Use of Influence

[Mr Sleep]

Recently there was a movie produced called Black Hawk Down, this movie was basically about the conflict in Somailia. It occured to me that instead of spending upwards of 100 million on a film, and then taking that 100 million and depositing it in some studio executive pocket, they could have either a)not made the film and given that 100 million to aid worker in Somailia or b) made the film and given the profits to aid workers. They also might have given the money to the families of the soldiers that were killed in Somailia.

Any thoughts on this subject, or any other examples of a misuse or possible use of influence, especially concerning the entertainment industry.

(another serious thread, i must be losing it )

EDIT: HLD rightly pointed out to me it was Somalia not what i previously stated, so i am editing all references to the correct country

[Bloodstalker]

I don't know if this fits into your topic, but it really ticks me off whenever some mass murderer sells the rights to his "story", and the make a movie out of it.

Okay, I am done now.

[HighLordDave]

The movie is based on the book of the same name and is set in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993.

I have not seen the movie, but am told that aside from the blood and gore, it's pretty good.

Mr Sleep, you idea is a good one, except that movie studios don't exist to make the world a better place; they are out to make money. Plus, since we in American think that the Somalis are helping out Osama bin Laden (plus they didn't really didn't want our help the last time we went in), there are many folks over here who would just assume see them rot in hell before sending any more foreign aid their way.

[GandalfgalTTV]

You really should watch the movie, while made to make money of a gruesome story, it actually has some worthwhile points. Especially the ending is really good.

*No I'm not going to ruin the experience for anyone, just watch the movie.*

C)Made the film, giving people the choice, they either spend their money on watching the movie, or give it to charity. I know who's going to win.

The marridge of two rich people get's two days of news coverage, I haven't heard about Somalia in months. It's not a Hollywood problem, it's a human nature problem. We just don't care.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
(another serious thread, i must be losing it )

Giving in to old age, Sleep?

Now, I haven't seen the movie, but often when I see big sport's events or large budget movies I think "why couldn't all this money be used for aid"? Then the next moment, I think what HLD writes: it's not the purpose of the entertainment business. And it shouldn't be either, although I do think all businesses ought to help out more than they do to draw attention to and donate money/resources to, charity.

Like Galdalfgal points out, I think it is a sad feature of the human nature that we often care for the things close to us, than about things we perceive as strange, foreign and far away. I would think many people are more interested in a movie than about the very horrible situation in Somalia. It's also a media problem IMO, media often use the argument "we only give people what they want", but this is a cheap shot IMO, since what people want is also a question of access and availability.

The entertainment industry should produce entertainment, yes, but I also think it should use it's large influence to draw attention to humanitarian issues.

[GandalfgalTTV]

I disagree with you on one thing CE:

although I do think all businesses ought to help out more than they do to draw attention to and donate money/resources to, charity.

But if they do that choice is removed from the equation, and we stop donating al together, let the companies/government take care of it, it's what they're there for.

It's getting quite poulair over here, the government is responsible, let them take care of it. But that's just a way of forcing everybody to do something. And I think in the case of charity that's taking it a bit to far.

When I donate, I do so out of free will and compasion, not because I need a product or the government decides I should.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by C Elegans
The entertainment industry should produce entertainment, yes, but I also think it should use it's large influence to draw attention to humanitarian issues.

To some extent it does. For instance, at every awards show, the guests/presenters/hosts are wearing a ribbon supporting [insert charity of the month here]. Each year, there are also a fair number of "benefit" events, the longest-running being Farm Aid and Comic Relief.

I think that some individual entertainers are very good and visible in advocating their charity of choice; Pierce Brosnan for instance will show up and speak at any event associated with breast cancer research. Plus there are folks like U2 who, in between Super Bowl press conferences, were in Washington advocating Third World debt relief last week.

Some corporations also sponsor charities; the United Way's biggest fund raisers involve getting companies to have their employees donate money to various charities (I don't advocate giving to the United Way, but they do raise a lot of money). Businesses (including entertainment companies) do whatever it is they do primarily to make money, but they score lots of PR points by being associated with charities and appearing involved in the local community.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by GandalfgalTTV
The marridge of two rich people get's two days of news coverage, I haven't heard about Somalia in months. It's not a Hollywood problem, it's a human nature problem. We just don't care.

Just to quote my old sig "What we consider human nature is, in actuality human habit" Hollywood being the largest distributed entertainment of any kind should make some effort to provide awareness, as HLD points out there are a few actors and stars who do make some form of donation....but is it enough?

Of course i assume that if i had several hundred million that i would act differently to these people, the problem is they have no real concept of money and probably have all their financial dealings done for them by an accountant, they probably don't know how much a loaf of bread really costs.

@CE that might account for my doddery ramblings

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by GandalfgalTTV
But if they do that choice is removed from the equation, and we stop donating al together, let the companies/government take care of it, it's what they're there for.

I certainly see you point here, GaldalfG, and that would be a risk. What I had in mind here was rather how the entainment business could draw more attention to different problem areas. Like HLD writes, much is done already. But I don't think it's enough, and I think the problem with the "charity of the month" thinking, is that long term follow up suffers, and people might believe a problem goes away because media is not focusing on it any longer.

The entertainment business mostly focus on problems that are simultaneously presented in other media, not surprising since they will probably get most good will out of problems that are in peoples minds already. But many problems don't go away just because media doesn't report about it any longer, and here is where entertainment business could help to draw attention to continuous needs.

[GandalfgalTTV]

I see your point and I agree. But would people want to be reminded of world problems, when seeking entertainment. The answer is no. So al promotion of charity has to be done of the movie screen.

And in that cause the responsibilities shift from the entertainment industry to journalisem, and the ones interrested in movie stars etc. Well let's just say they would rather write about the color of the underwear of the stand-in, then writing about something actually worth the paper it's written on.

So promotion must be done, in such a way that there is no dependency on others to report your message. Television appearances would work. Would they? Who watches the shows movie stars appear in. And do you really want people saying "I donated to such and such because Pierce Brosnan thinks it's a good idea." I agree it's better than not donating at all. But as you said CE there is no feeling of concern etc. They will do it once, but two days later Sarah Michelle Gellar, screams something about fur.

*Have to get to work, will get back on subject. G out.*