CAIRO - "Anybody who comes to the cinema is bringing their whole sexual history, their literary history, their movie literacy, their culture, their language, their religion, whatever they've got. I can't possibly manipulate all of that, nor do I want to." This intriguing line comes from David Cronenberg, the Canadian director of such controversial and mind-bending films as "Crash" (1996), a film, which tells the story of a group of people who take sexual pleasure from car accidents, a notable form of paraphilia, which caused considerable controversy on its release. Another such film was his "eXistenZ" (1999), a body horror/ science fiction film that explores the physiological effects of human reactions and interactions with the technologies that surround them – and that they often take for granted. When a director known for his "psychotropic" films says that he wouldn't want influence people in a way that it manipulates their thinking, it says something very subtly about their willingness to allow the audience to interpret their work. A smart filmmaker knows that although many say that the individual can be influenced easily, certain things in a person's life can't be altered by a movie, whether religion or their fundamental beliefs, or the way they were raised. But many filmmakers play to the lowest common denominator because they know they don't have to change any ideals or rather, challenge their audience. So they play on the same very basic level. There are many examples of this type of filmmaking, in many forms, including most of Khaled Youssef's or Adel Imam's films. Pretty much most of comedic films in most world cinema, with a few exceptions, are like this or of the kind that tries to hover just over the bottom. Cinema always seemed to be a big threat for a lot of people who don't appreciate it the point of it. It's almost always viewed as something that drags us down. While we can say that some films are depressing, or gritty, or show human characteristics in an unflattering manner, and thus sometimes true, it is not in the same sense as those "conservatives". Many of articles lately have been on the influence of film, but when the art that I love is being butchered left and right I feel I must defend it. When the revolution happened, filmmakers were courageous enough to ask for the cancellation of the film's censorship board; they really believed this was possible. However, just recently many people, cinema viewers, film lovers, and others were asking for all "heated" scenes, such as those that included hugs and kisses, to be removed, not just from upcoming films, but all films whether old and new. The reason this plan didn't go through was mainly because it would have been too expensive to remove. The cinematic medium mirrors our life, but the world of movies is intentionally made to be more exciting and visceral than our own. So what is the "dangerous argument" here about the influence of cinema? If we begin to confuse the worlds, or expect them to operate in the same way, we run the risk of creating unrealistic – and perhaps harmful – expectations for ourselves. For all the danger that sex, violence and profanity bring to moviegoers, at least viewers are aware of it. When watching a sexual scene, people with certain beliefs can guard their minds against it. If there's a lot of violence, audiences can recognise it for its shock value without assuming that violence is acceptable. As human beings possessing free will, we can choose not to mimic the profane language if we choose to. But many argue that it the fantasy world is the danger. It may, in fact, be more dangerous because we do not have built any defences against it. In fact, if consider the common psychological theories about the use of fantasy, it is itself a kind of psychological defence mechanism. It is possible to defend against our own defences? So probably, then, is there a real danger from our imaginations? Or is it that our imagination is only fed by what we see in the movies, and that we are walking around as basically empty slates which are reinforced subconsciously. Can these change the way we think, the ways we act towards others, and even how we perceive God? Are they are the "hidden dangers" of the cinema? When the killer in horror movie "Scream 2" said: "The effects of cinema violence on society. I'll get Dershowitz or Cochran to represent me. Bob Dole on the witness stand in my defence. Hell the Christian Coalition will pay my legal fees. It's air tight Sid. I'm an innocent victim." Movies like that played on the stupidity of people who are deep in thought about only the negative aspects of cinema – which are in fact, only mirroring the negative aspects of ourselves. People were killing each other long before cinema came along, or even theatre or probably the vast majority of forms of entertainment. Cinema doesn't have the ability to change someone's life or personality traits; it might trigger something that was already in, but that can be said about a lot of things: a story on the news, or newspaper; something on television or the Internet, or even something you see on the street. A personality trait can be triggered by a lot of things, and all of the attention given to the so-called "danger of cinema" only aggravates the possibility of bringing out those negative aspects.
