Introduction
The film has been termed as a cultural mirror; a reflection of society’s attitudes, values, philosophies, and lifestyle. The film could be seen as a product of culture since the filmmakers are people of that particular real-time. Compared to the general public, filmmakers are considered to be atypical, more politically liberal, less devoted to practice religion, and more willing to embrace the changing social attitudes. Thus the tendencies of their movies to support radicalism and subvert traditional values like those perpetrated by the Christians, Bradley, M., et al.,
(1996).
Film and culture
The film industry is one of the fastest-growing cultural communicator industries. The effect of movies in the modern world cannot be assumed. It’s currently rated as the most powerful cultural communicator. As culture is defined as the processes that produce behaviors, practices, meanings, and institutions of our social existence, movies being a modern cultural communicator have a direct effect in shaping society’s beliefs and practices. Viewers not only get entertained by movies but may unknowingly enter into a life of escapism with distorted values and lifestyles. These effects from an idealized life may include; rationalizing violence, romanticizing views on love and passion as well as creating distortions on the view of oneself and others, Smith, G. (1999).
An example is a western culture which for the last three hundred years has moved from a Christian-dominated culture to a more general anti-Christian secularism. As movies become part of our culture, they inevitably convey values and beliefs. It’s a complex process to try and differentiate if the entertainment media reflects or shapes society. When films address contemporary issues in society and have them treated as per current perspective, then they may be considered to reflect the society.
In some of the instances, in the process of portraying and representing culture, the film ends up glamorizing and popularizing the ideas, attitudes, beliefs, and values within the culture. In this way, film shapes culture and as it portrays and reflects on some of these values, they become infiltrated into people’s minds and this can lead to certain dangers. It’s thus possible to say that film is not just a mirror of the society but also a cultural byproduct of a culture they helped to create, Bradley, M., et al.,(1996).
Some of the distortions associated with film include; promotion of individualism, and stereotyping males and females as well as institutions such as family and religion. The pressing danger associated with the film is that viewers may blindly enter into the film just to be entertained but unknowingly enter into a life that that is portraying distorted values and lifestyles. In this case, the distorted values and lifestyle will not be generally accepted. The filmmaker thus finds it easy to defend themselves in arguing that they represent culture.
Filmmakers cannot represent every concept of culture in a single movie and thus when the movies they represent are not part of universally accepted moral standings, then they stand to be justified that they are representing values and beliefs of the minority. Unfortunately, to attract the attention of the viewers, they will idealize life in areas such as passion and love that is romanticized, violence that is rationalized, and distorted views of others and oneself., Smith, G. (1999).
Thus, movies can be considered to educate and influence the audience for better or worse. Compared to dreams that reflect personal desires, fantasies, and subconscious thoughts and feelings, movies also reflect collective fantasies, desires, dreams, subconscious and nightmares of the experiences. In the same way, it is possible to learn about an individual from the symbols in a dream, so it is possible to understand customs and social values of the society by learning from the subconscious and conscious messages learned from the movies, Bradley, M., et al.,(1996).
People’s inner intelligence and their outward experiences in real life push them to behave ethically- honest, loving, nonviolent, and self-restrained. In the film industry, consequences associated with unethical actions are not real as actors do not experience being cheated or murdered.
The more extreme acts such as violence in movies are, the more interesting the movie is. In real life, being truthful is considered the best and simple way to live while the opposite, deceit and lying are considered to complicate things. Certainly stealing, killing, lying, cheating often happen in society and so the movies only portray what is happing in society. Although these acts may not happen in real life as they are portrayed in the movies they provide vicarious lessons.
Movies are enjoyed for leisure. They have resulted in the growth of culture globally and have communicated to the world through one common language. The film can thus be viewed to be just but an expression of the spirit of that particular age. Unfortunately, as the media; television, newspapers, magazines, music, popular literature, and film define reality by expressing meaning to history experienced by the ordinary citizens, they do so by defining what is important and is worthy to be viewed or read publicly. Thus the film industry carries enormous power to shape society. We may not necessarily agree with them in the manner in which life is portrayed in the film, but it may be a generally accepted fact that the language of the films is to a more extent the language of our times, Smith, G. (1999).
Conclusion
Recognizing dangers associated with the film should not push viewers away from the film industry but instill the desire to enter into the film industry with an educated mind. Since the film is a cultural communicator both of what is generally accepted by the majority and also what is accepted by the minority, the filmmaker may be perceived as not holding any responsibility as a moralist.
A critique of the justification would question the origin of the phrase “responsibility as a moralist” if the general public opinion doesn’t hold. The silent message from the phrase is that there is what is generally accepted by society at a particular time and that’s why it’s possible to have commonly accepted rules and regulations. It is then logical to conclude that since the film is to send out messages to the general public that has a set of generally accepted norms, then the filmmaker has the responsibility of not portraying his/her identity to the public domain to woe them into his/her view.
Reference
Bradley, M., Cuthbert, B. & Lang, P. Picture media and emotion: Effects of a sustained affective context. Psycho-physiology, 33, (1996): 662–670.
Smith, G. Local emotions, Global moods and film structure. In C. Plantinga & G. Smith (Eds.), Passionate views: Film, cognition and emotion. Baltimore, M. D: Johns Hopkins University Press.. (1999).