rebekko

You are right about books, but a book is only a piece of paper and you must be willing to read it and you have to do some work with your imagination. Also cinema must be willingly be watched, but cinema works on several approaches; pictures, sound, words, volume, atmosphere and expecially a combination of all these elements. Just like advertising does. Here I see the "danger".

Such a question means only one thing; I was not able to express my view. I will try again

Thank you for your statements; I see that all are "for" and not "against" cinema. I think that this depends mostly from the idea that everyone consider himself able to understand if a "message" is good or bad; in fact able to have the control. Of course we have the control of our feelings and we are able to judge if a message is positive or not, but we are not always aware of that and we are not always "alerted" about what we are watching. Why is advertising so succesful? Short advertising films are great art works; they go directly to one's feelings, to one's emotions. In fact, the economic movement (philosophic school?) which fights for the idea of Degrowth, says that advertising should be banned: prohibited. I see cinema as a softened avertising; therefore dangerous.

Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately is the only one. I had hoped to hear more of them.

Dear members of this forum, I was entering this forum with the purpose of hearing what others think on the matter "cinema". (Or movie, as it is said in America). My idea is that cinema is dangerous because it "creates" opinions in an explicit but also in a hidden way. I am trying to find more (or better expressed) arguments to carry on this idea. What is your opinion?