Something I've been thinking about in terms of parallels lately is Tateh having to "evolve" himself to anywhere from lower class and Henry Ford, an already established businessman, having to "dumb himself down" in order to maintain a successful business. In a way, I think Doctorow is kind of cynically pointing out that no matter how good you are at what you do--be that art or manufacturing or whatnot--you're never going to be enough on your own to maintain public interest.
Indisputably Tateh's work was beautiful in the world of the book. People would pay to watch him work (which is admittedly degrading) and his flip-books were so wonderfully done that they were put into a production of sorts. So, if Tateh's work was entertaining enough when he wasn't known, why did he have to change to become a successful film maker? He didn't really have to change what he was doing with his work or what he wanted to do; he didn't even have to change his fundamental beliefs. He admits to Mother at the end that he's still a socialist and has kept all the social baggage. All Tateh changes is how the public sees him. A talented man who brought himself up from nothing wasn't unique enough, or possibly the story was too tragic in origin to be palatable by movie viewers so he had to become something more fanciful like the subject of any movie.
Then, there is Henry Ford. He is very good at what he does, even though the attitude he strikes toward his work is dehumanizing (considering people as replaceable parts and all) and he decides no one will work with him if he appears too smart. He's probably right. The way Henry Ford is narrated has a kind of grating tone that probably wouldn't appeal to consumers so he feels/knows he has to "stoop" to their level.
Both are definitely lying to the public to have more appeal and/or to have better sales. This is not much different than modern day advertising, which tells us exactly what we have to hear to buy a product. As annoyed as we get at businesses now for leading us on, I can't really picture how outraged the public would be if they found out they were being lead on.
When you point out that initially people pay to watch Tateh work, you bring up an important point: there is something degrading about his art being viewed as a kind of sideshow trick, where the act of making it is more important than the product itself. This aligns him with Houdini, who is so conflicted over his own role as a performer and worries that he's not respected as an artist. One way to read the arc of Tateh's story is that he finds a way (like Ford, I suppose) to go "behind the scenes"--to let his art (the films he makes) speak for itself. The art is still drawn from his life experience--as the Little Rascals are "inspired" by his own nontraditional family--but he himself is less of a "dancing bear." And this equals a more dignified and respectable. It's less about him (and his baggage?) and more about his art itself.
ReplyDelete