Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Movies should only be watched when they teach people things about real life.
The statement is hardly convincing as it narrows the movies to an edification tool. Movies actually have more than one purpose, and viewers can go to the cinema not for the purpose of learning a lesson.
We may have seen many movies that tell stories with messages, we also have seen movies with only sensational pictures that give aesthetic inspirations and movies that are primarily to give viewers hearty laughter. The visual effects or punchlines are also the meaningful purpose of movies; they are not inferior to instructive stories. For example, 此处可以举例说明了，尤其可以说说视效大片阿凡达（Avatar）或者开心麻花的各种搞笑片。
In addition, many people do not like to be instructed to live a “correct” life. A movie can be a philosophical book as is the idea of the screenplay; at the same time, such a movie may have a slack box office. A movie can also be a purely entertaining one and sell well. If the statement were right, should we reproach the audience for being unserious about life because of their choice of an amusing movie? Would the audience accept that? 这一段可以不举例，就在这两个问句结束就很足够有力了。多言或是赘述。
Another major limitation of the statement is that it fails to see an important real motive for watching a movie that teaches something about real life. Typically, that a movie stars an adored actor may be the initial reason why people watch the movie. For example, 此处可以举例，比如是不是有人是冲着四字弟弟去看的《送你一朵小红花》然后被故事感动？是不是有人冲着贾玲去看的《你好，李焕英》而后被故事感动？Since we cannot deny this decisive factor and meanwhile we still want people to learn life lessons from the movie, we should not be too blunt about our intention of giving life advice. Nor should we tell people, using a teacher’s attitude, that they should watch only this and not that. Instead, we should be strategic, allowing the crowd to be “superficial” and using the star as the hook.
The statement is therefore unconvincing. In fact, it may be biased, self-righteous, and wrong.