FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. - The labor movement is alive and well in Hollywood, says a University of Arkansas researcher. And he’s not referring to recent industry strikes.

Keith Booker, professor of English, studies 20^th century culture, particularly the way that experimental modes of thought and communication become mainstream. For the recent Space Between Conference - an annual gathering of scholars, dedicated to the study of art and culture between the two world wars - Booker presented a paper on Proletarian literature of the 1930s and 40s.

As a literary genre, the Proletarian movement was short-lived, contained mainly within the decades between World War I and II. But according to Booker, the ideals of that movement found a lasting legacy - not just in society and politics but also in film.

"There are resonances and remnants of the leftist movement throughout American culture," Booker said. "Some of the most radical Proletarian ideas about class equality have become clichés in the American cinema."

Consider the following: A young man with more luck than money boards a cruise ship headed across the Atlantic. A young woman with a stubborn will and stunning wealth sets sail on the same boat. Their paths collide, and a love is born that will buoy them through the greatest maritime disaster of the ages.

Sound familiar? It should. It’s the plot of "Titanic," the box office hit of 1998. And if audiences felt any skepticism about the film, it was whether the computer animated graphics looked real - not whether a working-class man and a woman of wealth could fall in love. According to Booker, such Proletarian plotlines have become a hallmark of Hollywood entertainment.

"In American film, rich people are either evil or stupid. They’re almost never the hero. It’s always the poor guy we root for and relate to," he said. "Americans like to believe that rich people are bad, and they like to believe that even the poor - especially the poor - can come out on top."

Prior to the 1920s, however, the dignity and triumph of the common man was still a radical idea. It took the Proletarian movement to promote the notion of class equality, and as if that weren’t revolutionary enough, leftist leaders added race and gender equality to their agenda as well.

Over subsequent decades, the issues of race and gender found political and social outlets, culminating in the 1960s with the civil rights movement and feminism. But when the Proletarian movement lost its momentum in the Second World War, the issue of class equality seemed to die with it.

Not so, Booker said. Class equality may not have received the political credence Proletarians had hoped for, but it nonetheless entered mainstream American consciousness. The fact that it did so through a pop culture medium may be due in part to the number of leftist sympathizers working in the movie industry during the 1930s and 40s, Booker acknowledged.

"A lot of people working in Hollywood at the time had affiliations with the Communist Party," he said. "It was in vogue. If you were part of the Communist Party, it meant your heart was in the right place, fighting for the rights of the common people."

But over time, the portrayal of class in movies became less a matter of Communist commentary and more the expression of a unique American idiosyncrasy: that is, our tendency to resent the rich without diminishing our desire to be rich. That, in turn, grew out of the belief that every person, even the most disadvantaged, has the opportunity and the power to control their own destiny.

While the public’s love/hate fascination with wealth feeds the movie industry’s use of Proletarian themes, Booker points out that it conflicts with the actual political message of the leftist movement. He further notes that from a Proletarian perspective, the belief in individual capability - a belief strongly reinforced by these movies - helps perpetuate the economic exploitation of common people. Believing in their own potential for advancement assures people that the American system is good, despite their seemingly disadvantaged position within it.

"This is a good example of the way that mainstream culture appropriates radical political ideas and then strips them of any real subversive power," Booker said. "Look at 'Titanic’. The movie dabbles with notions of class inequality, but instead of addressing them as serious social issues, it reduces them to a romantic accessory."

By encouraging the use Proletarian themes in popular movies, the mainstream public may be using entertainment to palliate its concerns about ongoing social inequality in America - searching for the happy ending that’s so elusive in real life. It’s an approach that’s not likely to solve the underlying problems, but Booker believes that as long as Proletarian ideas persist, there’s a chance that people will take up the cause in a more direct way.

"Maybe these ideas don’t serve a radical purpose right now, but that doesn’t mean they never will," he said. "As long as the ideas endure, there’s a chance for people to take action, to speak out against something they see as unfair."