The movie industry as we known it is changing every single day. There are new movies with different tales coming out all the time. However, we often applaud for the actors who did the amazing job in the movie, but it is more often than not the directors who come up with these amazing one of a kind ideas for people to have head- turning reactions. This then brings up the question of how certain films affect different people and whether or not a director should allow ethics to influence his films. For the influential part the perfect example would be the movie "The House That Jack Built" because the director makes it to an interesting level of gory that caused audiences of regular movie-goers to get up and leave but makes journalists stay.

It kind of makes one wonder how the psychological makeup is different for both.

To many, the answer to the second question, at least, would be easy. No, a director should not allow ethics to get in the way of his or her film because if he or she does, then the whole film could end up awful. There are also those few people, like me, who say that on the flip side, a director should allow his or her ethics to come in the middle of their work because if they do not, then it could make for a bad film for very different reasons. If the director truly believes that a certain sense or a certain part should not be part of a film, they should definitely take it out, because honestly, what you personally believe is more important than how others may judge.

Whatever your view is, every director is different, and that leads to the first question of how different films affect different people.

I mean think about it: a film with a happy marriage at the end could make you happy because you love that your two favorite characters got their happiness, but your friend sitting next to you could be sad and balling her eyes out because she is watching these people get together, and she has not found her person for life. These differences in perception are not just in the emotions that come out, they are also in those films that you cannot simply stomach, but you friends think are the best in the world. This being said, one very big example would be Director Lars Von Trier.

Lars Von Trier is a very controversial film director who reentered the Cannes Film Festival this year. He was initially banned after he said that he sympathized with the Nazis. Anyways, he reentered with what many have been saying is his most gruesome film yet: "The House That Jack Built."

This film has caused many film goers who went to go watch it walk out of the theater. However, when journalists went to go watch the movie, hardly any came out. When asked, one said, "That wasn't as bad as I expected." This was weird because the frequent movie goers had to get up and leave, but the journalist did not.

This is only one example of how a journalist's perception is different than the average person's perception. Another example would be "The Avengers" when the movie goers thought it was amazing and made the $1.5 billion, but out of the critics, only a few of them saw anything that was amazing and cool about it. It makes one think about the psychological mind of a journalist versus a regular human because of the way that they think, especially when it comes to movies.

In other words, not matter what you answer to the questions of how how certain films affect different people and whether or not a director should or should not include their ethics in their work. Each person is different, and that is not bad. Yes, I believe that the director should use his or her ethics, but it is up to their personal discretion. Lastly, it is interesting to see the different points of views for all movies; maybe it has to do with how ones brain is psychologically... who knows.