the films that matter

**emjen** · May 3rd, 2004, 06:08 PM

I was wondering, have there been movies in your life which changed the way you look at things? Changed your life? Where you learned a valuable lesson? Many movie makers say they want the audience to think about something, to learn something, or at least to give some social critisisms, but do they actually succeed at that? I bet everyone wanted or wants the audience to at least think about their story. But does the audience actually think about it? Especially when the masses are spoiled with popcorn summer flicks all the time?

I was just wondering. Why not just create lowbrainentertainment when thats all the audience wants? Why do your best creating a deeper layer, a deeper meaning, if the majority of the audience can't even see it?

Of course, there are contradictions to these points. Everyone's watching films these days, and there are more and more film fans seeing films other than the occasional popcorn hollywood flick. The movie-audience is also getting smarter, and demanding more than 'in a world...' movies.

And I guess the things that really make you look at things differently are documentaries. I think that's because they show 'real' stuff. Real things that are going on in real life. People watch documentaries for a whole different reason than movies. Not to be entertained, but to learn something.

**jitesh** · May 4th, 2004, 02:45 AM

I think some movies mentioned below make U look at things differently.
1. Forest Gump
2. Schindler's List

And offcourse docs do make you aware of the real picture.

- Jitesh

**twister!** · May 4th, 2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by emjen:
Why not just create lowbrainentertainment when thats all the audience wants? Why do your best creating a deeper layer, a deeper meaning, if the majority of the audience can't even see it?

You could say that about anything though. Why bother having restaurants that serve gourmet cuisine when most people just go to McDonalds, why have Shakespeare when most people read Grisham, why have The Guardian or Times when most read The Sun or Mirror, why Michelangelo or Renoir when most only know of Rolf Harris.

You need to cater for different levels of taste and requirement. There is just much less of quality and it's more difficult to find But it gives a much greater and lasting sense of satisfaction.

Here's a good quote from David Mamet:

'Films have degenerated to their original operation as carnival amusement - they offer not drama but thrills.'

I think that's the problem with most current mainstream stuff - with the current CG craze it is ALL just about thrills. What is ACTUALLY IMPORTANT is to have an emotional resonance - that's when a film becomes important to us because it has affected or resonated with us emotionally in some way.

One of the main films that had (and still does have) an affect on me (as it does with lots of people) is It's a Wonderful LIfe.

Another that I can give a good example from is the back-of-the-taxi-cab-scene in On the Waterfront - (this is considered the greatest piece of screen acting ever). However, Brando says that it was not the way he said the words (or acted) but it was the fact that the scene emotionally impacted upon people (because the audience could relate to it based on their own emotional baggage) and THAT is what makes that scene so powerful and memorable.

[ May 04, 2004 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Justin M. ]

**jitesh** · May 4th, 2004, 11:21 AM

But it should be possible to create a film which is appeals to the masses as well as the classes.

Only thing is the maker has to work much more harder.

- Jitesh

**k_wor** · May 4th, 2004, 10:08 PM

Dont think that there are many films that can honesly be said to have changed anything in the world.
Some films, like Ghandi and Biko and raise conscience, but do they really change anything.
And if a film trys to do so does it stop being entertainement and become documentry?
Can a documentry on real social issue really be called entertainment? Bowling for Columbine was a great film, but I think the Micheal Moores celebraty slight over shadowed the real issues.

**jitesh** · May 5th, 2004, 02:52 AM

I think films that would change the world should definitely also be understood by the masses.

It is high time critics give recognition to films made for the masses and then suggest changes in the so called "spicy" films so that they can be intellectually stimulating or inspiring.

So in my opinion the mass films are also a very important genre if you want to reach the masses.

- Jitesh

**twister!** · May 5th, 2004, 07:38 AM

I didn't think Emjen was asking about films that had changed the world - just films that had made you, as an individual, think differently about things... and he asked why have a deeper meaning or subtext in your film if all the masses want to see are explosions and monsters.

[ May 05, 2004 04:47 AM: Message edited by: Justin M. ]

**k_wor** · May 5th, 2004, 08:00 AM

The original questions was about films that change the way you think. Now if a whole group of people have the same view of a particular film then it would change their mass conscience yes?
God this is getting deep...my real answer is that Blade Runner made me want to wear a trench coat and walk around in the rain....lol

**thelaughingduck2001** · May 5th, 2004, 05:22 PM

Forrest Gump made me look at something differently as well...how stupid the '95 Oscars were! I mean, only Best Screenplay for Pulp Fiction-What the Hell was going on there.

Gump is a god movie, but a popcorn one at that, and whilst I like Zemeckis, and realise he's probably one of the better Directors to come out of the movie brat (what with Spielberg and Lucas and all that) I think Gump is a vastly overrated film.

The movie that really changed me and gave me a whole new perspective on life. Was Amelie. Not a groundbreaking movie in any way, but it made me realise what a cruel, cold bastard I was. Dare I say it, it made me discover love.

Shame there's been no one to share it with in the four months since I saw the movie. Boo-hoo.