George Roy Hill's 1984 release, starred Diane Keaton, Vorgo Voyagis, Klaus Kinski, Sami Frey and Michael Cristofer. The film is an " . . . adaptation of John Le Carre's . . . novel (that) portrays a complex tale of Israeli and Palestinian espionage and terrorism . . . Keaton is a pro-Palestinian actress who becomes employed as a double agent . . . " Scheuer calls the film " . . . a political thriller with serious ideas."
In 1986, Haskell Wexler directed , a " . . . docudrama about the U.S. involvement in Nicaragua." Steven Scheuer reports that this " . . . anti-Contra entry perceives Uncle Sam's gung ho efforts to train the Contras as an exercise in evil." Oliver Stone offered in 1986. The film starred James Woods, Jim Belushi, John Savage and Michael Murphy in a " . . . scathing look at the social injustice in El Salvador . . . seen through the lenses of (a) photographer (Woods), a sleazy newshound who goes through his rites of revolutionization when he is confronted with the government's fascist brutalization of the country's populace." Film critic Steven Scheuer admits the film is " . . . (reversely) as propagandistic as ."
Andrew's fancy houses and hotels, and outside along those daytime busystreets, twilight hides a sombre reality: scores of boys below the ageof 19 years, frolicking with men two or three times their age in exchangefor money... He, however, explained that this activity mainly takesplace in the Kingston and Montego Bay area, but should not be seen as sexworkers in the strict sense.
There is little evidence to suggest that the prospects for documentaries, at least in the commercial theatres, have changed any since the experience of Lorentz and Flaherty. The theatrical feature film distributors are able to squeeze most of the documentaries out of the commercial theatres, and fewer people get to see the documentaries, thus they earn less money than the more "commercial product". This means in turn that there is less money for documentary producers to spend in producing their next documentary, thus the gap between feature films and documentaries continues to widen. Unfortunately for our society, many of our most talented filmmakers, with important statements to make through film, are relegated to a small corner of the market by the current Hollywood system.
Padilla's book "Caribbean Pleasure Industry: Tourism, Sexuality, and HIV/AIDS in the Dominican Republic," is the largest known study of male sex workers in the Caribbean and how their bisexual behavior impacts the spread of HIV.
As Timothy Gray wrote that same year, "[t]he entertainment industry is in the business of communications: communicating ideas, emotions and experiences." Yes, some movies are entertaining, but for most filmmakers and others on the creative side of the equation, communicating important ideas is the predominant motivation.
The next year (1993), Steven Spielberg clearly did not make solely or merely for entertainment purposes. In talking about why and when he made that film, Spielberg said he made the movie in 1993 even though he could have made it the following year. He said that " . . . he had just seen too many things on television that horrified . . . " him and his wife. "What was happening in Bosnia. It was so familiar and it was so much part of what (he) . . . thought could never possibly happen again. And (he) . . . just felt that sooner rather than later, a movie like this should come out and at least stir the pot." In other words, Spielberg wanted to remind the world of the Holocaust, in an effort to prevent any similar occurrence in the future. He was, in fact, attempting to influence human behavior with his film; not only human behavior but the policy of nations. Again, there is nothing wrong with what Spielberg was attempting to do, or the subject he chose to put on the screen. It is terribly wrong, however, to arbitrarily deny most interest groups in our diverse society the same opportunity to use film to communicate their important messages.
why the debate over its debasement is so intense." That same year, producer, director, writer and actor, Mel Brooks offered his opinion that " . . . the vapor of human existence is best captured in film . . . "
Also, writing in 1992, literary agents Roberta Kent and Joel Gotler suggested that "[o]ur society is becoming less a printed-word society and more an image society . . . " That same year, while watching , movie critic Roger Ebert said he felt he " . . . understood more clearly how we do have the power to change our own lives, how fate doesn't deal all of the cards." He said the film was " . . . inspirational and educational--and it is also entertaining, as movies must be before they can be anything else." This, of course, is a more realistic appraisal of what films ought to accomplish than that supposedly offered by Samuel Goldwyn. The truth is that no motion picture can be merely "entertaining", and, of course, some movies are not "entertaining". All movies, however, communicate ideas, whether we view them as good ideas or bad ideas. Thus, all movies are communicating messages, whether Samuel Goldwyn and his school of thought is happy about that or not.
Many observers of the effect of motion pictures on society have expressed their respective beliefs over the years that movies influence people. In the '20s, for example, " . . . many citizens of the United States, especially leaders in social work, education, and religion . . . became greatly concerned about the new movies . . . " In 1926 at the opening of the Warner Bros. feature the first major motion picture with sound, Will Hays lauded the potential good effects of movies with sound, saying, that "[t]he motion picture is a most potent factor in the development of a national appreciation of good music." Of course, if movies have the power to influence people in positive ways, they also have the corresponding ability to influence people in negative ways.
William Cash, also writing in 1992, seems to agree with Custen, saying that films " . . . are increasingly the only culture that many 'educated' people have to talk about, the only culture--if that is the word--that many journalists are capable of writing about." Peter Biskind also states that movies " . . . do matter; they have enormous impact on how people perceive the world." In a separate article (also published in 1992) Biskind continued by saying that movies " . . . are not 'just entertainment,' and the people who make them have an opportunity--even a responsibility--to have a positive affect on American culture."