When I lecture on entrepreneurship I start with a photo of legendary wrestler "The Undertaker". The term "entreprendre" literally means "to undertake", and this fits with the classical definition (stemming largely from Cantillon) that an entrepreneur buys inputs as a known price, sells outputs at an unknown price, and is therefore characterised by their exposure to risk. Frank Knight clarified this concept of risk (and it's contrast with uncertainty), and then Joseph Schumpeter's attention to new combinations and innovation cemented our concept of "the entrepreneur"
def. entrepreneur: The undertaker of business ventures
However the biggest challenge of teaching entrepreneurship is to make the distinction between "the entrepreneur", and the social function of entrepreneurship. After all, David Beckham isn't "a footballer", he's a father, husband, Englishman, model, etc. When we talk about "entrepreneurs", we're talking about ideal types and it's important to avoid a slippery slope into typical policy reform that associates entrepreneurship with Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)
"Economics, in speaking of entrepreneurs, has in view not men, but a definite function" Mises 1966:246
how we view entrepreneurs—as greedy or altruistic, as virtuous or vicious—shapes the destinies of individuals and nations
The film follows three case studies, but did an excellent job showing the effects of entrepreneurship on wider society. My quibbles are that it failed to adequately distinguish between entrepreneurs, capitalists, and managers (and I think claiming that entrepreneurs are the "conductors" of a market economy is the wrong metaphor); and by grounding the film in ethics would alienate a secular audience. Finally, Tony Woodlief:
Entrepreneur: Someone who sees an unmet need, often before customers themselves see it. The entrepreneur discovers a way to profitably meet that need, and organizes the resources and people to deliver the resulting value to customers.