FM4 Draft Presentation Script

Presentation Script How do films reflect the way in which we see the world? Film is a global industry and a form of mass communication that reaches a significant number of people. Mass communication can be seen as a positive force and can make real changes to society. However, it also means that people can spread one message (regardless of its truth or meaning) to a huge number of people. If the message is used to spread non-truths or exaggerated versions of the truth it could have significant impacts on how we view the world around us. The reason for choosing this topic is that I feel it poses many unanswered questions, in that the topic has not been hugely discussed. This topic raises questions that I feel need answering, and as a result I feel it is vital to gain as much accurate information on concluding whether or not the question of my topic is in fact true or false. At this moment in time, prior to any research about the topic, I predict that the question is in fact true or at least true to some extent. I predict that the idea that films shape our worldview is correct to many film cases and representations. I believe that most films will either offer a reinforced POV, or will create a new one which we adopt; as a result we are continuously being reinforced of our own ideas; which may have been originally created through film to begin with. I feel this subject offers a chance to indulge into what mass communication does to us as an audience. In that audiences can be manipulated easily to view the world in a certain ideological and historical way, whether it is the truth or not we will mainly adopt the POV we see, normally being the POV of the director of the film. We do not know however, whether or not the manipulation of films is a positive or in fact the truth. Films are a very powerful device, such that we know they can manipulate us, however films can be seen to completely recreate historical issues and events, thus to create an ideological perception of history in people’s minds. This idea is very apparent in the film Schindlers list. This film bases around recreating the historical event in which a young German businessman attempts to save the lives of around 1000 Jews from the Nazi’s. This film is one that tries to shape our worldview. It can be seen as a vital text in which many people consider to be the most accurate version of events, such that to an extent people believe the film to be educational (supposedly). This film too many people has almost become a reality, such that it is believed to be the whole truth and only version of events of the happenings the film is based on. However, an article - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/25/germany.film - that talks about unearthed evidence that suggests this film, is a complete fake account. Professor Crowe a history professor affiliated with the US Holocaust Memorial museum, suggests, ‘Schindlers List was theatre, ad not in an historically accurate way’, he also goes on to say ‘Schindler had almost nothing to do with the list’. This point however, contrasts and argues the idea that Spielberg creates in the film Schindlers List. This in fact suggests the idea that the film is purely based around entertainment, and not facts, which relay history correctly. The film however is based on a true story, yet a story which is distorted. This point is apparent in an article - http://www.standard.co.uk/home/the-truth-about-schindler-7383543.html, which suggests that he did in fact save over 1000 Jews from the Nazi’s, and the film does base around the core of the actual events that took place during the holocaust. However this article, like the previous one argues that a lot of the film is ‘Fiction’, suggesting that many of the films main elements are not in fact any representation of the truth. This article suggests ‘Schindler was no saint’, the article also backs this point up with, ‘Schindler was twice arrested for being drunk and disorderly. He blew his young wife's dowry and went to work for a bank, starting an affair with his father's secretary, who bore him two illegitimate children’. This point, a very blunt one, suggests that he was in fact no saint. This completely contradicts the bases of the whole film Schindlers List. This article suggests that this film depicts entertainment and focuses more on selling a film, thus less concentrates on accurately documenting what actually happened. As a result of this information, which suggests he was not the person the film portrays him to be, further suggests that this film is a complete manipulation of a historical event. We can now say, that through film can easily distort the truth, and to some extent of films can create a complete misconception to what the truth is. Also, we can conclude that films can be educational in some cases, however this film is typical of an entertainment driven film, which is not entirely accurate. Further, to conclude, this film suggests that we should not always believe film, unless the reinforce ideas we already have. We know this now because research suggests that although this film seems as though it depicts the entire truth, it is in fact very far from it. Overall, Schindlers List is a film that tries to compose our ideas, and I would say it definitely achieves this. Therefore we know, that aside from the research which proves the false truth behind the film, this film proves that films are key to composing ideologies in people’s minds, whether or not they are true, just simply because people cling onto the only POV they are presented. In this films case, which bases around events (historical), which most viewers where not around to see and witness them, we can say it is key to shaping our worldview and for almost all viewers, this film becomes reality and forms an ideological belief. In continuation of the previous idea, that audiences can be manipulated easily to view the world in a certain ideological way. We again look at the theory about the relationship between society and film, the relationship where certain films can in fact completely compose our ideological thoughts on a certain topic, again whether or not the film depicts the truth or not. An example of this is the film ‘Zero Dark Thirty’, which is essentially about the events leading up to and the aftermath of the killing of Bin Laden. This is a film that was based around a topic that was only proposed by the media. As a result the only POV we were injected with. However, the amount of detail that was given out to society was very little, simply just a recognition of the fact that Bin Laden was dead. As a result, as well as the fact he was the most wanted man on the planet, society grew in curiosity as to what actually happened. Therefore the initial idea around a film that offered a POV that is not of public knowledge was one that would create a new ideological creation to the public, whether the film was accurate or not. This point of the telling of the story through the film not being accurate is apparent in an article by the telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/9869992/Zero-Dark-Thirty-fact-vs-fiction.html. This article suggests the film is false truth, and has the means to back this point up from a navy seal that took part in the actual Bin Laden raid and killing. The telegraph suggests ‘The Navy Seal who shot Osama bin Laden has criticized the depiction of the Abbottabad raid in Zero Dark Thirty’. In the interview the navy seal said, ‘the actors playing Seal Team 6, the special mission unit that staged the raid on bin Laden’s compound, talked too much. No one would ever yell “breacher!”, he was also quoted saying, ‘there was no whispered calling out of his name – “Osama, Osama”. These two direct quotes suggest that there are many flaws to the films depiction, and suggests maybe the film focused more on the entertainment value of the killing scene. This, as Schindlers List does also, falls into the category of usual film conventions, meeting expectations and following the usual conventions to make a film. This goes on to prove the point that films cannot and should not be seen as direct versions of historical events, because they simply cannot be recreated. However, this film does again; offer a similar element to which Schindlers List offers. Such that this films may not be a direct version of events, however it offers POV which boarders recreating the events, with the fact that he film also has to offer the entertainment factor, as a result both films cannot provide an accurate documentary, yet provide enough which can be believed in audience minds. Zero Dark thirty, however is typical of all films. In that it offers the feeling of “I am right!” when watching it or having finished watching it. This is achieved in ZDT through the ‘National Dominant Ideologies’, which are continuously reinforced. These ideologies are the typically common and easily identifiable ones. For example in ZDT, the films depict the idea that is growing common in American films, the idea that Americans and terrorists (stereotypically of Asian descent) are binary oppositions. This idea is one, which has come about from society itself, and as a result can be seen as recreating society in a film. This idea is also apparent in Chinese films, whereas the protagonists are Chinese and often the antagonists are US/UK, who are demonized and enemies to the Chinese. This idea is seen in Rush Hour, which showcases an English man as the enemy to the good Chinese people. This idea that films reinforce our own ideologies is key to attracting audiences, as audiences rely on the comfort of expectations being met. And ZDT definitely relays this idea. Through both ZDT and SL, I can say with confidence that films can easily manipulate us, which we know is through reinforcing our own ideas and relaying them though film as these two films do so. However the idea that films challenge our expectations (which are created in our own minds), is less apparent in films, yet not any less effective. ‘The Town’ is a film, which tries to challenge the ‘National Dominant Ideologies’, such that this film goes against the idea that the good guy always wins. This film is one that again manipulates the audience, as does every film, yet at the end poses the question “are we really cheering for the bad guy”? The town is a film that is different to the two previous films I have talked about, in that the film is fiction (based on a book- ‘Prince of Thieves’ by Chuck Hogan) and is not based on a true story or historical event, but more on real life events that happen every day, in this films case it is bank robbery. This film is based on realism, such that the film looks to replicate issues of society, which we know is bank robbery. The film represents how films closely mirror society yet also represents how the audience can be manipulated to see things in a certain way. Such that the town manipulates to only see one POV (the side of the Bank robbers) therefore we are almost forced to take their sides, which is opposite to how in the case of most films you are manipulated to be on the moral side other story. Therefore this story defies this rule because by the end we are cheering for Ben Affleck to escape justice and get away from the FBI catching him. This represents how films can help us to see different perspectives of life and in this films case, see the good in the bank robbers because we see their perspective. This is apparent in all films however, yet this film challenges usual expectations by making us identify with the ‘bad guys’. This film suggests that maybe we may not see the world correctly, and just because we have our own ideologies, doesn’t mean that other views of the world are any less correct. This is represented through how we come to understand the POV of the bank robbers and accept it and to an extent, believe their view is just as correct as our own. Overall this film displays the power of film, and through challenging expectations, it challenges our ideologies. This films manipulation is apparent in lots of films, and is proof that films can shape how we see the world, whether it be reinforcing ideas, creating new ones, or defying and changing existing ideas we may have.