"Without the arts the world would be a poorer place"

[[SD] Bob Plisskin]

...discuss

This came up as a question on the General Studies paper I did yesterday, I dind't answer this one but I thought it would be cool to discuss it using film as an example. Basically I want to set out to affirm that film can effect the moral and cultural aspects of soceity for the better. A major example of this in my opinion is Natural Born Killers this film was totaly misunderstood by the media and many of it's veiwers, what the media complained about was the films glorification of violence, and what the film complained about was the media which controls our lives, it seemed very ironic that the media attempted to have the film banned. Surely if one person watches this film and realises that he doesn't have to believe everything he is told then the world is a better place.
The best example of how film as an art form has changed soceity for the better is in the anti-war films like Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon and perhaps most profoundly All Quiet on The Wetern Front, before these films many people thought that war was glorious and it was their duty to fight for their country and since there was no reporting of the mental aspect of going to war they had nobody to change their mind, until these films allowed people to realise that death for whatever cause is pointless.
But then you see these summer blockbusters which exist purely for entertainment reasons, the lowest common denominator on the way to a fast buck, not that these are bad but does Gone In 60 Seconds, Speed or The Rock really alter the underlying social fabric within the western world?
There are films out there which can have a positive effect on our lives To Kill A Mockingbird, First Blood or Blade Runner are prime examlpes but these are just a handful of films spanning seven or so decades, the majority of films are made with money in mind, and until we realise that a film is only truly a great film if you take a risk, do something different and film it unselfishly with society in mind rather than your own pocket. There are films out there which can enrich our lives but they are few and far between and to find them we must shift through all the Jerry Bruckheimer crap.

What's your opinions guys? Can film effect us for the better or am I seeing things which aren't there?

<OB>

[This message has been edited by [SD] Bob Plisskin (edited 06-15-2002).]

[thingsgoinon]

While I do agree 100 percent with your conclusion that films DO and CAN affect our lives and attitudes for the better, I disagree about Natural Born Killers.

While yes it did show us the element of how the media hypes and misleads and trys (and does unfortunately in some cases) to bias us, I believe the film DOES glorify violence in 2 ways I can think of:

1) The story line trys to make the viewer feel sorry and sympathize/empathize with a couple of low life ruthless killers. Now depending on what walk of life a person comes from, that could be VERY harmful to a mind that may not be as developed or a mind that already has violent tendancy's. No, movies can't be blamed for ALL violence that happens, but movies like this can (and has,tho I can't remember the exact case where this was sited in a suicide note by the killer) trigger violence.

2)They let the lillers get away! In a "romantic" fashion, and when I saw this in the theatre people were CHEERING!!??!!? http://www.joblo.com/ubb/confused.gif That just proves my first point...if an audience can cheer for this (and I have no reason to think I was in the only cinema where this happened)...what then is their attitude in real life I wonder? Sure not all of them may be killers, but attitudes can be harmful as well. This movie vindicated the killers. I felt that was very irresponsible of Stone.



[This message has been edited by thingsgoinon (edited 06-15-2002).]

[flowrchild]

I disagree, thingsgoinon. I think Stone consciously made a movie that was basically a dark satire on the media and society. Basically implying that two monstrous serial killers could be turned into overnight celebrities in our country. He wasn't glorifying violence or making it seem like the lead characters were good people. He was basically showing what is WRONG with our society. I think you missed the message he was trying to send.

[arto_j]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by flowrchild:
I disagree, thingsgoinon. I think Stone consciously made a movie that was basically a dark satire on the media and society. Basically implying that two monstrous serial killers could be turned into overnight celebrities in our country. He wasn't glorifying violence or making it seem like the lead characters were good people. He was basically showing what is WRONG with our society. I think you missed the message he was trying to send.</font>


I'm afraid that if the people actually were cheering, they missed Stone's point. And I'd imagine a lot of other people also missed his point (i didn't find one at all). I remember a case about a young couple that went on a killing spree and blaimed this movie for giving them influence. Naturally, a film does not make people insane, but it gives people, who already are somehow morally distorted triggers and might make them do something really crazy.

This was proven when recently in France, a kid all of the sudden stabbed one of his friends for no reason, killing his friend. He said he did this because he wanted to kill someone like they killed people in Scream. This is the first I've heard of such case, but obviously this kid was somehow fucked up. Watching Scream didn't make me want to stab anyone. Watching NBK made me wanna puke.

[thingsgoinon]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by flowrchild:
I disagree, thingsgoinon. I think Stone consciously made a movie that was basically a dark satire on the media and society. Basically implying that two monstrous serial killers could be turned into overnight celebrities in our country. He wasn't glorifying violence or making it seem like the lead characters were good people. He was basically showing what is WRONG with our society. I think you missed the message he was trying to send.</font>

I agree with you to a point, and yes I did get the message about the media and our depraved society's "follow the herd" mentality, but I guess my point was it takes a certain level of maturity to understand this......judging by the attitude of the crowd I saw it with....and how "cool" some younger ppl thought it was...not everyone has that.

But that aside, he STILL should have shown some sort of retribution.&lt;SPOILER&gt;the killers should NOT have gotten away....that ruins any message he was trying to send....and it spreads a very chilling message to those types I described in previous posts.

Now, I certainly would be interested in how you can maybe clear that ending up for me, maybe I am not getting something...how does the fate of the killers work in with his "media-hype" theme? I know it's a sad fact that in our "justice" system the guilty often go free....but that wasn't the scenario here.

[flowrchild]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by arto_j:

I'm afraid that if the people actually were cheering, they missed Stone's point. And I'd imagine a lot of other people also missed his point (i didn't find one at all). I remember a case about a young couple that went on a killing spree and blaimed this movie for giving them influence. Naturally, a film does not make people insane, but it gives people, who already are somehow morally distorted triggers and might make them do something really crazy.

This was proven when recently in France, a kid all of the sudden stabbed one of his friends for no reason, killing his friend. He said he did this because he wanted to kill someone like they killed people in Scream. This is the first I've heard of such case, but obviously this kid was somehow fucked up. Watching Scream didn't make me want to stab anyone. Watching NBK made me wanna puke.
</font>

I think in a way, the audience "cheering" and rooting for the serial killers kind of proves Stone's point about how morally decrepid our society is.

He made a farce of a movie, and the audience in theaters were reacting the exact way as the "fans" of Mickey and Malary were in the movie. If anything, what is most disturbing is that people ended up being brainwashed in the exact same way Stone predicted in the film.

And, for the record, I don't think that "edgy" movies should never be made because someone might try and imitate them one day. How boring would movies be if they were all one dimensional generic fairy tales?

[flowrchild]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thingsgoinon:
I agree with you to a point, and yes I did get the message about the media and our depraved society's "follow the herd" mentality, but I guess my point was it takes a certain level of maturity to understand this......judging by the attitude of the crowd I saw it with....and how "cool" some younger ppl thought it was...not everyone has that.

But that aside, he STILL should have shown some sort of retribution.&lt;SPOILER&gt;the killers should NOT have gotten away....that ruins any message he was trying to send....and it spreads a very chilling message to those types I described in previous posts.

Now, I certainly would be interested in how you can maybe clear that ending up for me, maybe I am not getting something...how does the fate of the killers work in with his "media-hype" theme? I know it's a sad fact that in our "justice" system the guilty often go free....but that wasn't the scenario here.

</font>

On the director's cut of the movie, there is an alternate ending where Mickey and Malary die. In truth, I wouldn't have minded it ending that way. The ending was such a tiny part of the movie to me, not something I took seriously at all. In reality, they may have died and they may have escaped. Either of them could have occurred.

Take a movie like "Silence of the lambs." A very deranged, disturbing look at a crazy serial killer. I think the fact that &lt;SPOILERS&gt; he escaped at the end, made for a very creepy and cool ending. Ask most people what they remember about the movie, and they will say the very last line of the film. Are you saying that Hannibal Lecter should have died in the end because it was the 'right' thing to do? Or how about "The Omen", should the kid have been killed since he was in fact, evil? I understand what you're saying, I just think sometimes movies are most interesting if they have a stunning type of ending that is not expected.&lt;/SPOILERS&gt;

[LordKaruku]

*** NATURAL BORN KILLERS SPOILERS ****

I think flowrchild is getting at a point I was going to make. Micky & Mallory are presented as the heroes of the film, but at least for me, I saw through this. They are only the "heroes" and they only "get away at the end" because that is going along with the farcical nature of the film, as others have pointed out. Stone is not saying he thinks they should have gotten away. They escape because they are the "good" guys, and they're supposed to get away. The film is purposefully structured this way to reinforce the message within the plot about glorifying killers, etc..

Now... I think it's perfectly legitimate to argue about the practicality or ethics of making a point that most of your audience are going to miss, and perhaps, grossly misinterpret. But a lot of great films have done this (Fight Club & A Clockwork Orange, for example), and I think it's important that artists should have the right to produce this kind of work.

[This message has been edited by LordKaruku (edited 06-15-2002).]

[thingsgoinon]

Well everyone is making great points, and now it seems clear to me that the bottom line its: The only ppl who "got" the film are the ppl who already know the problem exists. The rest are to busy being the herd. So how has that changed anything for the better? What society has gotta do is start SOLVING the problem....and it's just worse now, especially post 9/11...

Now on a positive note I will tell of a film I just saw 2 days ago that changed ME for the better...yes a summer blockbuster:

Spider-Man

Now, I am going to quote fellow Shmoe Dellamore Dellamorte, because he put into words what inspired me, and hopefully others about this film:

"But i'll say it again,with all the cynical,men are no good offerings lately(Panic Room anyone),it's nice to see one that celebrates men's inherent sense of justice and responsibility.Maguires character exhibited class,respect,intelligence,honor,and compassion(Character traits Elijah Woods' character exhibited in LOTR),and that's a great thing,especially for the younger set,or even for the older set that still haven't grown up."

I loved this film, everything about it, but THAT message is the message that NEEDS to be brought to our children, and as Dellamore said, even the older who could use some lessons.Hopefully this will be a film that has the type impact Plisskin was going for.

i also have some comments on the war films he mentioned, but I wanna think it thru.

[Dehydrator]

I think that movies only affect us on a personal level, not a global one that means something when it comes to changes in society. If 10 people watch one and the same movie, they still come out of it with 10 different interpretations, no matter how much room the flick in question leaves for interpretation, maybe there's something like a definite level of understanding when the movie really has something to say, for example EASY RIDER. A lot of people I know dig this flick and completely agree with the ideas of freedom and being yourself but the problem is that words like "freedom" and "being yourself" mean something different for different individuals.

Even a movie that spawned controversity like NATURAL BORN KILLERS can be seen as entertaiment only, depending on what you look for when watching it. Last time I saw it I was drunk and stoned out of my mind and I don't recall neither me nor anybody else in the room discussing the flick afterwards, although we all agreed that it's a pretty good film (then again, we are no experts).

I'm sure that my favorite blend of movies (horror mostly) kinda affects me, but that affection happens only within me, it doesn't have any semblance in everyday existence and while it might add up with a lot of other factors about my personality to the guy that is me, it wouldn't really matter if it was removed from my life. I also think that the way a movie affects you depends on your age, movies that really affect have gotten fewer in number during growing up. In exchange, you get more feeling for movies when you get older, if I watched DEEP RED 5 years before now, I don't think I would have liked it as much as I do now.

I agree that art is one of the things that make life fly, but art can be thought provoking at best, not world-changing since change comes from reacting and reacting comes from thinking. But thinking alone doesn't make anything happen and that's a good thing. I've never seen the infamous I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and I don't want to see it but I think after that movie I'd THINK about going to the next prison and shoot all the rapist bastards, which wouldn't be all that clever.

So yeah, art rules but rahter on an individual level than on a global scale.

[thingsgoinon]

SD Plisskin, would you mind telling me your point of view on the war films you mentioned and more about how you feel they've affected society? I've been thinking on it, but I'd really like to hear more of your POV if you don't mind.

[inglourious basterd]

I consider movies to be literary works. In my opinion, we could approach them the same way we approach books. They are both based on the written text and they are both meticulously written based on the many literary elements that exist.

The problem with movies, however, is that their interpretations are at the mercy of the actors, the directors, the producers, and the cinematographers. We entrust them to stay consistent so that the message can be clear and cohesive. This is what I think the job of the director is. With great directors like Kubrick, Spielberg, and (occasionally) Stone, there are rare occasions that movies are able to appeal to viewers with a universal message. Although their individual work may not consistently have the same amount of affect on each individual, viewers are able to get what they need to out of the films.

Another "problem" though is that, similarly to books, many of us read/watch movies for the sole purpose of entertainment. Many of us do not want to have a life-changing experience, so we do not look for them. If we are like that, we simply watch to laugh, to cry, to be whisked away, or to feel good, but do not worry or attempt to worry about why we feel the way we do. (I quoted the word "problem" because it is not really a problem; but it is in the context of my rant).

Dehydrator made a correct statement in his contention that movies are more successful in the individual level than on the global scale. Everyone has their different biases and frames of mind and everyone has different levels of seriousness in their approach to film. I have the belief that in films, writers and directors have clear intentions that they want to express -- these are what make conversation about movies interesting. This is what I love chatting with you guys on the board.

This board changed the way that I looked at movies and in an ideal world, I would hope that it will make some of you rethink your approach to film. There is so much to see if you leave your mind open to it. Do not get me wrong: I love to be entertained. However, sometimes, a good movie is just as good.

Ill leave the rest to you http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif


[This message has been edited by psudoazn (edited 06-18-2002).]

[Irene Manor]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thingsgoinon:
....and how "cool" some younger ppl thought it was...
</font>

This presents a good arguement for why younger people shouldn't be watching mature (r-rated) movies.

Bob, yeah. I think movies can have a positive impact on peoples lives. I disagree, though, that it has to be a deep film. What is to stop someone from seeing THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS and then becoming interested in cars and taking up mechanics as a trade? I wonder how many people joined the Navy just because TOP GUN kicked ass. You see, people find what they want to find in movies. Personally, I think it should be the goal of society so that people always find and embrass the positive aspects of everything in their life, instead of harping on the negative. That is what makes the difference between someone seeing THE MATRIX and being entertained, and someone seeing THE MATRIX and thinking it would be cool to wear black trench coats and go on a shooting spree.


PS - NBK was a satire on the way we glamorize social abnormalities. That is why we were left with images of Springer, OJ, those two sick brothers, and so-forth. At the start of the 90s, America was ga-ga over anything that was different. We had come to a point where we were more interested in some criminal than with our own neighbors. Stone's film captured that moment. Whether he did well is open for a whole 'nother topic.

PEACE: THE CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE.

[[SD] Bob Plisskin]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thingsgoinon:
SD Plisskin, would you mind telling me your point of view on the war films you mentioned and more about how you feel they've affected society? I've been thinking on it, but I'd really like to hear more of your POV if you don't mind.</font>

I believe that AQOTWF was the first war movie that viewed war from the true soldiers' point of view, sure there were slodier flicks before it but they were all based around gung-ho characters in the war for 'Queen and Country'. The first time I watched I didn't realise that the main characters were German (I was very young) and this I feel was brilliant since it didn't set the war as an action between us and them, but rather between them and them with us caught in the middle fighting each other. The film in my opinion is one of the greatest examlpes of how during war time the soldiers are still people, they have emotions and they have feelings, there was no dehumanisation as there is in Saving Private Ryan.
The other three films which I listed do this to an extent but we still watch the film through the good guys line and rather than the normal idea of us good them bad, and with AQOTWF Us good them good our bossess bad, there are two enemies us good, them bad and our bossess bad (most noticable in FMJ). This is fairly dissappointing to me since it seems the film went half the way in expressing the true emotion of war but not all the way. I always love to quote Bruce Lee and an interview with him once went as follows:

INTERVIEWER: So what are you? American or Chinese?

BRUCE: You know, I like to think of myself as a human being, we are all human beings.

a very wise man. It is this message which I see portrayed in these war movies, the soldiers are human beings, not like the invincible Rambo or Dutch.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Irene Manor:
I wonder how many people joined the Navy just because TOP GUN kicked ass
</font>

yes this is an example of film having an effect on people but this in know way makes the world a richer place, I would much prefer people to renounce warfare than to sign up for the navy.

&lt;OB&gt;

[thingsgoinon]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Irene Manor:
This presents a good arguement for why younger people shouldn't be watching mature (r-rated) movies.</font>

Ya know I was thinking just that....but my prob is we DO live in a place where it's available to kids anyway, apparently very easy. Now not all youths are bad nor stupid, but alot of them are, and herein lies my prob: theatres need to tighten security, even if it comes down to carding. A mixed up kid with a gun in his hand who's been picked on one to many times and seen a movie like NBK can do as much damage as a drunk teen behind the wheel...and they card for alcohol.

Plus it's all a matter of teaching kids how to be good to each other...but thats way far away from topic ,so I'll just let that whisper in the air......



<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">PEACE: THE CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE. </font>

Yeah a lot of good men thru the years have tried to tell us that and been gunned down in their tracks.

IMAGINE

[thingsgoinon]

Thanx SDBP, so it looks from the jist of this thread, that it seems more of a case of how films affect us as individuals in positive ways, more rather than as a whole. Luckily I guess if enuff individuals can be affected by film, then we stand a better chance of attaining the humanity that lies within us all.

I just wish with movies like NBK, he would have approached the message in a better way, so that ALL could understand it. I mean my prob was, yeah it's an entertaining film, but I KNEW this was not going to be understood by many....he should have approached it different.

[Irene Manor]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thingsgoinon:
[B
I just wish with movies like NBK, he would have approached the message in a better way, so that ALL could understand it. I mean my prob was, yeah it's an entertaining film, but I KNEW this was not going to be understood by many....he should have approached it different.[/B]</font>

Stone is a freak.

Bob - While military may not be an indication that things are good, I don't think that someone pursuing a dream is a bad thing. That was the overall point, not a pro-arms stance.

things - Maybe they should put advisories at the start of movies explaining things.

[thingsgoinon]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Irene Manor:

things - Maybe they should put advisories at the start of movies explaining things. </font>

Oh no no no ,uh uh, that is NOT what I meant at all...your reading that into my statement. But then I have a tendency to be a bit vauge at times..so I will expand:

What I'm saying is, as I stated b4, it seems the only ppl who understand what NBK is trying to say , are those who know and admit the nature of the media problem. To the rest of the "herd" , it was just a sensationalized piece of violence, and it can EASILY be taken for glorifying killers in some eyes. I feel he was irreponsible in the way he told the story.... the ones who need to be taught or to think about consequences are those who are not so informed or aware. He should have told the story in a different way is all I'm saying...so that the media aspect overshadowed the killers, not the other way around.No matter how much he was trying to make the viewer see the impact of out of control media types, he offered no solutions , nor did he infer any, and to me thats irresponsible. No better than some gangsta rap jerk talking about abuse of woman and violence.......



[This message has been edited by thingsgoinon (edited 06-18-2002).]