The Films. Part Two.

Please first read Part One.

Now.

One of the things the tutors consistently emphasise is the idea that cinema is meant to do more than entertain; that a film can be important, so one must watch it even if one finds it disagreeable to the very soul.

I'd like to challenge that.

What, I wonder, was the first point, if you like, of film? Its original raison d'etre.

The first movie ever to have been made is thought by many to be 'Roundhay Garden Scene' in 1888, in which a bunch of late 19th century-ers sit around laughing in a garden in England.What was the point? Of course, it could have simply been Because. Because it was possible, and why not. Moving on from that, it's fair to say that movies of all sorts were made
     * to entertain
     *to inform
or possibly both.
   Good  examples of such would be the silent films we were treated to last week at the Odeon. Buster Keaton's lighthearted antics were a good example of the medium of early cinema being used to entertain and raise a laugh back in 1924, and although the slapstick and obvious humour is slighjtly out of fashion to most today, silent films still make us laugh, and are entertaining through the sheer jollity of them.
    In contrast, Man With A Movie Camera was not made purely to entertain or make us laugh, it was likely propaganda showing the happiness (debatable) of the Soviet people under Stalin, at that time a relatively new leader. It was enjoyable because it was so interesting.
    Moving very quickly through history, it's clear that the movies which did best in any genre at any time, were movies designed to entertain the audience. Obviously at some point, other forces started realising cinema was  a good way of reaching the masses and thus the concept of film being 'important' arose.
     In some cases, films can be important. I would say that generally anything of a historical nature is a very important film, because it is very important for everyone to know history well, and if they're in positions of even very little power, learn from it. I do Not think that the genre of 'important film' should extend to films designed purposefully to shock, offend, antagonise or pervert.

     Of course, this is a big topic; it touches on all kinds of moral issues such as whether films should be censored, and that sounds atrociously Holocaustic. But I do think that some kind of discretion should be used as to what is and is not appropriate. Films that are mentally damaging should not be allowed to enter production, let alone be seen by masses of people. I'm constantly thinking about that. It's quite worrying, when one does think about that, that anyone, perhaps of a damaged or questionable nature can go easily and see films like Saw or Se7en, or Fellini's Satyricon. Perhaps, well, certainly A Clockwork Orange can be put into that list as well. It seems people in important postions within the film industry- the writers, producers and directors etc, never heed the warnings that such depraved content can affect people in adverse ways and give the most dangerous ones in society not just ideas, but a little 'how-to' pack.
     In a way, the public are being given the old 'carrot-&-stick'. On the one hand, logical sources such as the News, journals and countless reports of professionals, officials and journalists teach society that basically wrong things are wrong. The stories we hear about through the media (and the ones we don't) of murder,  horror, evil and various kinds of sexual perversion are abominable and highly distressing, which of co.urse they are.
            Then on the other hand, the other powers and personalities in this world lure common, everyday, essentially normal people to watch and be actually entertained by the same topics, dressed up in the rags of fiction, through film, though games and increasingly even through books.
       Of course, we humans and the society we live in are imperfect. Of course, these awful paradoxes are bound to happen, and bad things are inevitable.
       But I think we all have a duty, then, to make sure we are not led on to believe that such forms of entertainment are fine, fun and without consequence.

A film should not be watched simply because it is 'important' for whatever philosophical, cultural or arty reasons. Thoses concepts are interesting and important to study to an extent, of course; one must grow from the previous learnings of the past. But I think we need to not lose sight of the fact that certain boundaries are boundaries for a reason, and so should not be crossed.






Just as an endnote, I was thinking again of Satyricon...clearly humanity has progressed since the times of the amoral and hedonistic classical Greeks and Romans.

Why can't entertainment do the same?