the power of film? (revisited)

contrary to the last post, i've been finding that while some may be moved by certain images, others may not be moved by them at all. it is not a question of power, really, but more specifically, the image's ability to move on into action. that is the power.

an image can and will only do two things when we view it. one, it will inform us of something new that we have not considered before. when we view a commercial on television for a toyota truck, we may have an idea of what toyota's trucks represent, but when presented in a different manner, maybe not as rugged and more intellectual, we consider the image in a different way.
second, images can only reinforce opinions that people already have. if the image does not reinforce an opinion, it is then is perceived as a new idea that has not been considered or has been considered but the viewer is inclined to disagree with. these people are what i would call critical viewers, who are aware of the images and the subjectivity existing within themselves.

in the case of Van Gogh's Submission, the image perceived by islamic extremists was most likely one of dissent--it was presenting the image in a new way that had not been considered by certain islamics. mainly, in a negative manner. this, obviously is a result of the biased stance of the filmmaker and writer, and by logic, they were blamed for the way in which certain extremists perceived the image.

of course, in hesitate to assert this fully, for things are not always either/or. i tend to prefer both/and, and this my friends is the reality of life. we are not all the same.