Film As A Mass Medium

I took a course over the summer, Introduction to Film as a Mass Medium, which broadened my opinions of films and the various aspects of film as a mass medium. We looked at how films became popularized, the difference between active and passive viewing, the production of genres, and this idea of a collected audience known as the “masses.” In the course we watched films and made observations based on the lighting, camera angle, or even the character’s interactions with each other. Because of this, I became immersed in the film’s diegesis as well as the way it grabbed the viewer’s attention and brought them closer to the fictional characters—physically and emotionally.

I used to watch films just because they were a social part of my life - movie night with the family or going to the theatre with friends. It was not something I thought too much about, but just what I did as a pastime. After watching a movie, I would mostly consider whether it was either a good or a bad movie and if I would recommend it to others or perhaps wanted to re-watch it. This resulted in a very narrow view of the purpose of film and why it has played a significant role in society’s structure. Why does society make such a big deal over film, if common individuals only passively watch films for the sole purpose of enjoyment? The cinema is seen as the most useful method of eliciting emotion to thousands of individuals at the same moment. This collective thinking brings people together.

It’s why currently actors, actresses, and the idea of celebrities have become such a highly paid and idolized status. The director, the actors, the editors and so on, created this imaginative realm that the audience is allowed in for the span of the movie. At the same time, it represents the artistic talents of the entire filmmaking process and the director’s vision for the film. This vision, along with its characterization into a particular genre, then is superimposed onto the viewer’s subconscious of what makes films good or bad.