Sociology in Filmmaking
...g impressions and while some view movies as just sheer entertainment some compare the plots with their own person life. When this happens fans of the movies sometimes make the mistake of taking the role of an actor away from the movie and placing it into society. Movies are not real. But being that it’s such a gigantic medium for entertainment it sometimes becomes hard to distinguish the line between fictional society and real society. So with that being said filmmakers the films they produce are very important to society. They can be both helpful and detrimental. Filmmaking and Sociological Perspectives In this part of this concept paper I will compare some of the aspects of filmmaking with some of the theories and aspects of sociology. One part of filmmaking that is comparable to a perspective in sociology is the team of people who help put the film together. The director, the producer, director of photography, actors, etc. all play a part in the in the creation of a film. A lot Sociology in Film 3 of credit is given to individuals when it comes to films via the Oscars, the Emmy awards, MTV movie awards, and other numerous movie award shows and festivals. Everyone involved in a movie plays a role that is interdependent on another person involved. This particular aspect of filmmaking is comparable with the functionalist perspective in sociology. Many people view the individual behavior of the director, actor, etc. when critiquing the outcome of a film. But the behaviors of these people are interdependent on others. Another way a filmmaking team can be comparable to aspects of sociology is its structure of importance. In some cases the producer and the director are seen as the most important or the authority figures on a film set. Then the actors are seen as the next in line of importance. Then you have the director of photography, cameramen, light holders, etc. This can be comparable with sociology because it’s is similar to social stratification, the creation of layers of people possessing unequal shares of scarce desirables. The director and producer are put in an elite group because they are paid more than the other people participating in the movie. The actors have negotiated contracts, and they are seen as the most important elements to the movie from the fans perspective because in most cases they are all that the fans see when the movie is released. For that, they are placed in a certain high level in society with the money and fame they received. The fans, the media, critics, and for the most part no one finds the need to mention the others that are participants in the creation of the movie. They are just a part of the movie and society as normal people, when the peers that they work with, directors, producers, and actors are credited with the fame and fortune. Based on that example I consider the film industry to be somewhat stratified. The next relation I will explore in this concept paper is the relationship between motion pictures and symbolic interactionism. Movies send messages to the audience. Some people clearly distinguish the Sociology in Film 4 difference between real and fictional society. Most movies are made up of a fictional society, that is created to compliment the plot of the movie. Sometimes people visualize the movies and identify the actors with the character they portray in a certain movie. For instance, Chris Rock played the now infamous character, “Pookie” in the movie, “New Jack City”. Someone may see the actor, Chris Rock in the supermarket and identify him as, “Pookie”. Just as if some people may identify Adam Sandler as being a billionaire from viewing his character, Longfellow Deeds, the bachelor billionaire in the movie,”Mr. Deeds”, but in reality Adam Sandler could be, well…Adam Sandler, an actor who was paid 100,000 to play the part who is happily married with kids. Motion Pictures affect on society Being that visiting the theater to view a movie has become such a worldwide favorite pastime, movies are important to society because in a way they influence society. The signals and messages movies send out influence human behavior. Even though it has not been tested, which I don’t think it possibly could be, it is a theory of mine that I presume to be true. When someone acts out of context of his or her normal behavior we often compare the person to a movie character. In some cases when children act deviant at school, they often blame the behavior on characters they have seen on the T.V. screen or at the movies. Filmmakers are powerful people, whether they know it or not. Films have become such a humongous medium for entertainment that it influences behavior. In some cases films do more than just influence kids. In the case of the movie, “The Fast and The Furious”, young adults and teenagers engaged in street racing driven by the motivation of the street racing that appeared in the movie. "[Teenagers] think drag Sociology in Film 5 racing is a movie. They don't understand that those people are stunt drivers, and that they can get killed, Miami police Lt. Bill Schwartz (2003). This is a case of symbolic iteractionism, where the teenager thinks the actors are actually racing because that is what they symbolize themselves with in the movie. What I’ve observed through my studies is that many drug dealers and rappers sometimes mirror themselves of the infamous drug dealer, “Tony Montana also known as Scarface”, from the famous (1981) flick, “Scarface”. The actor who’s name is Al Pacino played the role of the drug kingpin. Many rappers, young adults, and inner city youth adults visualize “Scarface” as the ultimate rages to riches story, a person who got to where he wanted to go by any means. So in turn many of these people who look up to this character perform some of the same deviant behavior in society and end up dead or in a total institution. So make no mis...