For decades, movies have been a powerful tool for creators to express themselves and influence people. They can help either create change or push forward new ideas that are already rummaging about. History has shown us that the human mind is capable of change, but in order to adapt it needs some sway or exposure to new ideas.  Films help offer the “from the outside looking in” perspective and can be an instrument that helps society progress for the better, all while contributing to the entertainment industry. In turn directors, actors, and the people involved can make money from this success. This creates a steady business in which people can be well of financially and  have the opportunity to offer viewers from around the world something valuable; a take home message. Movies have changed over time since the 1960’s, mostly in the ways that they are produced because of the technology that is available during their time. Most movies take some aspect of technology and use it as a tool to aid in their story telling. As time passes and things change within culture, social problems and mainstream political values, so do the components of film making. Though films have evolved, one thing remains the same; their use as a vehichle to express the complexities of humanity.

In most movies the creators have a goal and a message they want to send to others, or a way in which they want their work of art to relate to the people viewing it.  These artists use film as a way to act out human struggles and in a way to tell their opinion about it. Weather it’s about politics, social problems, or gender roles, films over time have been used as a sort of rhetoric to impact their viewers. In director Francois Truffaut’s movie, THE 400 BLOWS (1959), he tells the story of a young boy who is innocent but keeps getting in trouble with his parents as well as in school. It eventually progresses to him getting in trouble with the law and becoming a run-away. “The 400 Blows.. is  a movie made in the French New Wave Era. In some scenes you can clearly see the Effie tower and the whole movie is in French with English subtitles.” (The 400 Blows/Bonnie and Clyde) Although old, this film may tell a sort of familiar story. In the beginning of the movie the main character is in school and his teacher is trying to control him and the other students after catching them with a porn magazine. He yells at them in dismay but doesn’t explain to them why what they are doing is wrong. This foreshadows a series of frustrated attempts from the boy to understand his life and superiors. Since they never change or try to help him and only scold him, his behavior gets worse and he becomes more confused and lost. As an analysis on the film reveals, “In May of 1968, [in France] rioting students took to the streets and demanded that everything in society had to change. They were, for the most part, disaffected sons of the bourgeoisie – the very children depicted so vividly in this film.” (400 Blows Film Analysis) Truffaut was trying to portray this narrative through his film and illustrate the negative effects of living your life without question and just doing what seems to be normal. Just like disregarding kids of being cognizant beings and yelling at them as a form of discipline, instead of educating them.

Trouffou was clearly trying to express his opposition to the punitive methods superiors would use at that time. For example, historians describe a time before the 1960’s as the “The Punitive Era,” that preceded a “Treatment Era.” This was “characterized by an almost complete lack of educational, treatment, and training programs for offenders,” and it mirrors what most people around the world thought was right back then. (History of Corrections) Just like the movie PLEASANTVILLE, directed by Gary Ross in 1998, Truffaut was trying to expose and challenge a social norm to raise awareness in hopes of change. In PLEASANTVILLE, two teens from the 90’s get magically sucked into a 50’s television like, black and white reality called “Pleasantville”. They are forced to play there roles as people in this town and as they begin to question things, they and the town gain color. The color is suppose to signify change. For instance, when “Mary Sue,” one of the 90’s teens trapped in this world, has sex with her boyfriend and educates him about this notion, he begins to offer this knowledge to other people in the town and color appears. “Their experience… opens up the eyes of the younger generation as they also start experimenting with real sex. From then on some of the youth start to change color, but only those who are willing to open up their minds to the experience of thinking for themselves and feeling and expressing all kinds of emotions.” (The Meaning of Color) This shows that the color, which in innately more attractive to the human eye, is a virtue. The director uses this tool to express his views about conservatism and hopes to reveal that to his viewers via his film.  Another blogger agrees and says in their post that, “Pleasantville was by far a very sentimental movie, and featured some controversial issues that the U.S. and many other countries have had to overcome.” (Pleasantville/Inception) What we should understand is that these movies were made in different time periods yet they both pursue the goal of portraying cultural and social problems.

Just like how THE 400 BLOWS and PLEASANTVILLE were written in different time periods but essentially try to achieve the same goal, so do other movies from different time periods. The movie YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN was written and directed by Mel Brooks in 1974, a time in which the social norm in movies was still to portray women as sexual objects and make them out to be not intelligent. Before parody movies like Mel Brooks’ YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, no one saw this as absurd or unrealistic. Culture was staring to shift into an awareness period for women rights and the objectification of women in media was beginning to be opposed. According to The Feminist Chronicles, in 1974 “The Educational Equity Act, for which NOW and other feminist organizations had campaigned, passed Congress. The act authorized the Secretary of HEW to develop non-sexist curricula and non-discriminatory vocational and career counseling, sports education, and other programs designed to achieve equity for all students regardless of sex.” (Feminist Chronicles) Feminist movements were gaining weight in the 70’s but mainstream media was still behind. In his film, Mel Brooks uses his movie to show off how laughable it was to give women these roles by exaggerating the characters roles and using political satire. It was obsvulsy a comedy movie because everything was overdone to point of being funny. Even Gene Wilder played an over-dramatazied version of a “mad scientist,” and the movie was even filmed in black and white though it was not needed and people advised him not to. An article in NYPost about the movie says “As Brooks recalled: ‘A thundering herd of Jews followed us down the hall . . . They were screaming, ‘No, no, wait, come back. No black and white! Peru just got color!’ ‘ ” (NYPost) He wanted to make his point undeniable; things had changed politically and culturally since the 50’s and 60’s, and to still think this way about people and the roles they should play in mainstream media was nothing else but funny.

Like each of the previously mentioned films, director James Cameron was also trying to convey a moral lesson through his film, AVATAR (2009). The main character is supposed to help his fellow humans infiltrate a tribe of “creatures” native to a distant planet called “Pandora.” The humans want to mine their land for its resources but will be destroying the habitat and therefore the place where these non-human beings live. He goes into their world remotely using some technolgy as an “avatar.” He is to pretend to be one of them in order to find information that would help his commander and group take over their planet. As most story lines in good yet cliche movies go, he falls in love with one of the beings there and decides to do the right thing and help them fight back against the humans. He basically helps save them from extinction. There are even some environmental issues touched on in the movie, like how he tries to show the audience that it is wrong to ruin something so beautiful in nature in exchange for money. Some think the plot of this movie was almost hackneyed in the way that it ended. For example, a critic writing for The Guardian titled his piece on the movie, “James Cameron got Slack.” (The Guardian) He means to say that people were at awe of the movie and gave it really good reviews at the time only because of its extensive display of new technology but not for an original story. Although I may agree, there is much to be said about how the director of Avatar used the technology and what he used it for. College student Vincent Watson informs me in a blog post that, “The budget for Avatar was a whopping 300 million, with this money they were able to create new technologies and buy expensive new equipment, such as the stereoscopic 3D camera.” (Technology vs. Plot) Using such technology for a film allows for a better viewing  experience, and this may tell us why the actual story line didn’t have to be so complicated. “Cameron has used the Computer generated imagery (CGI) extensively in Avatar.” says a reviewer during the time the movie came out, pointing out his success. (Technologies Used in Avatar) In return for his investment James Cameron didn’t have to work very hard to come up with a complex story line and made a lot of money. Nonetheless, he continued with the same trend as the other movies and portrayed the values that he believes in. Cameron’s main concern was to strut his abilities all the while sticking to a compassionate narrative for the hero of his story. Another blogger explains that “this film does not necessarily connect to a certain period..” (Forrest Gump and Jake Sully) This is true, the message is timeless just like in the movie THE 400 BLOWS about the misguided boy. The only difference is very advanced technology was used in AVATAR as a tool to express these views. Interestingly, it also contrasts Mel Brook’s tactic to use Black and White to have the same effect, yet they all succeed.

All of these films show that human beings at the end of the day are artists, ones who find different ways to express themselves. To make a film is to do that exactly, no matter what the time period may be. Most creators who know their work will influence others use them as a way to spread their views. They invest a lot in their productions and can make money from doing so, as a trade for their hard work put in. They may use the newest available technology or not, but do so tactfully. All in an effort to send a message to their viewers from their point of view, using their creative wits. Movies cover things like social, political and cultural problems and most importantly things that describe human conditions. Film makers hope to use their movies as a way to have a stable career, one that can entertain, change, and push people to do better. As time passes the way they do it changes but what remain is their intent to influence others.