How Film Brings Attention to Major Social, Ethical, or Political Issues
Matias Orlow Ng matias-ng.medium.com
Since the popularization of film and cinema around the 1920s, films have been making a profound impact on pop-culture and society. When considering films like The Wizard of Oz (1939), 2001: A Space…
https://miro.medium.com/v2/5d8de952517e8160e40ef9841c781cdc14a5db313057fa3c3de41c6f5b494b19
Medium
Matias Ng, 12/06/2020

Since the popularization of film and cinema around the 1920s, films have been making a profound impact on pop-culture and society. When considering films like The Wizard of Oz (1939), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001), and many others, it is clear how impactful films have been on their generation’s pop culture and even beyond. But filmmakers haven’t only just shaped our society’s pop-culture. Since its popularization, filmmakers have used cinema as a means to address and change major social, ethical, and political issues in our lives. In order to accomplish this, films heavily rely on pathos. Pathos is a rhetorical device used to elicit deep emotions and feelings in order to persuade and catch the reader’s attention. While fiction films tend to use representation through characters while documentary-style filmmakers tend to use literary techniques to present their information that fits the issue they are trying to shed light on and appeal to their target audience.

Before delving into the ways that filmmakers address these issues and urge people to solve major problems, I want to touch on why exactly films make such a big impact on our lives. As explained by Tom Sherak, the President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, in an interview with ThoughtEconomics, “Film is a reflection of society, both present and past. I think the film and its innovations sometimes has to catch up to society but sometimes it leads society too…Some movies take sides and create a conversation, and that conversation can be in any area; be it political, social, or even within specific disciplines such as fashion.” This idea that film is a reflection of society is paramount to understanding the importance of film. The ability that film has to show people a better world is deeply rooted in the fact that pathos is used to make a deep emotional connection with viewers. This makes pathos the most prevalent literary device in many of the major groundbreaking films since the popularization of film in pop-culture. However, It is up to the filmmaker to portray their message across effectively.

While there have been countless fiction films and notable filmmakers who have made an incredible impact through their films, four films I really want to focus on are Kevin Kwan’s Crazy Rich Asians, Ryan Coogler’s Black Panther, the film adaptation of Ron Nyswaner’s Philadelphia, and the film adaptation of Khaled Hosseini’s Kite Runner. Not only have all of these films addressed and influenced social issues, but a major way that each film did this was by using the main protagonist as representation to shed light on issues and impact them. In order to understand how these films addressed these relevant issues, one must understand the profound impact that these films ended up making on society.

Kevin Kwan’s novel, Crazy Rich Asians, was adapted into a film which was directed by Jon M. Chu. The importance of this film was that it not only addressed racial injustice and prejudice in the entertainment industry but also in society as a whole. According to a report made by the United Nations, about 60% of the world’s population is of Asian descent. However, in a 2017 report by USC Annenberg, only about 6% of the most popular films include Asian characters while about 71% are Caucasian. In a New York Film Academy article by Yoommy Nam, she describes the background of the film’s development from novel into film. Nam explains how “Hollywood also ostracized Asian actors through its tendency to whitewash films by casting Caucasian actors in Asian roles”. She then continues to mention how Kwan was told by a prominent film producer to change the actress of the main protagonist, Rachel Chu, to a white actress. In response to this, Kwan comments, “I think it was a request born out of sheer ignorance about the project, and it was a very kneejerk reaction that was indicative of how Hollywood saw its industry, how they felt movies needed to be made, and how they felt a movie with all Asians would just never work.” Just from this interaction between Kevin Kwan and the mainstream entertainment industry, it is clear that Hollywood has not only misrepresented Asians in the real world but created and enforced the stereotypes surrounding them.

Additionally, in a TED Talk by Jon M. Chu himself, he discusses what drives him to create and the power of connection and on-screen representation. Chu opens his TED Talk recounting childhood memories and his upbringing as an Asian filmmaker. Chu also describes the hurdles he had to go through in order to release the film. In fact, he remarks that in test screenings, where they asked people if they would watch the film, they only had 1 person say yes out of 25. Chu believed a major part of these results was because “Asian people who knew the book didn’t trust Hollywood at all.” After discussing this, Chu brings up a meaningful post that his mother had posted on Facebook saying, “You can’t change someone who doesn’t want to change, but never underestimate the power of planting a seed.” This was something that Chu never really realized until he saw the impact that the film had at the movie’s opening screening. It wasn’t just Asians or Caucasians at the screening, it was people of all races and backgrounds coming together to laugh, cry, and debate about the film due to the real connections they felt with the characters of the film.

Ultimately, the fact that the actors of Crazy Rich Asians portrayed deep humanity of the characters through their individual hopes, relationships, and struggles, created a true representation of Asians around the world. If the film had been created like any other Hollywood film that portrays Asians as the stereotypical Asian, it would not have nearly gotten the same amount of attraction and had the same amount of personal connections with the audience. While the film Crazy Rich Asians had not immediately solved the issue of racial prejudice and discrimination, it had taken great strides for inclusion in both the entertainment industry and social life. Like the quote Chu’s mother had posted on Facebook, Crazy Rich Asians has begun to shape the idea of how Asians are represented in the entertainment industry and brought to light the problem of Asians being misrepresented in everyday social life. This is largely due to Chu’s incredibly effective ability to use pathos. His ability to represent “real Asians” in its main characters and creating a deep human connection between the fictional characters and the audience is what led to Crazy Rich Asians’ incredible cultural footprint.

Similarly, Black Panther and Philadelphia both made profound impacts on everyday life because of how the filmmakers used their characters as representation. Black Panther, which was released in 2018, had a huge cultural footprint in empowering Africans and African Americans through the representation of people of African descent in the film. Philadelphia, which was released in 1993, followed the story of a lawyer who had to hide his homosexuality and HIV in fear of his career. This film made huge strides to bring to light the HIV problem in the United States as well as the struggles of being homosexual at the time. Because of the popularity of cinema in pop-culture, these filmmakers were able to make an unprecedented impact on people which likely could not have happened through other forms of media.

For instance, In a Time article by Jamil Smith entitled, “The Revolutionary Power of Black Panther”, Smith opens with the idea that whoever is reading his article and is white, does not think about seeing people like themselves in mass media. Smith states that “every day, the culture reflects not only you but nearly every infinite versions of you… Those of us who are not white have considerably more trouble not finding representation of ourselves in mass media and other arenas of public life.” This is why Black Panther is so incredibly significant. Much like Crazy Rich Asians, Black Panther tackled important themes about race and identity instead of avoiding them like most mainstream superhero films. In his article, Smith brings up Ryan Coogler’s interview with Time where Coogler explains that “you have superhero films that are gritty dramas or action comedies,” but he explains that this movie is a “superhero film that deals with the issues of being of African descent.” The fact that Black Panther does not tiptoe around these complicated and tricky themes and has such a strong representation of people of African descent is what makes it so important for empowering people in not just the entertainment industry but societies around the world.

Like Black Panther, Philadelphia’s success in addressing the AIDS epidemic attributes to the fact that it was portrayed through a fictional story in mainstream cinema. The film masterfully creates a very real connection between the audience and the identity struggles that the protagonist, played by Tom Hanks, has to face when dealing with his homosexuality and HIV. In a WHYY article by Elana Gordon, Gordon includes quotes from several public health officials including Marla Gold, a former assistant city health commissioner and HIV doctor who comments that “we have a major star, playing a significant role with a visual for HIV, acted out beautifully as a movie that’s award winning… So this is a lot different than a pamphlet that arrives in the mail and warns you of something. This is real.” In the end, the representation of the AIDS epidemic as well as the struggles that homosexual people faced through Tom Hanks’ character is what brought so much attention to the matter and sparked great social change regarding the AIDS epidemic.

The last fictional piece I found to be especially interesting was the movie adaptation of Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner. The Kite Runner was published in 2003, just under two years after the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11th. The film was released in 2007 when tensions were still high and people of Muslim, South Asian, or people believed to be of these groups’ descent faced prejudice. The story of The Kite Runner follows the story of a young child, Amir, in Afghanistan in the 1970s. Despite the book and the film being released at different times, both of them were able to help relieve tensions around people of color. In a Salon article by Erika Milvy, she explains the cultural significance of The Kite Runner’s story after the tensions of 9/11. In her interview with Hosseini, Hosseini explains that “Fiction has the ability of taking the reader to a place they would have never gone before, and putting them in the shoes of characters who are radically different than they are.” Like Black Panther, Philadelphia, and Crazy Rich Asians, The Kite Runner was able to appeal to the audience so effectively due to the real connections that the audience feels with the characters. Especially with The Kite Runner, the representation of these so-called “terrorists” through Amir and the struggles and obstacles he had to overcome as well as the very real relationships he had with other characters is what made The Kite Runner so effective at addressing the issue of prejudice towards people of Muslim or South Asian descent.

Ultimately, the ability of film writers to use their characters as a means of representation to create very real emotional connections between the audience and characters is what makes films like Crazy Rich Asians, Black Panther, Philadelphia, and The Kite Runner so effective at addressing major social and ethical issues. However, while fictional films like these use this human connection to address issues, I found that nonfiction films and documentaries also make heavy use of pathos in order to appeal to audiences. However, depending on the goal of the film and the topic that they are addressing, film writers use rhetorical devices to strengthen their pathos in different ways. For example, I want to talk about Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy’s A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness, as well as some of Michael Moore’s well-known documentaries. Specifically, I will touch on Michael Moore’s use of satire as opposed to the others’ more informative and direct figurative language.

Michael Moore is an American documentary filmmaker and activist whose films normally touch on political issues relating to capitalism and globalization. While Michael Moore makes informative documentaries, Moore’s films heavily use satire as a means to appeal to the viewers. And when looking at one of Moore’s most successful and well-known works, Roger and Me, his use of satire is incredibly evident. However, due to its satirical nature, the film faced heavy criticism from major film critics. Roger and Me, which was released in 1989, follows Michael Moore himself in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. In the documentary, Michael Moore demanded answers for the closing of all of General Motors’ auto plants in Flint, leaving thousands of people out of work and leaving a devastating impact on the economy of Flint. Richard Bernstein explains in his 1990 New York Times article, “‘Roger and Me’: Documentary? Satire? Or Both?”, that “the film was clearly intended to poke fun, to be satire rather than conventional documentary and thus should not be condemned for its partial and even biased presentation of the data. But mingling with that idea is an unease that, in the end, some of the impact of the film is dissipated precisely because the audience cannot rely on the history of Flint as Mr. Moore presents it.” In Bernstein’s article, the main argument that he poses is that Moore’s film was too much of a satire which lessened its impact due to its biases and the manipulation of facts. However, looking at the success of the film, it was actually quite the opposite. The way that Michael Moore was masterfully able to implement satirical effects into his film was what appealed to the audience so much. This same satirical approach is what helped him gain traction in many of his other films like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine.

Additionally, Moore wasn’t the only filmmaker to use satire as a means of appeal to the emotions of viewers to address societal issues. Frederick Wiseman, another American filmmaker and director of the 1967 documentary Titicut Follies, also used bias and hints of satire to capture the attention of his viewers. Moreover, Titicut Follies was so successful in bringing to attention the problems of mental institutions in Massachusetts because of the very subtle subjectiveness and sometimes satirical devices that Wiseman included in his documentary. In an interview with The New Yorker, Wiseman even acknowledges “that [his] films are biased, subjective, prejudiced, condensed, [and] compressed.” Ultimately, the reason that Moore, Wiseman, and many other filmmakers are able to shed light on major problems is their ability to use satire in an effective way that evokes a strong emotion in the viewers.

However, I have found that when filmmakers use satire to appeal to audiences, they tread a fine line between stretched facts and outright deception. In Roger and Me, Moore used satire in an incredibly effective way. However, in some of his more recent films, this hasn’t worked out for him. While some of Moore’s failure to convey his messages to the viewers is attributed to his ineffective use of humor and satire, it is also due to the fact that Moore had not adjusted to the drastically different social and political climate. This is clearly evident with his film Fahrenheit 11/9, a film on the problems of the Trump administration. While using bent facts and manipulated truths has become more mainstream in politics in recent years, it is inevitable that people will grow tired of the use of satire and ridicule to get one’s point across. In an Entertainment Weekly article by Owen Gleiberman on Moore’s use of satire and decline in popularity, Gleiberman made an interesting statement. Gleiberman explains how “The trouble is, it may ultimately be impossible to fight distortion with more distortion. If you do, then all you’re left with is a kind of pro wrestling mat of the mind in which one exaggerated, cartoon version of the truth squares off with another. The result may officially be a draw, but the real victor is…distortion.” So while the use of satire in documentaries has proven effective to address major issues, the most important thing that filmmakers must consider is the social climate that they are presenting their work to. Otherwise, this literary technique would not be effective whatsoever in addressing the major issues of their time.

Meanwhile, countless other filmmakers have addressed major societal problems through their work and have done excellent jobs in doing so. While filmmakers like Moore and Wiseman used satire to capture the audience’s attention and shed light on issues, other filmmakers are able to accomplish this task using more direct and informative literary techniques which have proven to be equally effective. Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy’s A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness exhibits the power of her informative techniques on evoking a very real emotional response in viewers to educate them on major issues.

Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, a Pakistani/Canadian journalist and filmmaker tackled the gruesome issue of honor killings in Pakistan through her film A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness. An honor killing is the murder of a member of a family, due to the perpetrators’ belief that the victim has brought shame and dishonor upon the family. Due to its long, deep-rooted, history in the culture of Pakistan, it was extremely hard for Obaid-Chinoy to make a documentary to address this issue. However, Obaid-Chinoy had a big breakthrough when one woman, Saba Qaisar, survived one of these honor killings. A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness, follows this woman’s story against the harsh judicial system of Pakistan. Unlike Michael Moore, Obaid-Chinoy did not rely on satire and ridiculing to appeal to audiences. Instead, she clearly depicted and informed people around the world about the tragic story of Saba Qaisar. Eventually, winning an Oscar award which led to media coverage and the eventual banning of honor killings in Pakistan by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. While Michael Moore relied on his documentaries making a lot of noise through its satirical and humorous tone to address major political issues, Obaid-Chinoy brought awareness to this horrific law in Pakistan by clearly informing and educating people who otherwise would not have known of the atrocities taking place. Many of Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy’s other works use similar informative rhetoric as a way to get her most important points across.

However, despite the documentary’s success globally, many rural areas in Pakistan continued honor killings due to its deep-rooted history in Pakistan culture. In a “TED Talk” by Obaid-Chinoy herself, she elaborates on how she used film to educate women and children across Pakistan saying, “we began to introduce everyone to films that opened up their minds to competing worldviews… and inside, for women, we showed them films in which they were heroes, not victims, and we told them how they could navigate the court system, the police system, [and] educating them about their rights.”

In the end, the influence of film on our everyday lives is inconceivably large. The way that these films shed light on important issues pertaining to race, identity, wellbeing, or politics, is incredibly important for our society. Whether it be through representation in characters in fiction films or rhetorical techniques by documentary filmmakers, films make a profound impact on not just the pop-culture of our society, but directly benefits every person by urging people to act on relevant political, social, or ethical issues.

Works Cited

Bernstein, Richard. “‘Roger and Me’: Documentary? Satire? Or Both?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Feb. 1990, www.nytimes.com/1990/02/01/movies/roger-and-me-documentary-satire-or-both.html?auth=login-google.

Chu, Jon M. “The Pride and Power of Representation in Film.” TED, Apr. 2019, www.ted.com/talks/jon_m_chu_the_pride_and_power_of_representation_in_film?referrer=playlist-the_power_of_film.

Gleiberman, Owen. “Michael Moore’s Influence Is Undeniable. But Is He Helping His Causes — or His Enemies?” EW.com, 26 Sept. 2009, ew.com/article/2009/09/26/michael-moores-influence/.

Gordon, Elana. “Two Decades Ago, Tom Hanks and ‘Philadelphia’ Prompted Changing Attitudes toward HIV-AIDS.” WHYY, WHYY, 20 Dec. 2013, whyy.org/segments/20th-anniversary-of-philadelphia/.

Milvy, Erika. “The ‘Kite Runner’ Controversy.” Salon, Salon.com, 26 Sept. 2011, www.salon.com/2007/12/09/hosseini/.

Nam, Yoommy. “Asian Representation in Film: The Impact of ‘Crazy Rich Asians’.” Student Resources, 9 Nov. 2020, www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/asian-representation-crazy-rich-asians/.

Obaid-Chinoy, Sharmeen. “Transcript of ‘How Film Transforms the Way We See the World.’” TED, Mar. 2019, www.ted.com/talks/sharmeen_obaid_chinoy_how_film_transforms_the_way_we_see_the_world/transcript?referrer=playlist-the_power_of_film.

Shah, Vikas. “The Role of Film in Society.” Thought Economics, Thought Economics, 3 June 2015, thoughteconomics.com/the-role-of-film-in-society/.

Smith, Jamil. “How Marvel’s Black Panther Marks a Major Milestone.” Time, Time, 14 Nov. 2020, time.com/black-panther/.