For my class on Persuasion (COMM 333), I have been asked to choose a film in which persuasion takes place and to analyze the artifact against three of the course’s topics or theories. I have chosen to analyze and critically assess the film “9 to 5” starring Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, and Dolly Parton because of its strong persuasive (and comical) messaging about gender equality in the workplace.
Persuasion in 9 to 5
Persuasion ingrains every part of this film; characters persuade one another, and the film persuades its audience through the experiences of the characters. Some persuasion is coercive, such as when the three female leads attempt to extort their boss into making the workplace better or when Lily Tomlin’s character coerces the other two leads to help her steal the body of who they think is their boss from the hospital. Some of the persuasion is not as direct; the film demonstrates how frustrating and defeating it can feel to be undermined and disrespected in the workplace through the way that the leads are treated by their superiors. The film seeks to gain sympathy and outrage from its viewers by showing the realities of stunted upward advancement, sexual harassment, and discriminatory firing in the workplace: everyday realities for women both in the 1980s and today.
Credibility
Credibility plays a major role in the film when it comes to persuasion. Viewers of the film rely on the credibility of the characters to help form their attitudes and beliefs about the film’s messages (Gass & Sieter, 2014). For example, we consider the three female leads as credible sources of workplace inequality because we see first-hand through their perspective how discriminatory the workplace is for them. We see Lily Tomlin’s frustration with the fact that an unqualified man she trained surpasses her for a promotion. We see the way Dolly Parton is sexually harassed by her boss and ostracized by the rest of the office. There are countless other messages about gender discrimination as well, and they are all meant to make viewers sympathize and connect with the leads. We believe them to be credible because we experience their plights with them and we understand their final goal, even if they go to extraordinary and harrowing lengths to achieve their goal. The characters also trust each other’s credibility. They trust in their commitment to work together for the greater good, even if that means telling lies, keeping secrets, kidnapping, corpse robbing, and committing extortion.
Social Judgement Theory
This goes hand in hand with Social Judgement Theory. Normally, viewers would not agree with kidnapping, extortion, and (as seen in the fantasy/dream sequences) killing “the boss.” This extremism would fall under their Latitude of Rejection because the incoming message is outside their range of acceptability (Gass & Sieter, 2014). However, individuals viewing the film can also relate to the feeling of being dissatisfied with one’s job and wanting to figuratively “kill” one’s boss. In this way, viewers have two anchors: killing is wrong and everyone hates their boss sometimes. Through the use of comedy, the film suspends disbelief, and viewers are allowed to indulge in the imagery of taking control of the workplace rather than worry about the ethics of taking that control. This allows the film to present a message on workplace inequality that is more likely to be associated with the viewer’s anchor that “everyone hates their boss sometimes”; therefore, the message would fall under the audience’s Latitude of Acceptance and be more likely to persuade viewers (Gass & Sieter, 2014).
Criticism (ELM & TRA)
A major criticism of the film is the scene in which the three leads all smoke pot together. Even in today’s climate, drug use of any kind is still a divisive and intensely debated issue, but even more so in the 1980s. During that time, discussing the issue of women’s rights and workplace equality was already a difficult feat between activists and men in power. Those in authority, much like in the movie, were not particularly interested in improving the workplace for women. Likely, many men who watched the film during its release had already set beliefs about workplace equality, so according to the Elaboration Likelihood Model, they would probably be peripherally processing the film’s messages (Gass & Sieter, 2014). Of course, their opinion could change as they took in all the persuasive elements put forth by the film, as the Theory of Reasoned action states (Gass & Sieter, 2014). However, the scene where the women smoked pot went directly against the normative beliefs at the time. Even President Regan criticized the film for the scene in the White House Diaries, saying:
“Funny—but one scene made me mad. A truly funny scene if the 3 gals had played getting drunk but no they had to get stoned on pot. It was an endorsement of Pot smoking for any young person who sees the picture.”
February 14, 1981
Notice how the President himself has only two things to say about the film: it was funny and an endorsement of pot smoking. There is no recognition of the greater persuasive themes of workplace and gender equality. This is a prime example of peripheral processing; he most likely had low motivation to think about the message because he was watching a comedy, so he relied on superficial processing, like the film's jokes and pot-smoking scene, to determine his perspective on the film. Other viewers at the time would have also thought in similar ways. It’s much easier to “write off” the film’s persuasive messages because one scene goes against the audience’s normative beliefs and attitudes toward pot smoking.
Reflection
The persuasion in this film is complex. It has the potential to be incredibly successful or unsuccessful depending on the way the messages are processed. I personally found it incredibly persuasive because of its ability to put a lighthearted spin on such an important issue. However, I have to recognize the way my preexisting attitudes inform that opinion. I am a woman who absolutely believes in workplace equality, so of course I am more inclined to view the female leads of this film as credible and justified. The characters’ goal, though accomplished through unethical means, falls within my Latitude of Acceptance so I am receptive to the film’s message. Because of this assignment, I feel more aware of how my own attitudes and normative beliefs shape and will shape the way I perceive persuasive messages in media artifacts now and in the future. I can imagine I would not be as receptive to a film against workplace equality as I am to one that is for workplace equality, much like how individuals in the 1980s watching the film could disregard the film’s message because of the pot-smoking scene.
References
Gass, R.H, Sieter, J.S. (2014). Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining. Pearson.
Reagan, R. (1981). Diary entry - 02/14/1981. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute. https://www.reaganfoundation.org/ronald-reagan/white-house-diaries/diary-entry-02141981/