The renowned critic Roger Ebert described films as machines that generate empathy. If this is the case why do we see criticism that films (and subsequently film industries) do not support national interest? One may think it is important for cinema, and subsequently all art, to say whatever it wants to say and not fall victim to ideology, although the opposite has been the major trend (eg. the Soviet-era films of Sergei Eisenstein (eg. Battleship Potemkin) or the films made at the height of the cold war in the States). Therefore the question that beckons is, “Is it right for cinema to be used as a means to achieve political ends?”
Very interesting question. It appears the question assumed politics as a sphere which should be dominated by rationality, rather than emotion- as if emotion contaminates politics.
I wonder how much reason can achieve alone, without being backed by emotional values/attachments. How long can reason lead politics and to what end?
If the answer is a faith in reason, then most forms of art that connect with the audience through empathy, by default, become ineligible to be in politics.
Did I understand the question wrong?