Can participial phrases describe the actions of a subject other than the first one mentioned?

I'm still very confused about the correct placement of participial phrases when they describe the action of a noun that isn't the main subject.

"I eventually saw the film that had everyone talking, creating shock and surprise among the community."

Does the participial phrase modify the object (meaning the film created shock and surprise) or the whole of the preceding clause (as in, the act of the narrator seeing the film created shock and surprise)? If it's the latter, then that means I shouldn't use constructions like this, because that is not the intended meaning.

"I eventually saw the film that had everyone talking, creating shock and surprise among the community."

The sentence is so poor that I would mark it wrong.

At first view it appears that creating shock and surprise among the community is the result of everyone talking,

A better view might be that creating shock and surprise among the community is the result of your eventually seeing the film.

that had everyone talking is a relative clause and creates a noun phrase out of “the film that had everyone talking”. As it is a noun phrase, it can be replaced by ”it” . Thus

"I eventually saw it, creating shock and surprise among the community."

Additionally, the function of the participle “creating” is unclear; the function of the comma in the sentence is not at all clear - it does not appear to be conjunctive.

As a side note, the use of participles and participle phrases and clauses is not as common as students seem to think. Native speakers use them sparingly as they often lead to ambiguity (as we see from your example). Students think this way as a lot of time is spent in teaching them, but this time is not proportional to their use.

My advice is not to use them until you fully understand them and their application.