Social Responsibility With British Film

[eellsy]

i believe that directors and produces do have the social resposibility over the interpretations of their films, to glamorise a product it is to inform of the positives and attractions to the select audience, this is in order to improve the popularity and status of a product. If this is true then the portrayal of Drugs in British film could be having negative effects of society, the picture of wealth and popularity is attractive to young people and contradicting anti-drug campaigns.

Is this the Film industry Success .Vs. Society's Right and Wrong??

[Fellwanderer]

(eellsy @ Mar 2 2006, 06:20 PM) i believe that directors and produces do have the social resposibility over the interpretations of their films, to glamorise a product it is to inform of the positives and attractions to the select audience, this is in order to improve the popularity and status of a product. If this is true then the portrayal of Drugs in British film could be having negative effects of society, the picture of wealth and popularity is attractive to young people and contradicting anti-drug campaigns. Is this the Film industry Success .Vs. Society's Right and Wrong??

If you do believe that to be the case, how would you justify your choice of "Snatch" as favourite film?

FELL

[eellsy]

(Fellwanderer @ Mar 2 2006, 06:25 PM) If you do believe that to be the case, how would you justify your choice of "Snatch" as favourite film? FELL

Because i dont have to agree with the film to like it from a media point of view, i believe it to be a very well contructed film from a media studies student perspective.

I also wish to know other peoples points of view

[smudge]

(eellsy @ Mar 2 2006, 06:20 PM) i believe that directors and produces do have the social resposibility over the interpretations of their films, to Is this the Film industry Success .Vs. Society's Right and Wrong??

How do you expect them to do this ? Surely interpretation is a matter of individual thought and the individual may (if he or she wishes) read any number of underlying meanings into what is put before him or her.

Directors can put whatever symbolism and message they wish into their films, be that directly or beneath the surface, but this does not mean that every individual seeing the picture is going to read it exactly as the autuer intended.

Society sets its own rules and values ; groups which are microcosms of that society react within it and within themselves in their own way, based upon their own rules. If a minority group adopts a piece of art which it interprets as being within those rules and uses it as a basis for a lifestyle (for example CLOCKWORK ORANGE) and, in so doing, reacts negatively to the larger society outside its group, then this is purely based upon the rules therein and not necessarily caused by an over arching influence of the given piece.

From your argument we form the tabloid debates wherein CHILDS PLAY should have turned anyone who saw it into a homicidal lunatic..

SMUDGE

[Fellwanderer]

(eellsy @ Mar 2 2006, 06:51 PM) Because i dont have to agree with the film to like it from a media point of view, i believe it to be a very well contructed film from a media studies student perspective.

Fair enough - I wasn't being critical of your choice per se.

< I also wish to know other peoples points of view

It is a difficult question.

All I know is that, were I in the position, I would not have wanted to be involved in a production that I felt glamourised the unsavoury aspects of society.

What other people decide is up to them.

FELL

[U.V.RAY]

The media does influence society, yes.

Television is the new God. It gives people their values and tells them what they desire or need to improve their lives. It creates fashions and socio political movements that people blindly follow.

In the case of drinking, smoking and in modern films, drugs, the glamourisation does usuallly portray a rather attractive or exciting image.

On a psychological level, because it is TV and film, what it does is meld reality with the sugar coating of fantasy.

However, as as already been pointed out in this discussion, the meda still cannot be blamed for the actions of sheeple.

They are not responsible. We are all responsible for our own actions. The ever declining society we live in is the result of political correctness and this penchant for altruism whereby jobless cretin heroin addicts and criminals have the same rights as a productive member of society.

It should be noted however that this inherant weakness in the mass populace does make TV a very powerful tool for those that wish to manipulate the populace. But here I would look more towards the government than the film-makers.

[Ambrosia]

It can also be said that sub culture is often self contained and views the larger population as outsiders. Drugs, Arms, etc infact all illegal comodities are marketed at the internal market, simply put if you want it then you go out and find it, its not openly advertised or marketed to the general populas as other comodities.

[Ambrosia]

(U.V.RAY @ Mar 10 2006, 07:30 AM) The media does influence society, yes. Television is the new God. It gives people their values and tells them what they desire or need to improve their lives. It creates fashions and socio political movements that people blindly follow.

Give them Bread, but above all Entertainment

[sanndevil]

This quesiton is a variation of that old Film Studies chestnut: push/pull factors. That is, when we see an unmarried woman getting pregnant in a movie, is she reflecting society's morality and the Director is merely mirroring what is seen in the real world (push); or alternatively will a woman get pregnant because she sees other examples of women getting pregnant (including the movies) around her (pull).

We can argue that one all day long, or alternatively I could suggest you pick up any Film Studies or Sociology book from your library.

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

A quote from John Michell's "Who wrote Shakespeare?" seems. to me at least, relevant here (and, by the way you don't have to accept that Bacon wrote Shakespeare's works in order to see what Michell is getting at):

"Francis Bacon was theatrically inclined and dwelt among mysteries.His loyalty was not only to his period and nation but had a far higher object. His divine mission, as he regarded it, was to create and establish an all-inclusive code of knowledge and wisdom as the guiding standard for an enlightened order of society. This was Bacon's Great Instauration, the work to which his entire life was devoted. Part of that work was the science and philosophy published under his own name, but the greater part of it was on the transformational level. Few people are transformed by reason, but everyone is susceptible to feelings and emotions, and the best way of implanting ideas in the minds of others is to keep them unaware of being consciously influenced. It is not through lectures from great thinkers that things are changed, but through music, drama and popular entertainment."

If one accepts this sort of reasoning, then it's easy to see that popular entertainment can be an influence not only for good but also for evil. I recall that John Philip Sousa said of jazz " It's the sort of music that makes you want to bite your own grandmother." Heaven knows what he would have done to the poor old dear if he'd heard some of today's offerings! I suppose that most of us have heard of the "Mozart effect" and its calming influence (although some deny its existence) and I find it interesting that an underground station in East London (near to where I live) has taken to playing light classical music through its speakers because it's claimed that it tends to calm down the more boisterous elements of the travelling public.

[sanndevil]

No one makes choices in life without influence from the environment they live in and the people around them. There is no such thing as "own decisions" because our experiences and decision-making is based on everyday interactions and learning which lead us in a partuclar direction.

On a trivial level this was even proven a couple of weeks ago with a daft survey about reading habits. It was noted people select "higher" literature to read on the tube going to work than they do when reading at home! So, people select more intellectual books when venturing outside to be perceived as brighter by their peers - society has put a "value" on intellect and people are following it. You would have to live in a vacuum void of any external contact NOT to be influenced by society whether you like it or otherwise.

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

Whether it's arty, like Shakespeare, or farty like Michael Winner it basically comes down to the same thing - the belief (or disbelief) that people can be influenced subtly by what they watch or listen to. You must have a will of iron which is determined to resist all ploys by the media, but I doubt that businesses would spend millions in advertising their products (including hair preparations!) if they thought that people weren't going to be influenced by the advertisements.

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

To be honest I avoid watch ads, but we seem to have drifted from social responsibility to hair dye

Do you avoid watching for fear that you mightbe influenced?
Some ads can have the opposite effect to that intended; for instance, I find the "Quote me happy" ads so irritating that I would avoid that company at all costs because of them
But to get back to social responsibility........

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

I find most ads irritating, so aviod watching them, channel hopping and editing them out of recordings are my main hobbies, perhaps it's irresponsible. On the other hand I've had a few entertaining moments calling quote me happy, and telling them I was unhappy with their quote, and asking for a manager.... great fun

Finally got it out of you....You've been turned into an obsessive-compulsive channel-hopping, ad-editing-outer, insurance company manager- baiter by those evil behaviour-altering programme makers.

[U.V.RAY]

"Utter and complete drivel. No one makes choices in life without influence from the environment they live in and the people around them"

True to a certain degree.

But some people use more discretion and logic in their life choices.

We are not at the sheer mercy of the society around us. Society is a product of people. Not the other way round.

To say that people are a product of society is that age old excuse - and one that is the backbone of all wastrel's scapegoating.