I received a link to the tweet of a person affiliated with the category of specialists in matters of religion talking about a movie! I opened the link and I am confident that what I will find is like what I find for the rest of the Arab tweeters if they talk in the cinema, that is, nonsense or local "rubbish".
I repeat it for the tenth, hundredth and even a thousand times: Arabs do not watch movies, and if they see something they like, their greatness and they write tweets that are all written and misrepresented, because they do not understand what they are talking about. Watching movies does not mean that you never understand in the cinema, but that you read in the cinema and its history, it definitely means that you are aware of what you say.
This person and all the Arab tweeters who have gone through Ali make the same mistake, watching a movie they like and rushing to tweet about it, and there is no problem if someone wants to express his opinion in a movie, but analyzing the movie in a tweet or two is impossible!
The man talks about a movie about bullying in a short video, in which he says that the US government spent 20 million dollars on the film, and he says that the American media handled bullying until the problem disappeared, without being proven by evidence and numbers. This talk is only naive and not read. The man was dazzled by the movie’s budget and did not know about his profits that exceeded 300 million dollars. He thought that 20 million dollars is a huge amount, and he is in Hollywood cinematography like 200 dollars, meaning low budget.
It is necessary to distinguish between the media and cinema: the first is a platform or platforms that address the masses about topics of interest to them, while cinema is an art that tells stories in the style of animated image, its primary purpose is entertainment. Media gives facts, and cinema may give facts wrapped in fiction.
Has the US government spent on the movie? If someone thinks about the question, he is like a policeman who asks: Does he take the narrators of a drug user in a hallucination situation? The US government supports films, but does not spend on them. The logic is that the producer is the one who spends the movie. As for the government, its role is to support the film and provide it with technical, logistical and scientific reasons until it is completed.
Bullying in schools is a trivial matter in the corridors of the White House or the Pentagon, and the government has no interest in supporting it. The US government is the same as any other government in the world that supports the movie that promotes its foreign policy, accomplishments, wars, weapons, or plans in the war on terrorism, and this talk since World War II, and we may remember that the US government took advantage of even the beloved children's character Donald Duck and dressed him as soldier clothes In one of the episodes broadcast during the mentioned war.
In Arabic: The cinema (and not the media) has transformed the US government and its apparatuses like the CIA and the FBI into something like a brand, whether it is an important movie like “Zero Dark Thirty” in which the CIA boasted a tremendous achievement as a killing The terrorist Osama bin Laden, and supported the film with secret information that was not revealed before the movie, or was it a trivial movie aimed at teenagers such as "Transformers" that the Pentagon uses to display its latest fighter planes and the latest weapon models.
To read the previous articles of the writer please click on its name .
Abdulla.AlQamzi@emaratalyoum.com
"The media gives facts, and cinema may give facts wrapped in fiction."