Introduction
Movies, under the sleek label of “action movies” are often attractive packages of violence. Screenwriters, directors and producers use violence often and in many ways that it has become impossible to distinguish between the different kinds of movie violence. Violence does not necessarily mean bloodshed, fights and murders. It also includes shouting, hitting, shooting, car crashes and vandalism. In an age of increasing violence in real life due to irrational gun shooting and terrorist activities, there is a lot of debate as to the amount of violence that can be allowed in movies. There are stories that warrant violence and movies where violence is added merely as a selling feature.
A leafing through a movie guide will likely throw up movie names such as Show of Force, Hell Squad, The Killers, The Naked and The Dead, Masters of Menace, Conan – The Destroyer, etc. Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill: Vol. 1” and Martin Scorsese’s “Gangsters of New York” are examples of movies with graphic scenes of amputations and decapitations (Nason 1).
Thesis: The violence as shown in movies is harmful to society in many ways: they incite violence, glorify retaliation using force, cause deep fear by providing them with an exaggerated presence of violence, affect children negatively and desensitize people to pain and torture.
Main body
Violence in movies is mostly of the gratuitous type and tends to glorify force as an appropriate response to conflict and fails to show realistic violence as it is. Violence as depicted in movies focuses mainly on the bleeding and immediate consequences of violence and avoids the real world consequences of violence such as physical handicaps, financial expense and emotional cost – these are never a part of the plot. Thus the violence that is shown in movies is based on falsehood and should not be allowed to be perpetrated.
By repeated exposure to horrific killings and fights, movie audiences slowly get attuned to the amount of violence they can take. “The titillation both arouses and gratifies us” says Anne Dupre. Dupre points out that though many people enjoy violence in movies, they hide their vulgar desire under the cloak of movie-speak: “Yes, it was extremely violent. But it had sharp dialogue, dark humor, great production values, and one could detect the auteur’s vision.”
The truth is that people are getting seduced and gradually used to this violent style of film making. This emotional numbing of movie viewers to violence increases the violence in the movie world. More and more potent doses of violence are needed to titillate and shock. If the lurid rape scene in “The Accused” shocked viewers one year, Hannibal Lecter’s cannibalism in “The Silence of the Lambs” is needed the next. When cannibalism becomes routine, it is time to bring on the rats and so on.
Generally in movies, violence takes place between the good guy and the bad guy and the good guy wins by fighting and defeating the bad guy. This is due to the dependence of the scriptwriters on basic stereotypical characters. Bad guys have to be really bad and good guys are peaceable. Good guy violence is justified. When a child is asked why a particular character is getting beat up, he is likely to answer: “He’s a bad guy”. Thus, violence in films can lead to acceptance of negative attitudes such as revenge, punishment and cruelty.
Another chilling aspect of the media’s portrayal of violence is that when people are killed, they simply disappear. No one mourns their death and their lives are unimportant. Watching such movies can give its viewers a certain ruthless attitude that will prove to be detrimental to society at large.
Movies that carry violence as entertainments affect both children and adults. Children model behavior on what they see and perceive. When they are shown violence without the consequences of violence, it teaches them that violence doesn’t cause serious harm (Wankat 3). When heroes use violence it sends a message that violence is an appropriate way to respond to problems. Researchers have identified three ways in which children may respond to high levels of violence: increased fear; desensitization to real-life violence and increased aggressive behavior.
Adults are exposed to a greater level of violence in movies than they would otherwise see in real life. As a result, movie goers are forced to think that the world is more dangerous and violent than it actually is. This phenomenon is often called the “mean world” syndrome and can lead to a negative and fearful mindset in the viewers. Studies have shown that 26 per cent of adults still have “residual anxiety” many years after viewing horror movies in childhood (MNet 1).
People who love action movies might argue that it encourages qualities of bravery and confidence. But there are many other ways in which such good qualities can be inspired through movies. Consider movies such as Forrest Gump in which the main character bravely faces life despite the odds being stacked against him and ultimately succeeds. The theme of bravery is well explored without violence. Another argument for violence in movies is that a child is exposed to violence through many other ways and movie is not the only way. They see violence in their schools, neighborhoods and homes and daily news is rife with reports of child molestations and abductions (Anderson 1).
They see reports of murder, rape, and robberies on television. Since violence is pervasive, movies that depict it are to be commended for their honesty. Their detractors, it follows, are to be chided for squeamishness and hypocrisy (Scott 1). But that does not justify exposing the child to graphic violence in movies as entertainment. Violence as entertainment is harmful. If visualized imagery doesn’t affect human behavior, how does one explain the visualized advertisements on television?
Ezra Pound once said that artists are “the antennae of the race.” If that is so, the profusion of violent movies projects us as a very sick society (Anderson 1). The body count is staggering: 32 people are killed in “RoboCop,” while 81 are killed in the sequel; 264 are killed in “Die Hard 2,” and the film “Silence of the Lambs” deals with a psychopath who murders women and skins them (Anderson 1). The top grossing films are all replete with blood, gore, and violence. This affects the projected image of our society that is preserved and passed on to the next generation.
Movie violence these days is louder, bloodier, and more anatomically precise than ever before. There’s a growing consensus that exposure to violent entertainment is one of the variables to be considered, along with others, when examining the behavior of children and teens. Because most homes today have VCRs, young people have easy access to movies with graphic and gratuitous violence through many kinds of media such as the internet and television (Anderson 1).
Two prominent Surgeon General Reports in the last two decades link violence on television and aggressive behavior in children and teenagers. In addition, the National Institute of Mental Health issued a 94-page report entitled, “Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties.” They found “overwhelming” scientific evidence that “excessive” violence on television spills over into the playground and the streets.
In one five-year study of 732 children, “several kinds of aggression– conflicts with parents, fighting and delinquency–were all positively correlated with the total amount of television viewing” (Anderson 1). What can be said about televised violence can be extended to include movie violence as most of the violence in television comes from violence in movies.
Defenders of violent movies might argue that people have a right to make and a right to see violent movies. In fact, the First Amendment does protect movies that may incite violence (Dupre 54). Moreover, action-packed movies make a lot of business sense – they make the transition to foreign languages and markets easily and cheaply (MNet 1). Even at home, their simplistic content means that violent films appeal to a broad range of ages.
Though violent movies make business sense, it is the duty of individual consciences to protect the world from disastrous effects of such movies. Director Stanley Kubrick voluntarily banned his film, “A Clockwork Orange,” from being shown in Britain after some youths raped a young woman while performing “Singin’ in the Rain,” an act they had imitated from the movie (Dupre 54). This is an example of how responsible people can curb the impact of violence in movies.
Conclusion
Movie is a powerful mass medium and as such whatever message is conveyed through movies affects society in a large way. Violence in movies has always been a part of the growth of the movie industry, mainly promoted in the name of action movies. However, with increasing sophistication in moviemaking technology, violence on screen is becoming more gory and graphic. While it might be revolting to a small section of the audience, violence is generally enjoyed by the majority audience especially the youth.
The harmful effects of violence in movies spills on to society and is evident in the increasing violence in the world around, real fears and imagined fears of people, exaggerated perception of violence as shown on screen, and slow numbing of the mind to pain and suffering. These social evils can be countered only when individual consciences are able to overcome the temptation of making good business through violent movies by avoiding portrayal of violence on the screen in the name of entertainment.
Works Cited
Anderson, Kerby (2002). Violence in Society. Leadership U. Web.
Dupre, P. Anne (1999). Violence, Depravity, and the Movies: The Lure of DEVIANCY. USA Today. Volume: 127. Issue: 2644. Page Number: 54.
MNet (2008). Violence. Web.
Nason, Pat (2003). Analysis: Movie violence out of control? UPI. Web.
Scott, A.O. (2003). True Horror: When Movie Violence is Random. The New York Times. Web.
Wankat, Jennie (2006). Is there too much violence in the movies? Opinions. Volume 63, Issue No. 8.