what is effective political filmmaking?

[Reginald Hudlin]

Which kind of movie would you rather make - a movie with an explicit political message that reaches a limited audience, or a movie with a more vague political statement that reaches a broader audience? 

For example, would you rather make W. or AVATAR? 

I'm sure there are better examples that you guys will throw up as we discuss this....

[Curtis Metcalf]

My first reaction is definitely Avatar. Unless you like preaching to the choir.

After all, film-making is story-telling, not community organizing. Seems to me it's better to make something that has a widespread impact.

My second thought is that it's probably more complicated and subtle than that. For instance, from the perspective of 20 years later, which will have had the larger impact? Harder to say.

[Vic Vega]

My first reaction is definitely Avatar. Unless you like preaching to the choir.

After all, film-making is story-telling, not community organizing. Seems to me it's better to make something that has a widespread impact.

My second thought is that it's probably more complicated and subtle than that. For instance, from the perspective of 20 years later, which will have had the larger impact? Harder to say.

I thought District 9 did a better job of delivering a political message clearly and cleverly than Avatar did.

[moor]

We are talking non-documentary, then? I'm embarassed to say I've never really known what the proper delineations in film and tv are -- for example, what would something like Eyes on the Prize be classified as?

[Reginald Hudlin]

EYES ON THE PRIZE is a documentary.  Michael Moore certainly has had a lot of success doing very pointed documentaries that have reached a wide audience.  As wide or wider than THE HURT LOCKER, which won best picture.

Vic - interesting comparison between DISTRICT 9 and AVATAR. 

[Battle]

Had to think about this for a while...


I would rather make a movie with a more more vague political statement that reaches a broader audience...?    ...y'know?

Especially now in the digital age because one can include more expository stuff in many more parts to a more engaged audience after the success of your movie that had a vague political statement underlying the central theme while keeping the mainstream audience satisfied.  I think of web sites like this filled with enthusiasts that can go into more detail and reach out to those who didn't understand the finer details of what the political statement actually was.

Like for example, an older movie like  Michael Shultz's classic Which Way Is Up, everyone can remember the antics of Richard Pryor playing 3 characters and trying to deal with his troubled life between two women but does anyone really remember what the vague political conflict [read: unfair labor laws/immigration issue] that was woven into the plot?

How would it be if this movie was made in 2010 instead of 1977?

[Emperorjones]

If you make a movie with a vague political statement it runs the risk of losing the message. I thought District 9's message (s) were more tightly focused and delivered better than the more mass market approach of Avatar. Plus the mass market approach might dilute the message to make sure the film 'appeals' to as many people as possible. And if it becomes about appealing to as many people as possible, why make a political film at all. For the most part, politics is about different sides clashing/compromising. A political film should have a political ideology and/or agenda that movie goers can accept, reject, and/or debate.

[Redjack]

CASABLANCA is a fantastically political movie and so is IT's A WONDERFUL LIFE.

Those are the sorts of political movies that work on me and which I'd prefer to make.