Conscious perception of information. Ideas and meanings promoted by modern cinema

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2024-01-15 07:49

The second lecture of the project Teach good from the course "Information security of the individual in the conditions of aggressive mass culture" (14+). It was read out at the Sober meeting in Taganrog in May 2017.

In the first lecture, we briefly examined how the human psyche works, what role consciousness, subconsciousness and worldview play in our life (slide 1.3, 1.4), which is formed under the influence of various external and internal factors (slide 1.5, 1.6) … We also assessed the impact of modern Russian television on society and, using specific examples, demonstrated the main models of behavior broadcast through television to a mass audience. (slide 1.9) … The most important thing that we learned from the last lecture is that any information, as well as any food, does not pass without leaving a trace, but affects the human psyche. Understanding this point is very important, because only by knowing how to determine the effect of the distribution of a particular media product, we can evaluate it as useful or harmful, and form an adequate attitude towards it.

Since information affects people, the process of disseminating information should be considered as a process of managing society, which can be both structural and unstructured. The purposeful promotion of ideas and views in a non-structured way is usually called "propaganda" (slide 1.8) … Also in the last lecture, we formed a simple and understandable image for such popular today concepts as "awareness" and "conscious life" (slide 1.2) … You can talk about a person's awareness only when he has outlined a list of life goals, guidelines and tries to follow them. The theoretical part of the second lecture is devoted to the conscious perception of information. What is it?

Conscious perception of information

Knowing that the dissemination of information is a structureless management process.

Even in cases where a particular film or TV show does not convey clear meaningful messages to the viewer, viewing them can be perceived as at least informational noise that will distract from other things and thereby influence you.

Ability to identify goals that media content works to achieve.

We must remember that if we are talking about television, cinema or any other mass media, it is necessary to assess the impact not only on you personally, but also on society as a whole. For this, it is desirable to understand what the main trends are being implemented in public life.

Comparison of the identified influence with your personal list of goals / targets.

Based on this comparison, you can rate the information as useful or harmful to you; either good or bad in relation to the whole society, if the analyzed content belongs to the sphere of mass culture. All these three points can be combined into one capacious phrase. "What does this teach?" … This phrase, which most often appears in the titles of videos and articles of the Teach Good project, contains three points that imply conscious perception or conscious work with information. Since, when watching a movie or TV series, we constantly keep in mind the question "what does it teach?" And if, after watching, we also compare this revealed influence with our ideals and values in life, and give the film an appropriate assessment - good or bad, then by doing so we will complete all three stages. It would seem that everything is so simple, but in the modern world of cinematography, this information is practically a "secret behind seven seals", and the one who is trying to talk about the primary things - that is, about the meanings promoted by films, and not about the acting of actors, scenery and the degree of emotional impact, he automatically falls out of the scope of public discussion. In response, there are empty phrases that art is "valuable in itself" and should not be censored or controlled by the authorities.

Naturally, such a situation among filmmakers and film critics is artificially maintained in order to maintain favorable conditions for manipulating people who do not think that cinema is not only entertaining them. For this reason, the assessments of the Teach Good project of certain pictures often differ greatly from the opinions of the official press, which, in fact, does not analyze the works, but in its reviews simply broadcasts the opinion the customer needs, choosing fragmentary information as arguments or placing emphasis on minor things. Their articles can be interesting to read, since they are written by professional journalists, in a beautiful and imaginative style, brightly presented, but when you try to delve into the content of the text, you understand that the author is simply appealing to the emotions of the readers, while not touching on the most important questions about who should have been talked about when discussing the film. Only on sites where viewers leave reviews themselves, can you periodically come across an opinion about what ideology popular cinema broadcasts to a mass audience. But let's look at specific examples, what do popular films teach? Let's start with a good picture.

On the example of video reviews on the series "Motherland" and the film "The Sun Shines for Everyone", it is clearly seen how a gradual change of the image of a soldier and a teacher takes place, and a traitor and a terrorist come to replace the defender of the Motherland, and the one who has to teach and raise children turns into vulgar a clown molesting children. What attitude in society will be formed towards these professions after such films? Of the three videos we watched, two were about stories that generally teach good. In reality, today, if we take the content of cinemas, then about 3-4 frankly destructive, degrading pictures appear on the big screen for one good or at least neutral film. How did it happen that the most powerful tool for managing society today, in fact, works against it, promoting alcohol, vulgarity, stupidity and other harmful behaviors? Is this a random process, or can creators be manipulated by directing their potential in the right direction?

Managing Trends in Cinematography

Governance in all spheres of popular culture relies on three main instruments: institutions of awards, financial flows, and control over the mainstream media.

In particular, the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts is a kind of landmark and guiding star in the world of cinema. She gives Oscars to the "right" actors, directors, screenwriters and so on. “Correct” - that is, those who, with their creativity, promote the ideas and values needed by the customer. Naturally, the ideas themselves are never publicly evaluated or announced. Illustrative example- I think many of you have watched the movie "Avatar" by James Cameron. If you haven't looked, you probably heard about it. This film is recognized as the highest grossing film in the history of cinema: it grossed about $ 2.8 billion, surpassing "Titanic". Naturally, "Avatar" - without exaggeration, such a significant event in modern cinema - in 2010 was nominated for the "main" film award of the world - "Oscar". He participated in nine nominations, but won only three: Best Cinematography, Best Set and Best Visual Effects. In the nomination for best film, he lost to the much less famous film The Hurt Locker, which also won the nominations: Best Director and Best Screenplay. All in all, The Hurt Locker won six nominations, thus even ahead of Avatar in the number of Oscars, which, despite its success, did not even claim the Best Screenplay.

Why is this so? In order to answer the question of why, instead of Avatar, the Oscar for the best film is received by the absolutely obscure picture "The Hurt Locker", it is necessary to take a close look at the content of both films. The Hurt Locker film tells about the "feat" of the US Army in Iraq, about how American soldiers valiantly fight for the values of American "democracy". The key point here is that the main character is obsessed with war and cannot live without it. This, in the opinion of film critics, should be the ideal American hero shown on television. That is why he was given such a high praise by the American cinematic elite. In the film Avatar, a completely different image of a soldier is shown, who is not ready to be a thoughtless instrument in the wrong hands, and who has such qualities as nobility and a desire for justice. That is why the film "Avatar", despite its success, was not even nominated for the "Oscar" in the nomination "Best Screenplay" and gave way to "The Hurt Locker". But at the same time, one must understand that this message to the viewer is never mentioned in practice within the framework of awarding film awards. With the help of well-fed or properly selected film critics, the entire public discussion of the sphere of cinema, and indeed of all art, is shifted to the sphere of assessing the level of the emotional impact of the film, and such secondary issues as the acting of the actors, the attractiveness of the plot, and so on. The creators are supposedly awarded exclusively for their talents, for expressiveness, innovation. What attitudes the picture forms in the viewer, or, in other words, “what does it teach” is a topic that is tabooed. Consciously or at least subconsciously, the creators feel where the wind is blowing and adapt. The one who has not adjusted, does not receive awards and does not get up to the star Olympus, or quickly disappears from there.

The second main tool is cash flow management. It is expensive to make a film, but even if you shoot it for your own money, you will not be able to reach a wide audience without advertising and the loyalty of the central press. As part of the Teach Good project, several video reviews were made on how the Russian Ministry of Culture allocates funds, on the basis of which it can be confidently asserted that even state institutions are largely inscribed in this global system.

The speed of the release of new films testifies to the fact that the process of fooling humanity has been put on stream. Under the guise of a sign of "high art" or a false thesis that the audience "themselves ask", they broadcast outright vulgarity and baseness to the masses. At the same time, people who are accustomed to consuming informational fast food, even after learning the truth, are in no hurry to abandon their bad habits, and they themselves are ready to protect the producers of the poison and their molesters. Getting off the needle of a virtual drug is not so easy and requires a lot of work on oneself, which, moreover, must be carried out in conditions when they are trying to return you from all sides - from TV, radio, newspapers - to the usual state of a thoughtless consumer.

Letter from young filmmakers

To confirm the theses voiced, we bring to your attention an excerpt from an open letter from young filmmakers - graduates and students of the leading creative universities in Russia. The letter was published in 2012 and sent to the Chairman of the Union of Cinematographers of Russia Nikita Sergeevich Mikhalkov.

“We, aspiring filmmakers, students and graduates of the country's leading film schools, appeal to you as the most significant figure in the national cinema, as well as the head of the board of trustees of the most prestigious youth film festival, in order to draw your attention to the situation in our young and developing environment. Recently, we are increasingly witnessing trends that have emerged in our educational and festival structures, contributing to the propaganda and dissemination of cinematic works that carry immorality and vulgarity, disgusting our cinema, the people and the whole Fatherland, works performed without any understanding of the profession and awareness of social responsibility to society. Many authors, especially documentary films, openly mock the sick and wretched heroes of their films, over moral and spiritual values, covering up their unprofessionalism with loud claims for “art-house” and “modern” approaches to creativity. Such works, unprofessionally made from the point of view of the main cinematographic specialties, do not carry any semantic load, in our opinion, not only are they not works of art, but generally do not contain any "signs" of cinema, such as drama, directing, operator work or installation. They are nothing more than primitive attempts at dirty self-promotion and outrageous publicity. It would seem that this is a matter of specific authors. But there is a strange, frightening pattern. The organizers of the leading student and youth festivals in the selection and preparation of programs give such films the greatest preference, providing the most visited evening hours and prestigious venues. Thus, a certain image of contemporary youth cinema is being formed in society, and Russian cinema is finally discredited in the eyes of the progressive public. It is very often possible to observe how perplexed viewers leave the cinema halls right during the screening, from the screens of which a three-story mat is poured on them, uttered by alcoholics and homeless people - the most popular heroes of youth films. The general bewilderment continues with the distribution of prizes, which in most cases go to the same films. Here again there is a regularity - the jury members are "fashionable" teachers of the authors of these very films, who, naturally, give out prizes to their students. At the same time, films that carry moral values and positive emotions, filmed in accordance with all the canons of cinematography, giving light and hope, are removed by the organizers to the margins of the festivals, or do not pass the competitive selection at all. There is no need to talk about prize-winning places for such films at all. This testifies to the absence of any intelligible selection criteria, to the low moral and aesthetic level of understanding of cinematography by the selectors of the festivals and the persons who form the programs, as well as their commitment to the “chosen” masters and producers. In fact, at present, the promotion of a particular picture of a young author depends solely on the subjective will of certain persons sitting in important and significant posts. A similar situation arises in the formation of packages of films sent to international film festivals. Moreover, often the decision to send a specific film is made not even collectively, but by one specific person. We know very well that Europe is so eager to see the "chernukha" about dying Russia. But why do we ourselves, by the will of specific functionaries from the cinema, warm up and satisfy this appetite of Europeans? Such a policy is not only defamatory, but also stimulates young filmmakers to shoot immoral gross and vulgarity, promising prestigious awards and international recognition. But it is precisely this that is the landmarks that guide us in our creative quest. It is the decisions of the authoritative jury that often show us what is “good” and what is “bad”. In a more global sense, such phenomena finally destroy the cultural foundations of our society, undermine trust in cinema as an art, openly influence the formation of tastes and values of future generations of filmmakers and cultural figures in general …"

The excerpt read out quite clearly characterizes both the goals for which the system of film awards built in Russia works, and how strongly this tool has an impact on Russian creators, and, consequently, on the content of the films themselves. In fact, each of the aspiring filmmakers is faced with a choice: either to participate in the creation of destructive films, or to forget about moving up the career ladder. In the conditions of the dominance in society of ideology, which in one phrase can be described as "profitably sell", many choose an easier path, which promises them deceptive fame and "success." In order to form the most complete understanding of the topic of the lecture, in the end, we bring to your attention a systematic video review, demonstrating how Russian cinema came to its current state.