Art of film-making - Page 3

Originally posted by: _Angie_

Reel clearly trumps the real in terms of influence.   

If you make statements such as these, you would have to back them up with stats and not with one-off incidents. Neither far right Hindutva ideologists nor Mullahs prone to issuing fatwas represent the demographics well.

My theory is that children and low IQ people are gullible enough to fall for fiction but how long do they remain under the influence is questionable. Here I agree with Birdie that the effects could be short-term. Hopefully!

Also, unfortunately, real life violence far exceeds what's shown on the big screen, IMO. No film and no amount of tape can depict the true violence that takes place in a real war. For that matter, even in a case such as Nirbhaya's. There is no way, a movie or documentary would pass the censors if real life incidents such as these are captured on camera.


Edited by K.Universe. - 6 years ago

^^ If you make statements such as these, you would have to back them up with stats and not with one-off incidents. Neither far right Hindutva ideologists nor Mullahs prone to issuing fatwas represent the demographics well.

 

It was in response to Birdies remark that movies are too  short an event to have much impact and it's the mundane real life where one looks for lasting influences. I quoted Padmavati movie as an example how the short 2 hr event exerted its impact even before its release. However, it cant be termed as a One-off incident. Similar reactions were seen  with movies like Jodha akbaar, Vishwaroopam, Passion of the  Christ, Innocence of Muslims, Fire, Ram leela, Netaji SC Bose, documentary on Nirbhaya case  and many more. For a 2 hour entertainment with short term effects at worst,...   such protests  seem to be much  too common.. Fact is the impact factor of the movies has been long recognized for both good as well as bad influence. Hence the demand for a fair  & proportionate representation of minorities and women in the movies. Also for the same reason,  a sensitive portrayal of marginalized groups in society is advocated. Not only the screen time but also the length of dialogues assigned to female actors in the movies had been under scrutiny recently . Its indication that it's a lot more than mere entertainment.

 

My theory is that children and low IQ people are gullible enough to fall for fiction but how long do they remain under the influence is questionable. Here I agree with Birdie that the effects could be short-term. Hopefully!

 

When the  exposure is not a one off phenomenon but something repeated very frequently there is every possibility of the short term influences getting reinforced before it has the time to wear off. Children are more susceptible because of the greater intensity with which they watch. They watch almost unblinkingly are fully absorbed into  whatever it may be on the screen. They have a natural tendency to imitate what they see. . It need not  always be a deliberate act but what  gets repeatedly  fed into ones psyche ,  does leave its mark. Depending on the contents they could get motivated, depressed or agitated. Repeated positive or negative portrayal of an issue can leave a deep impact. Gone are the times when children watched just a movie or two in a month in the theatres that too of their parents choice. With the advent of TV, smartphones  and internet in almost every home, the accessibility and exposure has increased manifold . In some cases it exceeds 7-8 hrs of daily unsupervised binge watching.

 

Also, unfortunately, real life violence far exceeds what's shown on the big screen, IMO. No film and no amount of tape can depict the true violence that takes place in a real war. For that matter, even in a case such as Nirbhaya's. There is no way, a movie or documentary would pass the censors if real life incidents such as these are captured on camera.

 

Very True but perhaps it would be better to present reality of crime and violence in its raw entirety than the sanitized, trivialized and often distorted glamorized version that we often get to see on the screen. Except those caught in the war torn areas, the likelihood of witnessing brutal crimes or violence is fortunately rare in real life. Those exposed to real life scenes, soldiers included,  often suffer from post traumatic stress and tend to shun violence if they can help it.  No such issues with the viewers of glamorized crime & violence in bollywood,  The growing incidence of juvenile criminals,  road rage  and other impulsive outbursts leading to violence  at the drop of a hat can only be the effect of portrayal of distorted reality! One of the accused in the Nirbhaya case was a juvenile and said to have been the most brutal of the lot. The age of criminals in heinous crime is dropping down to alarming level! Some shocking headlines this week - class 5 student rapes class 2 girl in Ghaziabad, 3 year old boy shoots his father with his gun, and this one that  defies imagination- a 4 year old student raped by her classmate in the school premises !

 

What is the likelihood of these juveniles having exposure to real life crime scenes as an inspiration to  exposure on the reel world?

 

Movies- a two hour fictional affair ...with no impact or inspiration...only a short term effect  if at all? Should there be any curbs to creative liberty...or is it commercial liberty...? The audio-visual mass media being a powerful educative tool,  should movie makers own more responsibility in their contribution to moulding social values? 

Originally posted by: _Angie_

It was in response to Birdies remark that movies are too  short an event to have much impact and it's the mundane real life where one looks for lasting influences. I quoted Padmavati movie as an example how the short 2 hr event exerted its impact even before its release. However, it cant be termed as a One-off incident. Similar reactions were seen  with movies like Jodha akbaar, Vishwaroopam, Passion of the  Christ, Innocence of Muslims, Fire, Ram leela, Netaji SC Bose, documentary on Nirbhaya case  and many more. For a 2 hour entertainment with short term effects at worst,...   such protests  seem to be much  too common.. Fact is the impact factor of the movies has been long recognized for both good as well as bad influence. Hence the demand for a fair  & proportionate representation of minorities and women in the movies. Also for the same reason,  a sensitive portrayal of marginalized groups in society is advocated. Not only the screen time but also the length of dialogues assigned to female actors in the movies had been under scrutiny recently . Its indication that it's a lot more than mere entertainment.

I don't think 5, 10 or even 15 examples are statistically significant that the data could be used to come to a reasonable conclusion. Also, has it occurred to you that people with agendas could simply be sending a message ("don't mess with us!") by using any / all opportunities even where none exist? That, If not on the pretext of a movie, they would find some other forum or platform to send the same message? 

When the  exposure is not a one off phenomenon but something repeated very frequently there is every possibility of the short term influences getting reinforced before it has the time to wear off. Children are more susceptible because of the greater intensity with which they watch. They watch almost unblinkingly are fully absorbed into  whatever it may be on the screen. They have a natural tendency to imitate what they see. . It need not  always be a deliberate act but what  gets repeatedly  fed into ones psyche ,  does leave its mark. Depending on the contents they could get motivated, depressed or agitated. Repeated positive or negative portrayal of an issue can leave a deep impact. Gone are the times when children watched just a movie or two in a month in the theatres that too of their parents choice. With the advent of TV, smartphones  and internet in almost every home, the accessibility and exposure has increased manifold . In some cases it exceeds 7-8 hrs of daily unsupervised binge watching.

This is precisely why we have ratings and certifications on movies. Also, parental controls and so on, on cable and computers. If children are bypassing all these to get to the adult stuff, only to be psychologically damaged later on for the rest of their lives, then tough! As i said, children and the not so intelligent are susceptible to risk anyway, if not this medium, then something else, like books! My contention is that, to a normal person, movies merely mean 2-3 hours of recreation and nothing more. 

Very True but perhaps it would be better to present reality of crime and violence in its raw entirety than the sanitized, trivialized and often distorted glamorized version that we often get to see on the screen.

Why? What good would it serve?

Except those caught in the war torn areas, the likelihood of witnessing brutal crimes or violence is fortunately rare in real life. Those exposed to real life scenes, soldiers included,  often suffer from post traumatic stress and tend to shun violence if they can help it.  No such issues with the viewers of glamorized crime & violence in bollywood,  The growing incidence of juvenile criminals,  road rage  and other impulsive outbursts leading to violence  at the drop of a hat can only be the effect of portrayal of distorted reality! One of the accused in the Nirbhaya case was a juvenile and said to have been the most brutal of the lot. The age of criminals in heinous crime is dropping down to alarming level! Some shocking headlines this week - class 5 student rapes class 2 girl in Ghaziabad, 3 year old boy shoots his father with his gun, and this one that  defies imagination- a 4 year old student raped by her classmate in the school premises !

 What is the likelihood of these juveniles having exposure to real life crime scenes as an inspiration to  exposure on the reel world?

Correlation could only be established if it could be shown that in the era before cinema, crime was significantly lower than what it is today. Even so, correlation may not immediately imply causation. Why crime rates are higher is a complex issue. One factor could be over population. Another could be drugs or alcohol. How did you narrow it down to movies? At most, you may say movies are a factor too, but it needs to be backed by studies.

 

Originally posted by: _Angie_

The kind of reaction a movie like Padmavati could evoke even prior to its release speaks volumes about the low potential of a two hour affair .. . or rather its  "anticipated affair as it hasn't been screened yet  Did you say you cant get too silly over them? 😆        Mary Kom of reel-life rakes in more money than the real- life   pugilist. To save the honour of the late Padmavati , a bounty gets placed on the living actress who played her role! Clearly the two hour affair  seems to be having more influence than the choola khana pakana events in rest of the life . Reel clearly trumps the real in terms of influence.   

Edited by qwertyesque - 6 years ago

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Read my earlier post. I told you if a movie doesnt reflect the values correctly it might not work. This is a correct example where people didnt like a movie misrepresenting their history. If movies could influence.. we could have Shivaji and Aurangzeb dance the garba together 😊

Cinema generally was meant to be an entertainment without any takeaways.. most people are aware of that...but modern cinema with its bent to show real life characters...(like Hwd)  is confusing it with real life... movie making is an art - its imagination and creativity of a team.. that's it. We shouldn't read too much from it to influence our actions... if the creativity offends some or many its stupid to be creative in a way it hurts people. M F Hussain's devi painting just received similar reaction...as salman rushdie's satanic verses... you can be creative but if you intend to make money from admirers - don't offend them!!

Not to say movies don't influence.. but only on the fringe... like adopting western habits or styles etc...being emotionally indifferent (like really cool ) etc...

A skilled and experienced movie maker could deliver an intended message in subtle ways and evoke the intended emotions. As such, it is an art. The movie Schindler's List and Padmavat , both were based on  tragic events  but ended up evoking very different response from its  viewers in general.  While the audience    in the former left in a somber mood, somehow the pain and anguish of the mass jauhar in the later got lost in the opulence of the sets and costumes. To be fair to the movie maker, with all those forced editings to appease the masses, its difficult to say if he had initially intended to evoke any particular response from the viewers wrt his own depiction of the popular tale of Padmavat.

 

Though movies are basically meant for entertainment it does influence opinions and behavior, affecting people to different extent depending on their susceptibility. While the movies may be certified as U, A or U/A there is no certifications for the movie-goers such as  "normal, abnormal or not so normal. There are different ways in which movies can exert their influence from the reel to the real. Movies consistently depicting people of a particular community/ country as honest, valiant, do-gooders succeed in creating a positive image for that  country in real life. On the other hand, another  country consistently depicted as a land of slums and snake charmers would get stereotyped with that image notwithstanding its rich diversity. A region depicted with scenic locales can do boost up its tourism industry, whereas repeated depictions of that very region or another with high crime rate would mar its tourism prospects.  While causality may be  difficult to establish, studies* have found a strong impact through association of  risk behavior to exposure to risk glorifying media. A skilled movie maker could actually manipulate viewers opinions and behavior for good or bad!

 

* https://www.pressreader.com/india/the-times-of-india-new-delhi-edition/20180131/282192241423198    (Going for a Speed Thrill flick? Take a cab)