violence in movies

Recently, I came across an article in "innerself.com," which claimed:
"The sheer repetition of killing seen in movies, desensitizes our youth, and increases the likelihood that someone will gravitate towards a gun to settle a conflict."
It seems like movies are always blamed for moral problems in our society! What are everyone's opinion's on this ongoing matter?

Definitely. The decline of Western civilization began with Bronco Billy Anderson shooting 'em up in "The Great Train Robbery," 1903. We've never been the same since.

Of course, I can't explain what caused those crazy Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Chinese, and the rest to slaughter and enslave one another by the thousands; must have been those violent plays they watched.

John

Good point John. When the Romans actually rounded up slaves, wanderers, vagrants, or whomever they could get their hands on, just to "throw them to the lions" (amongst many other beasts) to be slaughtered in the name of "entertainment's" sake. It wasn't until the blood ran so deep, that it covered the entire colosseum floor, and disturbed the people as a whole, before the mass killing ended.

While I don't think the entertainment industry is entirely to blame for today's violence in society, I do think it's a large contributer to it. Speaking of "videogames" specifically, in the past, I never really had a problem with the "violent" games. Mainly because it had to do with fantassy, or killing monsters, and things of the like, which was usually associated with defeating "evil". Today, we've got games like the "Grand Theft Auto" series, that allows (and promotes) the player to "car jack" punch, kick, and kill not only men, but women as well. This is beyond reproach, and is completely disturbing to me. Being a part of the "first generation gamers", having played lots of "first person 'shooter' " games (and anything else under the sun), I didn't try to find a gun to blow away my parents, bully's at school, or anyone else I felt "did me wrong" as a solution to my problems. I think this has to do with "upbringing" more than anything else. While there are cases to support the contrary of that opinion, I think "as a general rule" this is probably true. If you're brought up in a good home, with loving parents (or parent) and taught the difference between right and wrong (not to mention "courteousy" for others), killing another human being is just a thought that never crosses your mind! It's one thing to be in the heat of the moment, and make a statement like "I could kill you!", and only mean it as an expression of the level of your anger, and is human. But to actually envision (and or act out) the killing of another person, shows mental instability.

It is still ultimately the responsibility of every child's parent(s), to filter what their child views as entertainment. It may be difficult, but it can be done. Unfortunately, we also live in a society, where supporting a family with a single income, is VERY difficult, if not impossible for some families. This makes it extremely difficult for those families to filter what their child/children view. However, I think parental "laziness" and lack of taking responsibility for their children, plays a larger part in this problem. More so than any videogame or movie.

Something tells me this thread is going to be a "fire starter".


- Josh

There have been a lot of studies on this subject in the field of psychology and the results are varied but it seems that real violence and tv violence trigger the same brain activity. That doesn't mean we become desensitized to it. but I wouldn't pull A clockwork orange ever. But to use it as THE reason for social decay is just an answer made by the socially ignorant and delusional.

Almost every film is a reflection of a society or myth. What actually causes violence is amongst other things, parenting. If your child learns ethics and behaviour from TV instead of you, they will probably evolve in bad ways. TV Is the worst nunny ever created. How many children grew up with role models like "Spiderman" or other heroes?
Putting your child infront of the television so he can keep quiet so you can do whatever you planned to do with your free time is the easy way out. Now tv is not only offering passive viewing, but interaction. A Small kid controls a car and kills "zombies" for points, or shoots a number of scientists because "they are infected by a virus". You Put all this Into the mix and you have an idea of what kind of ethics and societal structure are being printed on your child's Brain. I Remember "Cable guy"...a good movie about this kind of subject/psychology topic , especially Jim Carrey's Line.. "Somebody has to kill the nunny...".

I have't written on this site in a while, but this is an important topic. I wrote a paper on this last year, after Columbine shootings and similar events were blamed on violent movies such as "The Matrix" and "Basketball Diaries"(Forgive the odd paragraphing, punctuation, etc.)
Flashback to April 20, 1999: Thirteen are killed and twenty-three injured by two students
on a rampage in the Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado. It was one of the
most shocking and disturbing tragedies of recent times. The newspapers and television reports
stated that the killers were coerced into becoming criminals by violent entertainment they had
witnessed or heard on TV, movies, music, etc. Their reasoning was that simply watching a
violent film can warp the perspective of a person and turn them into a violent or aggressive
criminal. According to World and I magazine, the average eighteen year old has seen 200,000
violent acts on television alone (“Media Violence: Ugly”). If this reasoning were true, would it
be safe to assume that all of these people would grow into mass murderers since they watched
violent television programs? Obviously not, for criminals amount to only a small percentage of
the general population. Violence is attributed to many factors that are different for every person.
Media violence alone is not a strong enough influence to turn someone into a disturbed or
aggressive person with criminal intentions.
Some of the arguments pertaining to media violence are valid and should be addressed.
For example, the media does not often portray the consequences and repercussions associated
with violence. In the movies, the action hero can blow up buildings and kill people without being
caught by the police or hurt in the process. This kind of message can potentially send the wrong
message to the young and naïve viewer. Also, some infamous criminals have had a fascination
with a particular song or film. Charles Manson was obsessed with the Beatles song “Helter
Skelter”, and he went on to form cults and kill many people (“Does Violence”). A misguided or
psychologically disturbed person that misinterprets art and its meaning can be dangerous to
society. Lastly, scientific studies have established a vague link between media violence and
aggressive behavior (“Media Violence Creates”). The results, however, are somewhat skewed
since the exposure to violent media increased aggression in some and had no effect on others.
The people evaluated in the study had many different backgrounds, histories, financial situations,
etc., meaning that there were too many variables to call the study completely reliable. The
evidence that supports the claim that media violence is definitely harmful is not concrete enough
to be accepted as factual.
The evidence that contradicts that claim is far more abundant and logical. The first point
is that the same scientific studies mentioned before showed a much clearer and tangible link
between aggressive behavior and broken homes, drug/alcohol addictions, abuse, and genetic
heredity. The so-called threat of media violence cannot be compared to these factors, which have
been inconclusively proven as a stronger influence on violent behavior. Most people that view
violence as entertainment never hurt or intend to hurt anyone based on what they saw on a
movie or TV show. Another claim is that media violence desensitizes people to real violence, yet
events like Columbine, Jonesboro and 9/11 devastated and traumatized multitudes of people.
Most viewers of media violence realize that it is all fake and that it is just special effects and
movie magic. The realism and shock of real-life violence remains as terrifying as it ever was.
Media violence cannot possibly be the sole cause and instigator of real violence with so many
other factors and influences involved.
Every person has an individual responsibility as to how media violence is shown. The
ratings system is in place so that parents can monitor what their children watch. Parents should
be responsible for their children and not allow them to see gratuitous violence until they are old
and mature enough to process and understand what they are watching. After all, many of the
most artistic and critically-acclaimed films are R-rated and include violent and sexual content.
Last but not least, most people are generally interested in or like violent entertainment. The use
of a violent event as an attention-getter for this paper works because people notice and listen to
descriptions of violence; it fascinates them. Media companies cater to the public interests and
trends, and as long as violent media is popular it will continue to be made. There is no sense in
banning or raising controversy over a violent film, TV show, book, or video game because
controversy arouses the public’s curiosity and brings more attention to it. The media companies
have a certain responsibility as to how they depict violence, but the public has a much larger
responsibility as to how they interpret and show it to their children.
The truth of media violence can be best summarized in the following quote made after
the school shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas: “Were 13-year-old Mitchell Johnson and 11-year-old Andrew Golden the only
kids in Jonesboro who watched TV or went to movies or played video games or
read comic books or consumed any of the other supposedly corrosive media
messages that allegedly filled them with violent urges and the will to carry them
out? Obviously not. Whatever media images these two kids took in, everyone else
absorbed the same images and shot no one. Then there is the almost never-
challenged assertion that the violent images that supposedly saturate media, TV
especially, have desensitized kids and adults alike to violence in real life. So why,
if people are desensitized to real-life violence, are the children, parents, teachers
and townspeople of Jonesboro so traumatized by the shootings? Why are people
in such horrific situations often plagued for years with guilt, fear, nightmares and
depression? Why has immediate onsite counseling by real therapists and clergy
become such a high priority? Because real-life violence is palpably different from
media depictions of violence; the real thing remains as potent as ever. Why is it
that the only kind of media content that supposedly affects people is violent
content? Is it really plausible that media violence inevitably warps people, but
the much more pervasive positive or neutral images of “Seinfeld”, “Sesame
Street”, and on and on and on have no impact? (…) Let’s give this disingenuous
dodge a rest, shall we?”

Sweet almighty god, I hope the sarcasm showed through on my last comment.

Kilgore,

How would that be different from what we have now? When someone commits a crime, we still blame that person. People who blame the media are derided as idiots who don't take personal responsibility for their actions...

Eddie

I think that all violence in movies and TV should be completely banned. Then, all the world will live in peace and universal harmony. If a person commits a violent act, we will finally be able to blame it entirely on the individual themselves. And then we will have no guilt when we kill them.

Kilgore,

Oops, sorry. (By the way, this is why we have emoticons.) :)

Eddie