La Casa de Papel (The Money Heist) as a Product of the Culture Industry
La Casa de Papel, which premiered in 2017 and aired for 5 seasons, has emerged as one of the most impactful media narratives of recent years, garnering global acclaim and resonance. I analyze this series, which tells the story of a group of people who carry out robberies against various financial centers under the leadership of a character called The Professor as a form of rebellion against the existing capitalist order, with a critical perspective inspired by the concept of “Culture Industry” proposed by Adorno and Horkheimer. You can find the transcript of the podcast translated into English below.
Greetings to everyone from the 14th episode of CultPost. Today, I will talk about a series that I have been thinking about for a long time but haven’t found the opportunity to discuss yet. This series might be familiar to many who have listened to this episode, whether they have watched it or at least heard of it: La Casa de Papel. The series initially aired on a Spanish channel in 2017 and due to its popularity, Netflix acquired the broadcasting rights and it reached a global audience with a new production. It became one of the most-watched series globally in 2018, especially topping the charts for non-English language series, running for five seasons and garnering immense popularity and acclaim throughout its run. In 2023, a spin-off series titled “Berlin” was released, focusing on the early life of one of the characters from La Casa de Papel, Berlin, depicting a time period before the events of the main series since Berlin had already passed away in this series. I won’t delve into the “Berlin” series today, as I believe there isn’t enough time for it, but perhaps it could be discussed at another time. As far as I last heard, a second season agreement has been made for that series, and it will soon be released as well. Therefore, today, the topic I want to focus on is the series that has made its mark on recent years, La Casa de Papel, and I will try to interpret it through the lens of the concept of “cultural industry,” a theoretical approach that we frequently use in communication, media, and cultural studies.
As I often do in previous broadcasts, before delving into the details of the subject, I’ll first outline what I actually want to discuss, present the argument, and then provide examples to illustrate it. While watching this series and listening to the comments and approaches of people around me, I noticed something: how does this series manage to garner such immense interest not only in our country but also worldwide? The main reason for my curiosity, which is actually the argument I want to discuss now, is this: La Casa de Papel is essentially a Marxist allegory constructed by the cultural industry. This argument has two parts, contained within this sentence, revealing two dimensions: one is that this series is a Marxist allegory. However, the first part of the sentence also indicates that it is a product of the cultural industry, thus these two seem contradictory. We will try to understand this contradiction, but as I mentioned earlier, I wondered why people love this series so much in today’s advanced, post-capitalist world. When you look at the narrative structure of this series, it’s possible to say that it’s almost like a Marxism narrative integrated and adapted to contemporary consumption and television culture. But are all the people who watch this series Marxist revolutionaries? Of course not. So why is this series so widely watched? These are the questions that really intrigued me, and I made these observations within the series, and I must also mention that it has an extremely compelling narrative. Therefore, before discussing this topic, let’s briefly look at what the cultural industry is.
The concept of the cultural industry is actually a discussion put forth by German philosophers and social scientists Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer in their book published in 1947 titled “Dialectic of Enlightenment” (in German: “Aydınlanmanın Diyalektiği”). To summarize very broadly, if we were to briefly outline what is discussed in this book, though it’s not possible to summarize such a profound text in just a couple of minutes, we can grasp the purpose and starting point of the book, especially through its title.
Adorno and Horkheimer, as we move into the 1940s, fundamentally question: what happened and how did contemporary society descend into such catastrophic disasters? What are these catastrophic disasters? They are multifaceted because, on one hand, there was the Second World War, where millions of people lost their lives in Europe and many parts of the world. The responsible parties, to a significant extent, are the rising fascist ideologies in Europe, but it’s not limited to them; alongside right-wing authoritarianism, left-wing authoritarianism, or totalitarianism, have also been influential, especially in the context of the Soviet Union. Therefore, we live in an age of ideologies that do not allow individuals to exercise their freedoms, their right to life, their creativity, or self-realization. On the other hand, looking at the Western world, there’s no reassuring picture there either because capitalism is an extremely dehumanizing system. It’s a system where individuals live in insecurity, income inequalities are increasing, and a dominant class that holds capital controls all social, political, and cultural spheres. Essentially, we can speak of an authoritarian lifestyle as well when we come to the 1940s and 50s. Here, the concept of the cultural industry is a critical concept proposed by Adorno and Horkheimer as they analyze the era, particularly from the perspective of the capitalist world. So, among the factors contributing to the world’s experiencing a catastrophe like fascism and totalitarianism, one of them is indeed the cultural industry.
So what is this Culture Industry? Well, we can actually connect this to the title of the book as it is related to the “Dialectic of Enlightenment” because the authors claim that the values emerging from the Enlightenment Era in the 18th century, which became the foundational values of our modern society, fundamentally, what are they? Rational thought, individualism, and developmentalism; all these values, by the time we reach the 20th century, have been undermined by the regimes and ideologies we just mentioned. All these regimes claim to lead humanity to a better place, claim to develop society, use rationality and rationality, and make developmental moves at this point with industrialization and technological advancement, they have constructed areas such as the state, bureaucracy, production in an extremely rational manner. Therefore, when viewed from the outside in terms of their ways of expressing themselves, they are quite “enlightenment (!)” approaches. However, this has moved far away from being a real enlightenment. The concept of enlightenment has now been abused and sabotaged in the name of enlightenment, leading to political, ideological, economic, and social disasters in the world. This is exactly where the dialectical thought comes into play, meaning that enlightenment has become a representation of a life experience that is its opposite, where it does not exist. Adorno will further develop this approach in his book “Negative Dialectics,” to be published in 1966, because we had seen in philosophy that dialectical thought always leads to better thoughts, when we look at Hegel and Marx, dialectic, that is, the encounter of opposites, will always bring about a better social, ideological, and political order. However, Adorno opposes this dialectical approach fundamentally. In this context, the dominant classes, of course, Adorno and Horkheimer are operating from a Marxist terminology because to them, the dominant classes are the classes that hold capital and production means, they impose it on the masses by constructing a culture industry. With this culture industry they have built, specifically speaking, with advertisements, films, products within popular culture such as music, entertainment industry, series, etc., they prevent people from seeing the real injustices and inequalities in the society they live in the world. People who consume products of the culture industry, who watch, listen, follow, seem to have fun on the surface, have a great time, and continue their lives, but especially the middle or lower classes, they cannot get an idea of how they live in a society woven with social injustices or economic injustices. Because all these representations of the culture industry normalize their lives to them, to the point where they might think how beautiful their lives are, they can console themselves by watching movies, and in this situation, they become unable to take any steps that could change society or their lives, and unfortunately, the existing order continues with all its existing inequalities.
We can interpret “La Casa de Papel” in this context as well. Returning to the initial question, why do millions of people around the world watch this show? White-collar workers, who effectively serve the existing order within capitalist society, become fans of this series. In my opinion, the formula remains the same. Just as the criticisms put forward by writers in the 1940s are still relevant in today’s new media, digital media environment, people face difficulties and problems in their daily lives — whether they are white-collar or blue-collar workers, meaning those outside the realm of capital ownership, who work for capital owners, those outside the dominant class ponder over economic inequalities or other issues, but they have no method or idea on what they can do about them, how they can construct a different life or perspective. So, everyone essentially has a critical potential within them, but in today’s world, Netflix, which is a highly significant threshold guardian of the culture industry, adeptly exploits this potential.
Do you, as an ordinary person in today’s society, harbor doubts about how current technologies, surveillance society through social media, could lead humanity to a worse place than today? Then, here’s “Black Mirror” for you; you can find solace by watching it. In my classes, I have a generation who knows “Black Mirror” episodes by heart, yet they continue to eagerly anticipate sharing Instagram stories. As a blue-collar or white-collar worker in today’s world, while you go to the office from morning till evening, trying to impress your boss, competing fiercely with others to improve your position, even trying to undermine them if necessary, spending your entire day in an insecure working environment, riding public transportation and traveling while looking at luxury cars passing by in the crowds, what are you actually doing? Deep down, you carry a sense of disappointment, a potential for debate, a critique. In that case, you can watch “La Casa de Papel” and console yourself.
Why can you console yourself? Because when we look at the narrator of “La Casa de Papel” in a general sense, we see the main character, the Professor. The character of the Professor is one of the most important indicators of this narrative being a Marxist allegory. Because he mobilizes a group of working-class people, in the series, to rob the Central Bank of Spain, to take out the gold or money from there, to carry out an anti-capitalist movement. He theorizes this movement. He doesn’t directly engage in the field, meaning he doesn’t enter the bank and participate in the robbery. Instead, he finds victimized people, those marginalized, excluded, and oppressed by capitalism, brings them together, and instills in them a revolutionary consciousness or working-class consciousness based on the anger caused by their victimization. He theoretically plans for them to carry out this robbery, to resist in solidarity with each other, which is a very important concept in Marxism. Therefore, we can say that the character of the Professor in the series is Karl Marx himself. He’s like a philosopher, a political activist who puts forward the theory of revolution. There is also a need for activist leaders who implement this revolution in practice, for example, the character Berlin serves as such a character, sharing his experiences in practically implementing the theory of revolution with the Professor. He is also the leader of the group committing the robbery. Therefore, we can say that the first sign of this Marxist allegory is the characters of the Professor and Berlin.
The second important indicator of this allegory is as follows: as you know, all the characters in the series are named after various cities around the world, such as Berlin, Stockholm, Denver, Rio, Palermo, Helsinki, Moscow, Tokyo, and so on. These are the anonymous names used by the people attempting the heist to conceal their identities. However, within the allegory, this has a different meaning. Marxist thought is fundamentally an international project, a transnational project, meaning it emphasizes not only the movement of the working class within a single nation but also the solidarity of all working classes worldwide. Therefore, through these names, an international working-class solidarity and struggle against capital are being narrated.
The third crucial element that turns La Casa de Papel into a Marxist allegory is perhaps the most prominent one: the narrative of revolutionary heroism accompanied by excessive, often boundary-pushing graphic violence and sexuality scenes. In orthodox, classical Marxist discussions, as seen in Karl Marx’s own texts, it can be observed, especially when looking at the Communist Manifesto, that Marx suggests that revolution can be achieved through a sudden, violent, and sharp process. We’re not talking about a movement spread over time, attempting to reform society, or trying to fix it over time. This approach is present in certain political ideologies proposed under the name of early Marxism, but it’s highly problematic because, as expressed by numerous new Marxist or socialist-democratic thinkers, including Adorno and Horkheimer in the 20th century, movements aiming for radical or abrupt transformation don’t necessarily lead to a new and better social and political order; on the contrary, they can lead to even greater disasters, as seen in the example of the Soviet Union.
However, in the series, a narrative of violence legitimized through the sharp and sudden transformation proposed by Orthodox Marxism becomes present. Throughout the series, violence narratives prevail, and they are extremely graphic. For instance, the character Stockholm, who becomes romantically involved with one of the robbers or revolutionaries after initially being a hostage and a civilian character, undergoes a transformation. Throughout the series, the concept of love is portrayed within the narrative as legitimizing violence. On one hand, these “good guys,” armed with their weapons, “treat their hostages well,” and the audience identifies with them. We see the bank robbers engaging in emotional and romantic relationships among themselves, as if dramatizing and romanticizing the actions of armed individuals involved in a bank robbery. In cinema, the use of violence, in general, is highly problematic, and here we can observe how violence is normalized as a narrative technique.
Characters attempting to transcend the existing order, trying to go beyond it, and thereby presenting an allegory crafted by the series, resort to violence and extremely explicit scenes of sexuality, fantasies, or obsessions. The bank or the site of the robbery is emphasized as a fantasy space. In this way, the series marks the exit of the current order, capitalism’s system. But the use of both violence and sexuality is highly problematic. For example, Berlin, who is Professor’s right-hand man and the leader executing the Professor’s plan in the field, is actually a rapist. In one episode, he threatens and sexually assaults one of the captured women, and the woman can do nothing out of fear for her life. This narrative is extremely horrific because it normalizes rape from the perspective of the perpetrator, Berlin, using an overtly sexist cinematic language. We see how Berlin’s atrocious act of sexual assault is depicted as an act of heroism stemming from his love. However, towards the end of the series, Berlin sacrifices himself as his friends escape from the bank, creating a narrative of a revolutionary who sacrifices himself for his comrades, accompanied by the background music of “Bella Ciao,” a revolutionary song that became a hit thanks to the series. This song had already played in a scene where Berlin and the Professor had a discussion about revolution, thus marking one of the most important pieces of evidence for the narrative being constructed as a Marxist allegory.
So I’ve laid out three fundamental points and tried to discuss from there. I said that La Casa de Papel is a Marxist allegory. People identify with these characters by watching the series in today’s advanced capitalist world because they feel like they’re making an effort, sacrificing, being heroic, and challenging the current order. This is the main reason for the series’ popularity. But the question we need to ask is, does this series actually lead people to question social injustices and economic inequalities in their own lives? I think not, and we can read this from the consequences of the heists depicted in the series. Throughout the five seasons, the characters rob various financial centers and then escape to exotic and mystical places, such as the Philippines. And there, they live with that money. But has society transformed? No, capitalism continues. Can this be called a revolution? No, definitely not. These people are only performing an action within the system, which is called a crime, and then comfortably living with the money and gold they’ve stolen. But what about the poor and working-class people in Spain? The series doesn’t tell us anything about their lives. So, no matter what you do, even if you steel yourself like the characters in this series, you can’t change this system. That’s essentially the message. Throughout the narrative of the series, we see the public gathering in front of the Bank of Spain to support these characters. People support them by wearing Salvador Dali masks, which were already used by the robbers to hide their identities. Unfortunately, we see that Salvador Dali’s character, a significant painter and artist, has become a part of popular culture and the culture industry. But do the living conditions of the supporting public change after all these heists? No, they don’t. Adorno and Horkheimer pointed this out in their articles on the culture industry: “The culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises. The promissory note which, with its plots and staging, it draws on pleasure is endlessly prolonged; the promise, which is actually all the spectacle consists of, is illusory: all it actually confirms is that the real point will never be reached, that the diner must be satisfied with the menu.” So, La Casa de Papel is not truly a critical narrative presented by today’s world of film and TV; it’s a product, a marketing scheme. Instead of taking steps towards real changes and transformations towards a more just and equitable society, we pay for Netflix subscriptions, watch the allegory of revolution, feel good about it, and then go on living our old lives. As the authors have expressed, rather than being actors in real change, we buy into change as a product and marketing ploy and pretend as if it’s real. Thanks for listening to my attempt to analyze the world-famous series La Casa de Papel in Episode 14 of CultPost. I hope to be back with new episodes again in the future. Goodbye, everyone!
