The recapitulation of art is one of the weirdest parts of existence under a capitalist system. “Shrek” then, would be, as Horkheimer and Adorno describe in “The Dialectic of Enlightenment,” “something...for everyone so that no one can escape” (1035). “Shrek 2” puts an even finer point on the satire of oversaturated mid-2000s American excess, showcasing the cultural hub of the known fairy tale world, the main strip of which looks exactly like Hollywood’s Rodeo Drive. As Adorno in “Culture Industry Revisited” argues, “the culture industry fuses the old and familiar into a new quality;” the old in this case being the fairy tale universe, and the familiar being contemporary reality (12). The resulting art product is an incredible departure from the traditional telling of these tales, with a very critical look at the society which gave rise to the conditions that produced this type of art in the first place.
“Shrek” as a fairy tale exists in the context of a capitalist reality. The whole reason for Shrek’s initial journey was the imposition of property rights and the need for him to procure a deed for his swamp. Before this, there was no reason for him to consider leaving the premises of his swamp, for he exists in a state of self-sufficiency, outside of the forces of a market. This situation is similar to that of the original conception of folk tales, as described by Jack Zipes in “Breaking the Magic Seal: Radical Theories of Folk and Fairy Tales.” Zipes describes the “initial ontological situation” of folk tales to be located in their centering of “exploitation, hunger, and injustice” felt by “lower classes in pre-capitalist societies.” Shrek was not moved from his swamp until the capitalist need for profit forced him to react to it, thus creating the entire narrative thrust of the story. Once Shrek is ensnared into the outside world of capitalist society (i.e., his meeting of Donkey and courting of Fiona) he must fill a role within it, and cannot simply return to his swamp.
The entrance to Far Far Away is quite significant as well. The names of famous fairy tale situations, tropes, and even characters themselves, have been commodified, turned into enterprises with familiar logos to our real-life corporations. “Versachery,” “Olde MacDonald’s,” and “Baskin Robinhood” all serve as reminders of what Benjamin says in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” is the “destructive cathartic side” of literature: “the liquidation of the value of tradition in the cultural heritage” (979). All of the princesses of the stories that were in their own right full-fledged, deep tales of exploitation or grievance, such as Rapunzel and Cinderella, are also simply reduced to the same status as lower-tier celebrity, with a gated mansion on the street leading up to the castle, merely fairy tale props to familiarize and desensitize the audience at the same time. The old forms of culture have been “rigorously subsumed” at the expense of a product that is sure to make money for the studios (Horkheimer 1038).
“Shrek 2” feels like a fairy tale. There is a dreamlike way that the scenes flow together and create the whole, stitched-together 2004 film. As Adorno points out, this “aura”—as Benjamin uses to describe art’s power—is nothing but a “foggy mist” that obfuscates the true decline of the society in which it was produced (Adorno 15). The fact that media in the world of Shrek is not reflective of the contemporary time period (Television shows are watched through the magical mirror) and instead represents the society in which it was created is also very significant. The degeneration of art has gotten so bad that even in a world full of fantasy characters and magic, the advertisements in Far Far Away showcase their newest big release: “Lethal Arrow 4,” clearly a reference to the Lethal Weapon series. Another piece of media, “KNIGHTS,” (medieval version of “COPS”), commodifies and propagandizes videos of violence against Shrek and his crew. After transgressing against a wealthy potions baron (Fairy godmother), the state police force violently apprehends them (Puss-in-Boots correctly decrying the “capitalist pig-dogs” responsible) and imprisons them. The acceleration of exploitation has increased the suffering of the working class of Far Far Away (Fairy Godmother operates a factory with shocking labor practices), while the powerful rule in comfort, aided by propaganda, “KNIGHTS” to remind them who the villains are, and “Lethal Arrow 4” to remind them that the kingdom is safe as long as the hierarchy is maintained, showcasing the awareness of the creators of the film, as this is clearly meant to symbolize the state of American life.
Shrek’s journey in “Shrek” forced him for the first time out of his idyllic life into a capitalist reality where his home was at stake. “Shrek 2” forced him into the maw of utter capitalist acceleration, to the pinnacle of exploitation in the liberal state, the culture industry-dominated Far Far Away. While there certainly was some personal venom from the creators against the degenerate Hollywood elites, the film can definitely be read as a critique of capitalism and the transactional nature of bureaucratic institutions and the culture industry at large. The Fairy Godmother herself even serves as a policing mechanism, consciously shaping the stories of the world to conform them to traditional narratives—but also in search of future profit, promising the king ruling power in exchange for his daughter’s hand in marriage. That this film was produced specifically to generate profit by synthesizing hundreds of years of folk tales does not change the fact that it, much like the tales upon which it is built, critiques the society in which it was produced, however unaware of this critique it is.
Intriguing! I've never read such a deep take on Shrek. It makes me want to rewatch the movies!
And yet, as Adorno or Benjamin would no doubt remind you, they themselves did not view capitalism one-dimensionally. Shrek's entrance into bourgeois market society represented his first step toward a higher form of freedom than that which he could have enjoyed alone in his autarkic swamp. But, of course, that freedom is self-contradictory, and its pursuit has eventually ended up engendering the ridiculous society we inhabit now.
Of course, the whole point of the Frankfurt School was to indicate how regressed society - and the Left - had become. The organized rebellion and flight from the capitalist Far Far Away by the characters in Shrek represents a praxis that we today can not even aspire to, despite its clearly degraded nature. The Frankfurt School is the theory appropriate to the retreat from the duty to take control of capitalism expressed en masse by the Left and the broader working class around it since 1914.
Thus, if Shrek is to retain any hold on the 21st century's imagination, it must only be as a reminder that our art now expresses our longing for revolution, but even then only by anachronistically projecting capitalist reality backward in time so as to create a fictional continuity between us and the oppressed of all centuries. In other words, by virtue of being hopelessly reactionary and romantic to the point of silliness, art such as Shrek confronts us with our own silly inability to change the world around us.
But hey, after all, Shrek may be just another entertaining movie! It certainly won't stop me from laughing along with it time and again!