BSA203 Brainstorming ideas/concepts

"Consciousness creates reality" and "The observer Creates reality".
-If our consciousness (our thoughts and ideas) creates our reality, and all consciousness is subjective to the person who is thinking it, then you can conclude that the observer creates the reality that they want to see.

“Our whole experience of life is filtered through our minds, and we continually project our own sense of meaning onto people and things. As the Buddha put it, “With our thoughts we make the world.”

So how do films distort their characters realities in the film's world, and how does that affect the viewer. If the observer creates their own reality then, by extension, how does the viewer's own personality and opinion affect how they perceive the movie.

Inception and Pan's Labyrinth are two movies that are left ambiguous, with the conclusion up to the viewer. 
Are the perceived outcome/s of these films affected by how the viewer chooses to see the world/how much the viewer can empathise with the characters of the world as a result of their own life experiences, and how does the portrayal of consciousness and sense of self in film affect the viewer. For example, as an outsider looking in, you might not empathise with Pink’s struggles (The Wall) if you didn’t have some of the same fears/struggles yourself.

Sidenote/reference: Using fMRI scans, researchers like V. S. Ramachandran, director of the Centre for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, San Diego, have found that the same cells in the brain light up whether we perform an action ourselves or watch someone else do it—which might explain why some of us find action movies so exciting. But these “mirror neurons” aren’t activated just by the things we see. The effect also occurs when we simply imagine ourselves performing the action.

Is this why some people are more more affected by films than others. Does this prove that when people can imagine a situation, they are more likely to be responsive to that situation than someone who can't imagine it happening to them?

The more chaotic the filming is (technique wise), the more uncomfortable the viewer feels while watching. 

This chaos might give the viewer an ability to see their own feared feelings on screen, visually. Does this give them a sense of peace or more distress in regards to how they view their own reality? 

If filmmakers make a decision to make their films chaotic and surreal to emphasise the character's reality (or lack thereof), where does film and reality blend and disengage with one another? How do filmmakers make something that is visually surreal, feel real?

So, how do filmmakers manipulate the reality that the veiwer sees. (such as, to effectively pull off a film 'Twist')?
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dalbers/perception/film.html
The key to the viewer's engagement is the concept of awareness more specifically the direction of active attention in a scene. Filmmakers tend to use this knowledge to their advantage. They manipulate the viewer by employing cutting techniques and creating complex scenes.
The 1947 film, "The Lady in the Lake" is a first person viewership. It didn't create the effect wanted, and audiences were unreceptive and reportedly felt "acutely constrained as if they were placed physically in the situation of the hero for the duration of the film". This suggests that part of the illusion in watching film is to act as the passive observer.
I should look to see if there have been any films since "The Lady in the Lake" that are a first person viewership and see how effective they are in comparison, and if they are effective, why.

So how do all of these questions affect the 'real world'?

In terms of media and news, emotional arousal drives attention, which drives learning and conscious behaviour – so it’s important for mass media programmers to understand and present content that will emotionally arouse potential participants.

I should google people who say that their actions were directly related to a film that they saw, such as "V for Vendetta" which inspired anonymous. 

Can people use these techniques that blend reality and engage their viewers in negative ways (such as propaganda) or in order to push an agenda/ideal? How do filmmakers distinguish their films from being perceived as potential propaganda vs simply being entertainment? If a film is originally intended to be just entertainment, why is it that it can unintentionally become a cult classic, coming to life in the real world as a result of the people who watched it. ("Life imitates Art".)

For example in films such as "The Matrix" and "Limitless" drugs are used to distort character's realities. In "The Matrix" the drug is presented as a choice to either bring about enlightenment or to return to the mundane. The drug also encourages the protagonist to rebel against authority figures and break out of his preconceived way of thinking. I should see whether there was any controversy surrounding the film's release. 

In regards to drugs, does censorship play a part in either promoting/hindering how the film gets received. 

How much does the current state of society affect the films being made and how they are received? For example, if The Matrix was made during WWII era, would it be accepted as it was because it would fly against the face of unity and patriotic feeling needed during the war?