rebekko Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roll Right Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 No I don't believe cinema or movies are a public danger. The danger lies in imagery and monopolies on information - i.e. creating imagery to disseminate false information or trying to masquerade false images as the truth. This is postmodernism at its finest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebekko Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately is the only one. I had hoped to hear more of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heathenist Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 If you are arguing that cinema is a public danger then you could use the same reasoning to argue that any art form is a public danger. Pierre Bourdieu would probably argue that the ruling class could use cinema to impose a false reality on the public. For example, by creating images of minorities who are viewed as villains, the public may start to believe that minorities are more likely to be "bad". By creating this mindset they are increasing their "symbolic capital" because the ruling class is made of mostly non-minorities. But no, I don't believe cinema is a public danger, however, I do believe that the corporations who impose these ideas can be a public danger. I suggest reading works written Pierre Bourdieu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Jimmy Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I think cinema just as often advances new and/or good ideas as "planting" dangerous ones. It could be seen as a public good as much or more than a danger. But you can definitely argue it either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joops Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I would consider propaganda of most kinds to be dangerous. However, it seems that modern cinema, especially in the US, is quite positive. I think this is further true for television. Actually, one of the reasons why I like TV so much is because I consider it a barometer for cultural ideas and opinions. This is especially true for taking the stigma off of gay relationships. When I watch Modern Family, for example, it makes me hope that people watch it and realize that gay parents are fully able to raise happy, healthy children. I imagine it's also helpful for gay teens who watch shows like Glee to realize that they are not alone. So, in short, I believe that cinema is more a force for good than bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roll Right Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Also, you should consult "Simulacra and Simulation" by Jean Baudrillard. He discusses the power of image extensively - how simulated reality has replaced real to such an extreme that "real" no longer exists. PDF online for free: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/Baudrillard-Simulacra_and_Simulation.pdf hoobers and kiterp 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebekko Posted March 10, 2011 Author Share Posted March 10, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maximus82 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 What about free speech? Is that dangerous then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebekko Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 What about free speech? Is that dangerous then? Such a question means only one thing; I was not able to express my view. I will try again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maximus82 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Such a question means only one thing; I was not able to express my view. I will try again you expressed your views alright, I just wanted to get your opinion on free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roll Right Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Cinema is only a vehicle for messages. Symbols make up messages. It really depends on the message, the audience, and the quality of the symbols in the message. You can't say cinema in particular is a dangerous thing. What about books and artistic works? Books have inspired and driven people to do incredible and terrible things. Media in general is simply the mass communication of thoughts, perspectives and fact. You've got an argument to make here, but don't limit it to cinema. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebekko Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share Posted March 12, 2011 Cinema is only a vehicle for messages. Symbols make up messages. It really depends on the message, the audience, and the quality of the symbols in the message. You can't say cinema in particular is a dangerous thing. What about books and artistic works? Books have inspired and driven people to do incredible and terrible things. Media in general is simply the mass communication of thoughts, perspectives and fact. You've got an argument to make here, but don't limit it to cinema. 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maximus82 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 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". Can you give me an example, with specific films if possible, of how cinema is a public danger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barilicious Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I don't believe that the cinema is a public danger, in general, but The Birth of a Nation is the first film that popped in my mind when this thread first began. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roll Right Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Can you give me an example, with specific films if possible, of how cinema is a public danger? Triumph of the Will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now