.org/journal/issue_1/bolanos_june2007.pdf.
Fuchs, Christian. "Theodor W. Adorno and the Critical Theory of
Knowledge."Critical Theory of Communication: New Readings of Lukács,
Adorno, Marcuse, Honneth and Habermas in the Age of the Internet, 2016,
75-109. doi:10.16997/book1.c.
Gemunden, Gerarc. "An Accented Cinema."A Foreign Affair, 2008, 6-29.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qcq5c.6.
“History of Film | Study Film in the US.” International Student,
www.internationalstudent.com/study-film/history-of-film/.
Hohendahl, Peter Uwe. “Autonomy of Art: Looking Back at Adornos Aesthetische
Theorie.” Reappraisals, 1991, doi:10.7591/9781501705458-005.
Hohendahl, Peter Uwe. “Reappraisals of Critical Theory: The Legacy of the
Frankfurt School in America.” Reappraisals: Shifting Alignments in
Postwar Critical Theory. London: Cornell University Press, 1991.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1g69xjd.11.
Koch, Gertrud. "Uneasy Pleasing: Film as Mass Art." New German Critique36, no.
3 (2009): 73-83. doi:10.1215/0094033x-2009-011.
Maase, Kaspar. "Popular Culture, ‘Resistance,’ ‘Cultural Radicalism,’ and ‘Self-
Formation’ Comments on the Development of a Theory."Resistance, 2017,
45-70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1xxrtf.6.
Mason, Moya K. "Adorno: World of Art and What Is at Stake." Manganese -
Metabolism, Mineral, Bones, Osteoporosis, Diabetes, Cellular Energy.
http://www.moyak.com/papers/adorno-modernist-art.html. 2018.
Petsche, Jackson. "The Importance of Being Autonomous: ||Toward a Marxist
Defense of Art for Art's Sake: Mediations: Journal of the Marxist Literary
Group." Mediations: Journal of the Marxist Literary Group. Accessed
February 21, 2019. http://www.mediationsjournal.org/articles/the-
importance-of-being-autonomous.
Ray, Gene. "On the Conditions of Anti-Capitalist Art Radical Cultural Practices
and the Capitalist Art System." Judith Butler: What Is Critique? An Essay
on Foucault's Virtue. Accessed February 21, 2019.
http://eipcp.net/transversal/0303/ray/en/print.
Reyes, Raniel SM, “The “False” of Contemporary Philippine Society: Adorno,
Immanent Critique and Popular Music,” Baybayin vol.1, no.1, August 2015.
Waldman, Diane. "Critical Theory and Film: Adorno and "The Culture Industry"
Revisited." New German Critique, no. 12 (1977): 39. doi:10.2307/487755.

On The Corruption of Film Culture: The Possibility of A Critical Theory of Film Through Adorno's Critique of The Culture Industry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

On The Corruption of Film Culture: The Possibility of A Critical Theory of Film Through Adorno's Critique of The Culture Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF ARTS AND LETTERS PAGE 1

On the Corruption of Film Culture:

DANE ARVEE PINEDA NAVARRO

In this thesis, I discuss the possibility of an Adornoian critical theory of film

Keywords: film, culture industry, aesthetic theory, Adornoian philosophy of film

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ……………………………………………8

III. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………..9

A. Adorno on Pop Culture……………………………………………………..9

B. Adorno and the Avant-Garde’s on the Aura of the Arts…………………..11

C. Adorno and Benjamin on the Aura of the Arts……………………………12

IV. RESEARCH DESIGN........................................................................................15

CHAPTER II: ADORNO ON THE CAPITALIST CORRUPTION OF FILM

I. The Arts and Its Fetishization…………………………………………………..18

II. Schematization of the Culture Industry………………………………………..24

III. The Capitalist Corruption of Film Culture……………………………………..26

A. The Repetition of Cinematic Schema……………………………………..27

B. The Rise of Fetishized Cinema……………………………………………29

CHAPTER III: ADORNO ON THE ARTS AND FILM……………………......32

A. Autonomy of the Art………………………………………………………33

B. Arts as a Catalyst for Social Change……………………………………...37

C. Arts as an Antithesis of the Empirical World……………………………..37

D. Adorno and the Cinema…………………………………………………...39

CHAPTER IV: ADORNOIAN PHILOSOPHY OF FILM……………………...44

I. Predominant Characteristics of Existing Films………………………………...45

A. Social Character of Films…………………………………………………50

II. The Immanent Character of Film……………………………………………...54

III. The Emancipated Cinema……………………………………………………..57

CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION….61

I. Summary and Conclusion………………………………………………………61

the culture industry how capitalism further destroyed films’ epistemological

character through its extreme commercialization. He argues that arts in general;

great technological and socio-economic advancement engendered the emergence

traditions or storytelling; written traditions or literature; and visual traditions such

present film world.

the images and the storyline of the film.

Furthermore, the aforementioned line of thinking corresponds with

Adorno’s critique of the culture industry. He is considered to be one of the most

prominent detractors of culture industry. He denounced the industry’s destructive

Furthermore, following Adorno’s arguments regarding the arts, commercialization

of film hinders cognitive activities and self-reflection of the consumers, by feeding

educating them, especially in relation to social issues. Through a cinematic

acting as its eyes, capturing what the human fails to perceive.

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The aim of this study is to formulate a philosophy of film in accordance

aesthetics?” Moreover, it aims to address the following sub-questions:

1. How does capitalism corrupt film culture according to Adorno?

2. What is his aesthetic theory?

3. How does Adornoian film philosophy offer ways to antagonize

III. LITERATURE REVIEW

III.A Adorno on Pop Culture

Adorno's philosophy. In his critiques of the culture industry, he demanded high

standards concerning arts. He deemed arts as a representation of one’s culture and

capitalist system, that advancement was constrained by the delimiting influence of

Pop culture is a product of the capitalists’ domination of high culture; a

capitalist scheme on our consciousness denied us of our freedom and curved us to

fulfill its aesthetical and epistemological characteristic serving as a critique of the

Adorno, this is about freedom in encountering, deciphering and understanding fine

encounter it as a brought together entirety.

and immediacy' – rather, they are cleared along in a progression of predictable

engaged even in a state of distraction'.

III.B Adorno and the Avant-Garde’s on Aura of the Arts

Adorno looked at art as a tool for the emancipation of human consciousness

enables it to relate to its viewers.