My opinion:
One point is for sure, that is compared to books a movie just get registered for a very short time period. Which is why we are generally asked to be good reader rather than a movie
"With every good film I see, I feel reborn."- Close-up (Abbas Kiyarüstemi, 1990).
One of the popular lines from an Iranian film that perfectly captures my feelings when watching a cinema (movie) is the one mentioned above. Some people, which includes some of my friends and acquaintances too, have an opinion that movies are merely meant for amusement and entertainment. One such individual at the present time is Mr. Prashant Neel, the director of the highly acclaimed Indian film KGF. He makes a legitimate point when he asks how a movie can affect and end someone's life, for better or worse, if their parents are unable to raise them properly. He claims that he goes to the movies to entertain people and views the industry as a company that seeks to make money. Taking into account the fact that his debut directorial work, Ugramm (2014), did not become a national hit as his other widely celebrated films did, his logic and understanding seem quite natural. At the same time, I have a different opinion regarding this view.
Typically, we advise our children to read well-written books, hang out with good friends, and so forth. Why? This is basically because even though each person's definition of good and evil is distinctive, we categorise our society into good and bad. I don't intend to imply that we can just label someone as good or bad. I believe that it is hard to classify someone as either good or evil; instead, I think human being are complex in terms of their thinking and ideology such that everyone has both qualities to varying degrees. Nonetheless, there are some traits that we typically categorise as negative, such as drug use, aggression, drinking, smoking, and so forth. However, in a broader sense, these are classified as negative sides, albeit a tiny minority may be able to present arguments for classifying some of them as good as well.
My point of view is that, on the one hand, art—and particularly film—reflects society and, on the other hand, art can have an impact on society. Every art displays or reflects various forms of expression to convey a feeling, or state of society, depict critical moments in history or a perspective through space and time [https://www.chitkara.edu.in/blogs/the-significant-role-of-art-in-shaping-our-society/]. Given that society is categorized, why can't the situations or incidents that appear in a piece of art be divided into good and evil categories? And given how society is, why can't we advise our kids to watch quality films in the same way that we do with books or other people? I believe we can, and then a movie theatre would serve more purposes than simply entertainment.
However, before we advise them we must be clear about what we should take and what not to take from watching a movie. Movies, unlike reading, are said to be more powerful due to their visual aspects. Reading in one way manifests a story through readers' imagination according to the readers' perception. This is the most effective method to foster a person's imagination and creativity. A movie, on the other hand, presents us with a clear picture, which is essentially a perception from the perspective of the writer or director. It's not a requirement for movies, even though some will allow us to interpret and imagine. This explains why, in today's world, rating a movie is far simpler than reviewing a book. We should have the ability to assess what to take and leave out of a movie as we are observing someone else's work directly in their creative environment. I shall therefore briefly address my thoughts on this subject below.
It's a rather complicated question. In my opinion, a movie can either provide entertainment or impart morals or values to the society. What the creators choose to provide their audience should be their own choice. Some view the movie industry as a business, creating films purely for entertainment, which I believe is perfectly valid. Others, however, use cinema as a medium to express their views, emotions, memories, ideologies, and often political statements through their art. I enjoy watching both types of movies, but I approach each with a different mindset, appreciating them for what they intend to offer.
I enjoy going to the first day, first show for a Rajinikanth film—or any "mass" movie designed purely for entertainment—just as much as I appreciate films by directors like Adoor Gopalakrishnan or Lijo Jose Pellissery. In my view, these two categories of movies should be approached differently. The mindset with which I enter and exit these films varies significantly.
When I watch a Rajinikanth movie, I expect a certain formula: over-the-top action scenes (often defying the laws of science), fast-paced songs, slow-motion sequences, and a predictable storyline. Such films transport you to a fantasy world, offering a temporary adrenaline rush similar to a roller coaster ride. Is it worth experiencing? That's a personal choice, much like how some people enjoy adventure sports while others shy away. The appeal lies in the excitement, even if the story is predictable and lacks moral or philosophical depth. However, one should be mindful of the potential glorification of negative behaviors like drinking, smoking, or violence. Ultimately, it’s up to the individual to decide what to take away from these films.
On the other hand, so-called "art" films—often valued for their realism—offer a completely different experience. In some circles, it's become fashionable to claim a preference for these types of films while dismissing mainstream "mass" movies. I disagree with this notion that watching only art films somehow elevates one to a higher intellectual status. Movies by directors like Shaji N. Karun, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, or Lijo Jose Pellissery provide a depth of character and storytelling that’s often absent in mainstream cinema. The slower pace of these films allows viewers to delve deeply into the characters and themes, often requiring careful thought and analysis to fully appreciate the metaphors and symbolism. The experience of watching such a film can be like solving a complex puzzle, offering a lasting and profound impact.
In contrast, after watching an entertaining "mass" movie, you might leave with an adrenaline rush, recalling action scenes, background scores, dance sequences, or punchy dialogues. There's little need for deep reflection, which can be a relief, especially if you're looking to unwind from the stresses of everyday life.
Both genres serve their own purpose, and the choice of which to watch should depend on one's mental state at the time. The idea that the type of movies one enjoys reflects the quality of the viewer feels misguided when you consider these points. Ultimately, a movie reflects the ideology and vision of its creator, and as viewers, we are merely observers. We have the freedom to accept or reject what we see based on our own beliefs and values. The key is knowing what to take away and what to leave behind.
References:
