Subject: Effect of film on people (long) Simone L. Fary" ([log in to unmask]) asked: "When Hollywood persents a positive role model, inspiration/educational topic etc. it is often quick to self-congratulate, which implies a belief that movies have an impact on how people think and feel. Yet when it comes to violence or a negative depiction then all of a sudden movies have no impact. What do you think?" To which Michael Plott ([log in to unmask]) responded: "...I find it particularly significant that the tobacco industry, which is a *very* powerful lobby, is restricted (in the U.S.) from using film to advertise their products." For which I have the following comments. There is an influence. Just as others have suggested. How much bearing this influence has on a person is mitigated by other influences. Someone with access to a wide variety of ideas about life, people, themselves, and fantasy gets influenced by the sources of these ideas. If the sources are narrowed and the ideas reduced to simplistic, stereotypical, and "safe" ones the influence is the same. I am not qualified to suggest a narrowing of ideas results in racist opinions. But the narrowing of the mind (however it manifests itself) is a problem educators battle with vigor. That advertising is "restricted" in any way is a signal from elected authority that it recognizes the lifestyle influences they are meant to persuade with. The persuasion in advertising is to respond and purchase. The persuasion in film (hopefully) is to respond and reflect. "Star Wars" made as many persuasive arguments in favour of "good" against "evil" as any movie before it. "Grand Canyon" is as much about racism and the gulf between people, families and groups as it is about the lives of the people portrayed in it. The reason these messages are not restricted by legislation is because they do not cause an undue influence on the habits and behavior of their patrons. Tobacco and alcohol seem to have an influence on behavior and habit. The restrictions on movie advertising would be a good case in point. As much as some industries are not allowed to put advertising before some audiences (and readers), promotions for motion pictures are scrutinized for appropriate content in the markets and audiences those messages will be "beamed" to. When motion pictures begin causing audiences to behave badly and develop unhealthy habits Hollywood will be asked to answer for them. In many homes the modelled behaviors are a contradiction to the morals being parroted. There is a certain appeal, to young minds in these unfortunate situations, of the consistency and predictability of the messages in entertainment which can comfort them in small ways. But when the comfort and pleasantness become more attractive than their real families or real lives the influence can be said to be too strong. In this instance we would fail to recognize the absence of mitigating influences. In our enthusiasm for film (as well as other forms of entertainment) we sometimes forget the level of comfort it provides. When we are uncomfortable with what a movie has shown or are made uncomfortable by what messages a movie may present (or become concerned by what a filmmaker seems to be endorsing) we are thinking, reflecting, or critiquing. This is a good influence. Entertainment which makes us comfortable can be a dangerous influence. Art which makes us uncomfortable, or forces us to think about things, moves us forward; advances the culture. As audiences learn to reflect on what they see, the stories will change accordingly. As audiences become unconcerned about stereotyping, narrow visions, sequel-izing of previous hits, and the re-packaging of childhood stories then movies will lose their positive influence. This, I believe, is not just true of movies. Mike's concern for frames of reference is valid for all other media. What is "talk radio" doing to the perception of radio as entertainment? The state of journalism seems in crisis because of the influence of marketing and "entertainment" values on the reporting and gathering of relevant news. I may be expanding this beyond the scope of motion pictures, but the range of influence is so enormous as to require consideration from all angles. "Lion King" did what Disney has always done. Whether it reflects contemporary views or projects troublesome ideas is a worthwhile discussion. That Simone has identified the contradictions inherent in the industry regarding positive and negative roles points to the larger concern for contradictory messages, and portrayals in a variety of media industries (including games), which presents a challenge to our diverse and constantly evolving culture. Thanks for the chance to soap box. Dave Trautman University of Alberta Canada. ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]