The Effects Of Modern Film On Our Rational And Critical Thought Processes

One does not necessarily have to cluck in disapproval to admit that entertainment is all the things its detractors say it is: fun, effortless, sensational, mindless, formulaic, predictable, and subversive. In fact, one might argue that those are the very reasons so many people love it. At the same time, it is not hard to see why cultural aristocrats in the nineteenth century and intellectuals in the twentieth hated entertainment and why they predicted, as one typical nineteenth century critic railed, that its eventual effect would be to over turn all morality, to poison the springs of domestic happiness, to dissolve the ties of our social order, and to involved our country in ruin." said Neal Gabler, the author of Life in the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality. I agree with this quote, that entertainment is mind numbing and lessen the values of our society. Back in the nineteenth century, entertainment was something that actually stimulated their minds,

Today, Film and Television are among the most internationally supported commodities. Financially, their contributions are enormous: both industries are responsible for the circulation of billions of dollars each year. Since their respective explosions into the new media markets during the mid-twentieth century, film and television have produced consistently growing numbers of viewers and critics alike. Sparking debate over the nature of their viewing, film and television are now being questioned in social, political, and moral arenas for their potential impact on an audience. Critics claim that watching films or television is a passive activity in which the viewer becomes subconsciously

During the course of this essay it is my intention to discuss the differences between Classical Hollywood and post-Classical Hollywood. Although these terms refer to theoretical movements of which they are not definitive it is my goal to show that they are applicable in a broad way to a cinema tradition that dominated Hollywood production between 1916 and 1960 and which also pervaded Western Mainstream Cinema (Classical Hollywood or Classic Narrative Cinema) and to the movement and changes that came about following this time period (Post-Classical or New Hollywood). I intend to do this by first analysing and defining aspects of Classical Hollywood and having done that,

Article Three – Author: David Bordwell / Title of Article: The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film

Although the best reasons for “going to the movies” are to be entertained and eat popcorn, understanding a film is actually quite complex. Movies are not only a reflection of life, they also have the capability of shaping our norms, values, attitudes, and perception of life. Through the media of film, one can find stories of practically anything imaginable and some things unimaginable. Movie-makers use their art to entertain, to promote political agendas, to educate, and to present life as it is, was, or could be. They can present truth, truth as they interpret it, or simply ignore truth altogether. A movie can be a work of fiction, non-fiction, or anything in-between. A film is an artist’s interpretation. What one takes away from a film depends upon how one interprets what has been seen and heard. Understanding film is indeed difficult.

Eisenstein’s style of film exemplifies the political utility of cinema and addresses the increasing separation of film from ritual. According to Benjamin, cinema doesn’t possess the same ritual value other forms of

Society tends to associate propaganda films with issues such as Nazi Germany and their film messages for their country; however, it is also possible for small independent companies, groups of like-minded people and individuals to use the media of film to incorporate messages for our society (The Independent, 2010). These messages are often in relation to changes that individuals should make in order to improve the standards by which they live their lives and changes to everyday habits that will benefit the individual, the individual’s family, a group of individuals or even a single person (Barnhisel and Turner, 2010).

A criticism made by Adorno and Horkheimer that is still relevant to the modern movie industry is the criticism that “the people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly…Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art” (Adorno and Horkheimer). The modern movie industry is an industry of commodities in sense, what this means is that the movies produced today are produced simply as means for profit and not as form of art. As Adorno and Horkheimer stated “the movie-makers distrust any manuscript which is not reassuringly backed by a bestseller” (Adorno and Horkheimer) this attitude can be seen by simply observing the Avengers, Spider-man and Transformers franchises. These types of movies are given top priority at movie studios simply because they are movies with large target audiences and the movie studios know that they will bring in mass amounts of profits. These types of movies often lack substance of any kind for example take the Avengers franchise, the movie itself has very little plot or characterization but it is still produced over and over again because it is a source of revenue. This is an example of how new media technologies how what Adorno and Horkheimer mean by when they say art is becoming a commodity (Adorno and Horkheimer). Another criticism found within

“The biggest mistake we have made is to consider that films are primarily a form of entertainment. The film is the greatest medium since the invention of movable type for exchanging ideas and information, and it is no more at its best in light entertainment than literature is at its best in the light novel.” - Orson Welles

Over the years we have seen the same white story told a thousand times that we have become desensitized to it, never expecting anything else. America was a European-White country but it has become one of the most diverse countries in the world, so American isn’t just white anymore. We are at a place in our society where we can and should be talking about race and one of the best ways to do this is through film, but there has been little to no change over the past decades. Films tend to lean toward white backdrops because it is more “relatable”; Noah the 2012 film used an all white cast because they were considered

The perspectives presented in Fritz Lang’s avant-guarde silent film, ‘Metropolis’ (1927), and George Orwell’s dystopian novel ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ (1949), are reflections on the zeitgeist in their milieus. Though the texts were composed only twenty years apart, they both explore their composer’s respective personal, social, cultural and political contextual tensions and concerns. These include the dystopian concept of unmediated use and abuse of power and its threat to individualism, reflective of the rise of totalitarian regimes such as Stalin and Hitler; and the reliance on and dehumanising impact of technology, emblematic of the Machine Age across twentieth century Europe. While, Lang opts to use the medium of film, experimenting with

Overall Benjamin discusses the how mechanical reproduction changed the social function of art and how reproduced art is lacking aura. He states “Copies do not replace the original aura”. I too think it is impossible to find the same uniqueness of one of a kind art in any other kind of art. However, I think mass art such as film brings the public together because they all share the same interests and enjoy the same kind of

The notion that film functions rhetorically is hardly novel, and, indeed, there is a long tradition of film criticism within rhetorical studies.5 Historically, the rhetorical criticism of film has tended to focus on the representational aspects of cinema, attending to how films compel audiences at a cognitive rather than corporeal level. But more recently, scholars in an array of fields (Kennedy, 2000; MacDougall, 2006; Massumi, 2002; Shaviro, 1993; Sobchack, 1995, 2004) have begun to consider how cinema appeals directly to the senses, how it sways viewers somatically as well as symbolically. Attention to the body corresponds closely to the affective (re)turn in rhetorical studies,6 for conceptualizing rhetoric as embodied necessarily “reflects a merger of reason and emotion” (McKerrow, 1998, p. 322; see also Johnson, 2007). Rhetorical

There is no doubt that film is a powerful mode of cultural production that caters to politicians, academics, and the general public. We are, in our quotidian existence, unwittingly exposed to a stunning amount of sensorial stimulation. Much of this stimulation comes from film, a form of media that has captivated sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers. In the Frankfurt School, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno interpret the sociopolitical implications of film differently from Walter Benjamin. Horkheimer and Adorno see film as a means to deceive and manipulate the proletariat—although Benjamin critiques capitalist exploitation of film, he argues that film can serve revolutionary purposes. In the context of historical film, Benjamin 's arguments are more convincing than Horkheimer and Adorno 's; film is not inherently authoritarian or oppressive. Rather, the manner film is employed socio-politically is what defines its roles in mass culture.

Benjamin’s death in 1940 at the age of 48, is rumored to be a suicide when the Naza’s took office, but is still a mystery. His ideas and concepts however, would live on for decades to come. Much of what he wrote about when discussing art came essentially after the development of photography and film. In his work, “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Benjamin addresses his perception of the changes in art and the aesthetic experience congruent with societal changes. He writes with concern of how the great artworks are viewed after the introduction of photography and film. His idea of mechanical reproduction changed the art world as society knew it, particularly in how the public views artwork and the value of that work as more and more people are able to own, view and discuss it. This paper will specifically look at aspects of Benjamin’s groundbreaking essay and how educators can relate his ideas to the practices in their art classrooms.