do u believe filmmakers should be legally responsible for the consequences of their film?

Answer 1

Only if they make a movie that insights genocide, killings and things like that. Like those Radio station people who started the Rwanda genocide that killed 800,000 people.

Answer 2

Well...I have to go with the flow here and say no, they should not be LEGALLY responsible, but they can, and should be held socially responsible. By that I mean, society, or even groups within a society/culture, will hold filmmakers accountable through a variety of means.

First and most obvious is through the pocketbooks via a refusal to see a film that is offensive or degrading. The problem with this is that there are many films found to be offensive and degrading that make a ton of money.

Perhaps many of these films do have some redeeming qualities, whether they exist merely to push the boundaries of art, remind us of a greater responsibility to freedom of expression, or to tell us that some of these offensive, reprehensible, degrading things are not really all that harmful, even if they might be wrong. In this case, the public will show that they really do not like the film by forgetting about it in 6 months. This is also a means of holding a filmmaker accountable; they love talk and publicity.

Finally, for those filmmakers that make a film that has truly negative social consequences, and not just consequences that result from someone imitating them, but consequences that result from the way the filmmaker can powerfully portray an image, the social response will come via intelligent discussion in the public forum, in the history books, and believe it or not, by film critics and writers. Case in point would be someone like Leni Riefenstahl (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0726166/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl) whose propaganda films for Nazi Germany are still controversial today, but are still used to teach how powerful film really can be.

In a way, this might be the ultimate good. That which is used for evil becomes a lesson in social responsibility and the responsibility of the arts for future artists and filmmakers. Hmm.

Answer 3

That's a hard question. Where do you draw the line between enciting negative or harmful behavior and personal responsibility? Imagine if a person had a personal political agenda to depose the sitting government--that for whatever reason, he wanted to bring down a government for his own gain--and made a film (like a documentary) filled with lies and half-truths that so enraged the public that the government was overthrown, or public figures were held to such ridicule and scorn that they could no longer function properly and were forced to resign; and then it was later found that the film maker purposely manipulated facts to meet his own agenda??? Would that not qualify for slander, libal, and even perhaps treason?

Granted, that is a wild scenario, but not too far out. Take Michael Moore--big fat slob who pokes fun at the Republicans and big business--he plays pretty fast and loose with the facts to get an emotional response. Or Oliver Stone, with the way he portrayed "JFK".

Now, should a film maker be sued because a violent film is blamed for an act of actual violence--no. Not a categorical "NO", but a qualified "no". See the first paragraph. Quentin Tarantino makes some of the goriest, nastiest films around--but everyone who watches them understands that they are just movies. Those that take those ideas and actually live them out are sick to begin with, and would have acted out in another way. If violence in films bothers you, do what I do--avoid those types of films.

Answer 4

Of course not. Anyone who believes they should be at fault might as well pack up and move to some third world country where this is no freedom of speech. This question has no argument because there is only one right answer. If you're legally an adult and allowed to see a movie then your legally responsible for your own actions. If under 18 the parents should discipline the age limit on which their child should see such films. If the child still sees these films they should already of been taught what's right and what is wrong prior to the film.

Answer 5

If filmmakers were held legally responsible, this would accomplish three things:

1. Wrong doers would have a huge incentive to shift the blame on 3rd parties;

2. Filmmakers would be too scared to make any movies.

3. Hollywood would go bankrupt.

Answer 6

Absolutely not. This would be just another ploy to place the blame and therefore the responsibility for irresponsible acts on someone other than the person(s) committing the acts.

People make concious decisions to do things, and should be held 100% accountable for their own decisions and the actions resulting from those decisions.

Answer 7

NO, I believe people should be held responsible for their actions. It doesn't matter what they've watched or seen or heard. People know right from wrong PERIOD If they do not then they are mentally incompetent and should be judged as such, but I don't think that should mean they are exempt from the death penalty. It may sound cruel but if you hurt someone, then you should be hurt equally. Just because you have wires crossed somewhere doesn't change the fact that you just CHANGED/ENDED someone else's life.

Answer 8

Consequences of a film? Like what? If you're talking about idiots who blow themselves up because they were trying to build a Lightsaber, or smoke crack then go driving on a freeway or kill themselves trying to re-enact scenes from Spiderman or anything like that because they saw it in a movie and thought it would be cool to try, then no. Movies are made for entertainment and aren't meant to be taken literally! Anyone who can't grasp that and tries to blame their actions on a movie is just plain stupid and should be removed from the gene pool.

Answer 9

No. A film can't FORCE anyone to do anything. People are responsible for their own actions. As soon as everyone learns this we'll all be much better off.

Answer 10

No way! The people that watch need to be responsible or the dumbass parents that allow their children to watch movies that may have a bad influence on them

Answer 11

NO,for all the things others here have stated,very well too I might add...A person can only be responsible for their own actions,no matter what may have infuenced their decisions to wrong in reality...same goes for music genres & who represents them..