The aim of cinema is to entertain and not to educate

The primary aim of cinema is to entertain the masses. There's some truth to this, but it must be said the body of art known as film is not biological and exhibits no aims or goal-seeking behavior of its own accord. Certainly, the primary aim of the typical movie-goer is probably entertainment, when entertainment is defined as an activity that holds an audience's attention or interest. The primary aim of most filmmakers, cinemas, televsion stations and other media distributing film is probably financial sucess in thier field of employment. A movie critic's primary aim is to evaluate whether a work of film is entertaining and study why some movies work and others don't. The primary aim, therefore, changes depending on perspective. Most of the people in the modern world are educated. That's a big statement that doesn't mean much. Educated to what degree? Pro seems to be saying that most people are sufficiently educated to no longer warrant continued education but I doubt any wise or successful person would concede that there's such a thing as too much education or that every exeperience in life is not an educational opportunity of some kind. After a hard day's (or week's) work people need some sort of entertainment and not boring 'moral stories'. Long back cinema served the purpose of educating but in these days it is only just meant for entertainment and it does not teach moral values to the people. Films are cultural artifacts, they not only reflect and document culture, they affect culture to a profound degree. Generally, all art may be said to emerge from the religious impulse- the caves of Lascaux, the theatre of Dionysus, the musical instruments at Holhe Fels. Therefore, I question any outlook that attests some confident division between entertainment and moral instruction. To some degree, I think most popular entertainment is educational and making moral comment. To some degree, I think most religious ceremony is entertainment and spectacle. Any hard lines drawn between theatre and church are more about personal preference and perception and have little to do with any established cultural segregation. Today, people do not like taking advice and films based on giving advice and moral to audience fails miserably. So the sole aim of the makers of cinema is to gain a profit from these films. I just saw "Frozen" for the first time, so let's use that movie as one example. "Frozen" makes any number of moral teachings, particually in the line of feminist advice for young women and particualrly in contrast against earlier Disney princess movies.1) Women can have power without being wicked2) Princesses may also inherit the throne, not merely hope to marry a prince. And when women have power, there will be men who merely hope to marry such a princess.3) Being different should not make you less lovable.4) Don't just fall for the first handsome prince who woos: that is seldom love. Wait for a man willing to make sacrifices on your behalf and is willing to respect your freedom: there you will find love that lasts.5) Being honest and open about your nature saves a lot of problems down the road.6) A romantic relationship does not need to be the only or most important relationship to a woman (True love's embrace)7) A good man is patient and asks before making advances. I'm sure there are many more, but these are certainly enough to demonstrate that a movie can at one and the same time be a very dogmatic morality play and a delightful, popular, and profitable entertainment for all ages. Why does Pro assume any such film must fail? How does Pro explain the success of "Frozen? " Today cinema has become the most popular and the cheapest means of entertainment. I can think of some activities that are both way more popular and way less expensive. .. .. um, yeah. That and Scrabble. It provides great relaxation for the hard working laborers who have no other way of entertainment. For a few hours they escape into a different world altogether and forget their woes and worries. Most cartoons, soap operas, or violent crime television shows are to entertain and simulate. Honestly, I don't think any of these entertainments work for very long unless they are morality plays. Does a roadrunner cartoon have anything to say except that "pride goeth before the fall? " I don't think so. Crime TV is probably the genre that is most like the Medieval morality plays: generic archtypes, obvious good and evil characters, good always wins, bad always loses, simple populist morals for general approbation by the masses. And why do films about superheros (with super powers) defeating atrocious villains after long unending struggles become record breakers in the box office in spite of the idea being repeated continuously? Again, what could contain a more obvious moral education than a story about "Super Heroes. " How are they any different from the mythologies of other cultures? other times? They are in no way differet, of course. One fairly obvious example is the Christ tale told in the second act of Spiderman 2, the legendary train scene. A man wishes to set aside his destiny and live out an ordinary life, but discovers his supernatural powers extend from his willingness to sacrifice himself for humanity's sake and he is compelled by the spirit of his father (Uncle Ben) to give himself over for the salvation of all. When he commits himself so completely that he collapses unconcious, perhaps dead (literally making the sign of the cross, the scourging of the body in case anybody was missing the analogy) the ordinary people catch him mid-fall,recognizing his sacrifice on their behalf. They take him from his cross and lift him hand over hand into the heart of the train and when they see is an ordinary man like themselves he is resurrected before them as they promise to preserve the secret of his power. In truth, few films hit the religious metaphors quite as hard as the superhero movies, but few moviegoers seem to complain or even notice. When the educational or moral aspects of entertainment are done best, they are seemlessly blended with the rest of the spectacle. But that doesn't mean they're not there. Perhaps Pro complaint is only that some entertainments do a less than adequate job of blending education and extravaganza or perhaps Pro simply sometimes disagrees with a film's conclusions and resents the propaganda. Whatever Pro's complaint, education can be no more separated from cinema than can metaphor from poetry or epiphany from music. The component is so integral any cultural artifact that it persists even in the absense of any artistic intention.