Cinema develops perceptions of reality that are hard to break: a critical engagement
We, as Americans, are privileged to live in the country that dominates international cinema and television. This privilege allows us to be able to see a new movie every weekend at the local movie theater if we so chose (no one does anymore). Or, binge watch a new Netflix series until the wee hours of the morning. Dominating the cinema and television landscape is not a new element of American culture. This is something which has occurred for decades. Movies from Hollywood and TV shows from every corner of the nation export to outside the borders of the United States. We think nothing of it, actually we take immense pride in being a purveyor of “pop culture” for the entire planet. But this massive exodus of cinematic media is accompanied by a submerged social and psychological element.
The extensive exportation of cinematic materials creates an all-encompassing scene. This scene is an imagined view of the world unseen by tangibility.
People from every place imaginable on Earth are enthralled by American television and movies. Many of these movies are focused on American life and American settings. These movies cover everything from romance to comedy and everything in-between. While we have seen the movies since our introduction to the cinematic world in our youth, our foreign counterparts may not have been so lucky. Along with this, another layer exists, people watching these American focused plots from overseas may have never set foot in the US. Their connection to the movies and television shows is much different than ours. We exist tangibly in the society on a daily basis, we eat sleep and breathe American culture. We have every sense of how people interact and what creates the idiosyncrasies which exist in our social society. But members of the world outside the shores of America do not necessarily have those same experiences or ability. Anand Pandian in his book, Reel World: An Anthropology of Creation describes an element of this condition, “We often think of cinema in just this way: a stream of images that obscure reality, screen us from the actual conditions of our lives, disable us from reflecting upon the truth of our existence.” His exemplifies this way of looking at the effect of cinema, “You may think you’re just enjoying yourself, but you’re also taking pleasure in the nation this film glorifies, the social class this film idealizes, the masculine violence this film celebrates.” Even though he acknowledges these elements Pandian wants to look beyond this argument. He wants to argue that “…whatever we’ve done, felt, and thought has always happened in the thick of images.” In this example he takes the argument a step farther in saying that he believes we are constantly surrounded by images that influence or perception of reality, not just through television or movie screens.
While I do agree to a certain extent with Pandian’s argument I also want to revert back to the first dilemma I introduced. I recently visited a friend in Colombia for a few weeks. It was a glorious experience filled with beauty of all of the senses. But when I returned I was starkly reminded of this idea of learning reality through media. As I told friends and acquaintances about my trip, a vast majority of the time as soon as I would mention going to Colombia people would have 2 seemingly simple reactions: Did you do any cocaine?, or “ahhhh, Narcos!” You may wonder, as I did, why the hell someone talking about Colombia in 2017 would have such ignorant responses. But, if you just look at your Netflix “Most Popular” you’ll know exactly why those were the reactions. The uber popular show Narcos is a cinematic representation of life in the 1970s of Colombian cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar.
People use these cinematic experiences as an imagined glimpse into the world in which the movie or show depicts. So it seems, in my experience so far, that Pandian’s original point about cinema screens obscuring reality is true.
