How to change the world: A manual

[Hellbent]

How To Change The World: A Manual could be the title to a book or something... seems the world could use such a manual, in whatever form it might come.

I'm taking a film documentary class where we watch films like SiCKO, Food Inc. and Who Killed the Electric Car. Michael Moore criticisms aside, there is a common theme to these three films (and others probably as well, The Corporation prolly, been awhile since I've seen it tho) that transcends party lines. And that is of corruption. Of major players in major corporations being in the same bed as major White House positions that lobby legislators who are the direct link or mechanism to what governs the world (or at least the country) that we live in. America seems to me to be an empire that is falling--too much power and too much hubris. So how to tackle this? What is the most effective way to change the world?

I need help brainstorming all the ways in which one can change the world. What are the most effective? Here's what I got so far:

1. Through film. This to me seems like a very powerful medium for changing the world. Even though I'm an English major I think I'd rather make a movie than write a book. The visual medium seems the most dynamic and movies have the greatest potential to reach the most viewers.

2. Become a politician/lobbyest. The problem with this one is it's too direct... the bad guys will see you coming and you'll get offed. I think the approach needs to be cunning... can't have the bad guys see you coming. Again, I think film is probably the best medium for being creative in using visual means to creatively use psychology to get more people to become aware and care about the problems in the world.

You may be familiar with the quote: ""Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For indeed that's all who ever have."
So is it futile to think many individuals can change the world rather than a few brave souls?

3. that's all I got... what other avenues, mediums can one take?

[Mr. Freeze]

3. Start shooting

[chungy]

Hellbent said:

2. Become a politician/lobbyest. The problem with this one is it's too direct... the bad guys will see you coming and you'll get offed. I think the approach needs to be cunning... can't have the bad guys see you coming.

Oh please, corwardice isn't an excuse to avoid becoming a politician.

[Hellbent]

Mr. Freeze said:

3. Start shooting

Film or corrupt powerful evil dudes? :P

[Hellbent]

MikeRS said:

Oh please, cowardice isn't an excuse to avoid becoming a politician.

I guess I feel like I would better know how to be impactful through film than through politics... seems there's more red tape in politics... but then again... multiplexes won't show films that have too much overt controversial stuff in them (hence the creative use of psychology employed in a film vs being a Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader or Ron Paul who get shut out of the media.

I guess there's more chance of getting messages out there in creative ways through cinema than media (the media is so heavily censored and owned).

[Scet]

The problem with film is that the people that should see it will not. Sicko is a good example, people ignored it since they believe Michael Moore is a liberal socialist commie Nazi baby eater. There seems to be far to many extremists in America, a by-product of the two party system. It's like watching two children yelling insults back and forth, in the end nobody really wins, you just waste time.

[Hellbent]

Scet said:

The problem with film is that the people that should see it will not. Sicko is a good example, people ignored it since they believe Michael Moore is a liberal socialist commie Nazi baby eater. There seems to be far to many extremists in America, a by-product of the two party system. It's like watching two children yelling insults back and forth, in the end nobody really wins, you just waste time.

Moore films aren't that deftly and tactfully made; they're sensationalistic, bold, raw and honest which makes them entertaining and sympathetic. I think if one is careful about how they go about a film.. and have it be multi layered.. not too narrow in tone the way Moore films (and many films) tend to be. A film doesn't have to wear its politics on its sleeve the way Moore does, and it doesn' thave to be exclusively somber or focused in tone the way Food Inc. is. It should be funny, entertaining, informative, clever, fresh and not take itself too seriously it shouldn't have an agenda even if it has an agenda (I'm convinced there is a way to do this--basically it would have an agenda, but the agenda would be very broad and vague: to change the world for the better for everyone--this corporate people who run the world--hell, the direction they lead our country and our politics aren't even good for them, they're only good for their and their cronies' pocket books--they're too blinded by greed to realize that)....

If a film decides to have its agenda be overt (in my case a general agenda of a better world for everyone without including any political agendas) might be fine; even so, you would still have to communicate that in a certain way as to not turn off viewers. I'm very sensitive to how films work on people--how people don't want to be preached to, they don't want to be manipulated, they certainly don't want to be TOLD what to do or think. But there ARE ways (using psychology) to not be manipulative, but to be clever, creative, funny and entertaining in engendering people to be moved when they least expect it and to think freely without being prompted or manipulated into feeling and thinking a certain way.

I think being sympathetic is important when making this kind of film. Yes, there are 'bad guys', but they are in a way pitiable and victims... I'm not exactly sure how they're victims... at the very least they are victims of a capitalistic society with a very narrow, flawed and unwise philosophy. Anyway.. just brainstorming here. Thanks for the replies.

[Mr. Freeze]

Scet said:

The problem with film is that the people that should see it will not. Sicko is a good example, people ignored it since they believe Michael Moore is a liberal socialist commie Nazi baby eater.

No, it's because we believe him to be a shady, shameless liar who will twist anything around in order to make a point.

Which he is.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Hellbent said:

What is the most effective way to change the world?

Save the internet from their clutches.

[Flesh420]

The Ultimate DooMer said:

Save the internet from their clutches.

Agreed!

[Bank]

Either become a global benefactor or a tyrant. You can arrive at both the same way, it just requires money, charisma, and followers/cronies.

It depends on how you wish to change the world, do you want your ideals to be reflected on the world or do you want the world to dictate the ideals of its people?

[Hellbent]

Bank said:

Either become a global benefactor or a tyrant. You can arrive at both the same way, it just requires money, charisma, and followers/cronies.

It depends on how you wish to change the world, do you want your ideals to be reflected on the world or do you want the world to dictate the ideals of its people?

Not my ideals.. I don't have any... I can't even decide on an avatar let alone a political agenda. The ideals of the people--cause what's going on now isn't exactly democracy.

[fraggle]

What is it with people on Doomworld apparently being unable to spell the word "lobbyist"?

[Scet]

Mr. Freeze said:

No, it's because we believe him to be a shady, shameless liar who will twist anything around in order to make a point.

I don't know who "we" is, but I never said I approved of his film making. I wouldn't say he's a liar, more of a hypocrite. In numerous interviews he claims filmmakers shouldn't use fear-mongering and sensationalism, yet this is exactly what he does. Unfortunately sensationalist documentaries seem to make the most money.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Scet said:

The problem with film is that the people that should see it will not.

Not to mention that even if they did, they wouldn't believe any of it to be true simply because it's a film. Which is why there are so many sensationalist films and tv shows based around stuff like corruption and conspiracies - if it appears in a fictional show it must be made up, right?

[magicsofa]

Change yourself.