"Movie violence directly influences real-life violence"...fact or b-s?

I just had a huge argument with my dad over this. It tends to be a regular conversation piece around the dinner table, especially when my gran gets wind of some new movie I'm going to see. She heard the name "Fight Club" and got all worried. Hell, she thought James Bond was violent. But, I mean, who really honestly thinks that movies are to blame for all the violence out there? Or even some of it? Come, leave your comments!

------------------
"I have a bad feeling about this..."

Visit my John Williams website at http://homes.arealcity.com/sithlordsi/

[Greg Solo]

It's easier to blame media than to blame ourselves. If it's a movie, then we can nip it in the bud. If it's us, then my god, where do we begin. I saw Scarface in 4th grade. I'm in good shape.

I totally agree. It's a lot easier to say "This lunatic shot 20 kids in a school because he saw 'The Matrix'" and then ban the film, than get to the root of the problem - lack of security and availability of guns.

------------------
"I have a bad feeling about this..."

Visit my John Williams website at http://homes.arealcity.com/sithlordsi/

[Miggy]

No, no, no, the lunatics shot up the school because they played DOOM, remember? Gotta keep the propaganda straight The Matrix was just released right before they did it and they had it planned for years.

I think the kids were just pushed over the edge with the feeling of being rejected. And at least part of the blame has to go to the parents seeing that they were building those bombs and keeping the weapons in... wasn't it a garage or bedroom? Either way, some parent, somewhere was not paying attention.

Bottom line for me is, Cain didn't need to play any video or game or watch a movie to kill Abel. Violence has occured for thousands of years. Kids need to be taught early right from wrong, fantasy from reality.

Miggy, the Thief

I'm not going to rant about the pro's and con's of gun control. But I will rant about the general lack of responsibility(my dad would love to here me say this!!!) that I see every day.
I work as a service tech for a major consumer electronics retailer. Naturaly I see all the broken items that need to be returned. Every day, I here the comment "Why should I have to keep up with my receipt?" This in spite of the fact that it is printed in plain language both on the back of the receipt and on a big sign at the front of the store.
What does this have to do with the topic you ask? Quite simply put, lack of responsibility. People in todays society seem to always look for someone to put the responsibility on. Lets blame the media, no the gun dealers. How about we look at the real culprate(?) here. OURSELVES. If parrents diciplened there children from the begnning instead of caving all the time, things wouldn't be so bad. People would be able to understand that little two letter word "no."
History shows that the human race is a violent one. From as far back as man has inhabeted the earth, we have been killing each other. Only in receint 30 or 40 years has technology allowed us to really see how bad the human race is.
Only through strict diciplen can we become a more pieceful society

[This message has been edited by j70chlngr (edited 01-31-2000).]

amen miggy.

[Blade]

Well, I think it does.

My reason:

Why do we want our children to study the classics in school if not to have some kind of impact on them?

If the classics can have a positive impact it is logical to assume that violent movies could have a negative impact.

However, influence does not mean these people become unthinking robots with no self will. Ultimately, the person doing something bad made the decision himself to do it.

I don't think that movies should be censored, after all, that's what parents are suppossed to be for.

------------------
-David

[Dominik Pfleghaar]

This is probably not 100% on topic, but it sure goes into the same direction, so here goes.

Am I the only one who ever wondered why a movie is more likely to get a "R" rating for scenes that show nudity than for scenes that show acts of violence?
Is human sexuality so much worse than violent behavior?
Why is it we have the urge to protect our kids from glancing at a somewhat naked body (or, God forbid, a brief act of sexual interaction) but don't care if in a movie several humans get shot, murdered and/or humilated?

Another example:
The Chicago Tribune once pulped an entire issue of its magazine cuz its owners were offended by a review of a book* that appeared on its pages. Why were they so offended? Because the review in question included the word 'penis'.
Sexual honesty, it seemed, was another of the faults to be found in the book.
The same newspaper included endless reports of violence and murder. The word 'gun' appeared frequently. It sounds strange that they were prepared to mention something that shot death, but not something that shot life.

Now, do I think movie violence directly influences real-life violence? Not necessarily. If an individual is able to distinct between fantasy and reality, there shouldn't be a problem.
There would be severe massacres and shootings after every showing of, say, a James Bond flick, if this wasn't so.

IMO, it doesn't need a movie for a sick individual to commit murder.

But I think that it is important to protect children from viewing stuff that they dont (and can't) yet understand (this goes for movies as well as for books and computer games). As some of you pointed out, this responsibility lies by the parents.
Not always an easy job, but that's what parents are (or should be) for.

Just my $0.02.

*The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris - a grat read, btw

------------------
Unca Dom, DDS-088
dvdfile.com administrator
dominikpfleghaar@netscape.net

[TampaFlyer]

> Why do we want our children to study the classics in school if not to have some kind of impact on them?

I don't think I follow your logic. Impact as in influencing some behavior? The Shakespeare we had to read in high school was pretty violent, but I don't remember any students decapitating people with swords or the like. If it was supposed to cause some action by us, it failed.

I agree with the rest of the posts, & think parents do need to take more responsibility on what kids watch, not because movies are going to turn them into killers, but because everything is not appropriate for all ages.

[This message has been edited by TampaFlyer (edited 01-31-2000).]

Well, I guess I have to throw my 2 cents in to this topic, as it was one of the focal research areas of my B.A. studies in psychology.

This topic was hugely popular in the 1970's and 1980's (I don't know much about research done this past decade though). It was the subject of hundreds of social psychology research projects during that time.

Research shows immediate, short-term effects in the laboratory (Bandura's work in the 60's in particular). Also, longer-term effects were noted in studies whereby subjects were exposed to varying amounts of media violence and their aggression in "natural" settings was then observed. Some long-term correlational studies have also shown a link between the amount of media violence viewed by subjects as children and their aggression later in life. One might argue that this relationship can only be viewed as correlational, and not causal (i.e., those who are prone to being aggressive may also be drawn to viewing more aggressive media due to a third unknown causal variable).

As much as I tried to gain evidence suggesting no connection between viewing media violence and aggression in viewers, little could be found. A litany of other evidence suggested their is a link was easy to discover.

I'd be remiss (after 6 years and two degrees) if I didn't source this material… so to peak my memory I took a quick look at:

Baron, R.A., & Byrne, D. (1987). Social psychology: Understanding human interaction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

[micahp]

I have gone around and around in my head thinking about this. What I finally settled on is not necessarily a popular idea:

I think violence in the media can drive "soft" minds to commit acts of violence.

Now, let me qualify that statement. My definition of a "soft" mind is someone who is easily influenced by external forces. Children, and Unbalenced people spring to mind. Will exposing kids to violent images make them act violently? I won't say certainly, but I believe to some extent, yes. If violence is depicted in a stylized manner or made to look "cool", a kid would probably be tempted to try it for himself. I thought I was a karate master after watching a Bruce lee Marathon when I was Ten.

Other "soft" minds are people who are missing a marbles up top. These people are a time-bomb waiting to explode. Yes, i believe that Doom led to the columbine shooting. But I also believe they would have done it anyway. they were just waiting for a trigger. What actually caused columbine was a general lack of paying attention to a couple of kids who were lonely, isolated, angry, and had access to heavy weaponry. Save for the last part, Teenagers.

I think it comes down to this: The rating system is there for a purpose. To privide general information about a mass media product. This does not excuse the responsibilities of individual.

Parents are also there for a reason.

------------------
Resident Me,
Micah P.
Digital Dreams

[Taxi]

something that shot death, but not something that shot life.

Dom, you're going to have to stop saying things like this if you expect me to finish reading your posts without breaking into fits of laughter.

As for the topic, while I agree that it makes sense that folks with "soft" minds could be prompted to do acts of violence based on the movies/music/video games they see, it doesn't take into account the thousands of similarly "soft" minded folks who are also exposed to this material, yet do nothing. At some point, a decision is made to do something that is wrong, and the individual has to be responsible for that decision, not the makers of the "offensive" movie/music/video game.
------------------
Taxi
DVDFile Moderator

[LtlPhysics]

Why not include all of the pertinent elements and call it "Media Violence?" Other cultures have media as violent as ours but for the most part they treat each other with respect. On the other hand the same peaceful people can become violent for any number of reasons including simple exposure to American violence.

I was staying with my dad for a few days in the summer of 1997. One evening a Hmong woman from across the street walked into his living room and woke me up (the doors are seldom locked). Her English was choppy but she was distraught with the changes that she had seen in her children and was talking suicide. My first 911.

Her kids were being urbanized, joining Asian gangs, drugs, fast cars, fashion show clothe$, etc., and she was mortified by it. Her native culture laid the responsibility for her children's behaviour at her feet and she did not know what to do. This has become common in St. Paul as there are many Hmong here and many of the young want a piece of the action now. Milk and honey.

It is an apparent fact that school violence can trigger "copy cat" violence. It is also an apparent fact that media violence has not pushed me or any of my family to the brink. Some other countries are astonished by the violence in the US. I was surprised by the jubilation in India when they tested a nuke,
there are no cultural saints and sinners here.

But we do have an ample supply of handguns in the US and that does allow easy violence at a distance. Just another fact.

I think its a lot of bull crap.

What was Hitler exposed to?It sure wasnt because of TV or movies?

How about Manson or Gacy?to much atari?
People always want to place blame somewhere so they blame the movies.And the GAmes.

Anyone who is THAT easily influenced by movies may have problems anyway.

Bipolar Disease starts very young and many of these people have a disorder like this to begin with and take mind altering drugs and so forth.
If I were to blame anything it may be drugs.But movies and Games?Come on.

[TampaFlyer]

Joe, it's been well established that Hitler played a lot of DOOM as a child and also watched many Oliver Stone movies.

We are all looking for easy answers. There are none. If violent games/tv/movies cause violent acts then why have I not killed anyone? I have been exposed to the violence yet do not act.

Some very close friends of the family have a young son. They are very carefull of what he watches on TV, the computer games he plays/and movies. No he is not violent but he is just as likely to pick up a stick or a carrot point it at someone and shout "Bang" as the next kid.

Violence is nothing new. We talk about how are "children" are commiting violent acts and this was never done before. I submit that history proves otherwise. Not so long ago people that we consider children were considered adults. Life spans were considerably shorter so the age of adulthood was also lower.

I will use the ancient culture that I understand best as an example. A Lakota child at the age of 15 was expected to marry, head a household, hunt food, and defend the tribe. By the time he is 18 or 19 he is at the peak of his military carreer.
Life was short and was lived in a compressed fasion.

I have a feeling that many ancient and older cultures were the same way Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and to some extent the early American Colonists were also required to grow up early.

Today Americans are considered children untill they are 18 years old. Little more than 100 years ago 18 was considered well into adulthood.

The past has strong echos that are hard to determine but they do exist. The violence performed by the teenagers of this nation just might be a result of deap cultural fustration.

Then again most of the people who commit violent acts are angery. Angery at the victim, angery at the school, angery at their parents, or angery at the system. They are ignored and have no were to turn.

------------------
Istagi *Feather Head*
Moderator of the Now Playing Forum
DDS-351

Let's examine a couple of the common arguments people use to try to prove the point that media violence has no impact on the viewer:

"I watched tons of violence as a kid and I've never gone on a murderous rampage."
"Person 'X' who did thing 'Y' would have done 'Y' anyway, regardless of what (s)he watched as a kid."

These statements may very well be true when applied to specific individuals/circumstances. The social psychology research in this area does not attempt to (nor could it) demonstrate that all human aggression occurs directly as a result of viewing violent media sources. Nor does it attempt to argue that people who are exposed to media violence are going to mimic exactly the aggressive acts that they viewed. Rather, this research has shown a correlation between the viewing of media violence and the level of aggression in the viewer's day to day life.

One can rarely attribute any specific human behaviour, particularly one as complex as aggression, to any single trigger (or causal variable). While the research allows one to argue that aggression in our society is very likely impacted by media violence, it can never be absolutely proven that viewing media violence causes all, or any specific act of, human aggression.

This having been said, am I going to toss my "Die Hard" trilogy? Of course not, but I'm not going to let my two-year-old niece watch them either. When will she be old enough to see Bruce Willis hack up the bad guys? That's a little more grey… I don't know, but because I'm not her guardian I don't get the unenviable task of making such a decision.

Society constantly plays a balancing act of imposing what are deemed to be necessary and prudent restrictions on what the members of that society can be exposed to, while trying to respect people's rights to watch/listen to/play what they want. Likely, no amount of social psychology research is going to make that balancing act any easier to perform than it already is (or should I say "isn't") today.

I guess that would be at least my dollar's worth by now.

bullshit. Violence is genetic. If you were raised with it you'll probably commit it. I'm sick of mediaites (new word) saying that movies and t.v. are the cause of all the schol violence. If they look at violence in that perspective than who to blame? THe Media

[Blade]

Tampaflyer,

I thought it was a fairly common idea that the Classics were taught not just to teach English lessons, but because they had the ability to broaden the horizons and enrich the lives of those who are exposed to them.

By extension there are many things that parents encourage their children to do because it "builds character" or can teach them lessons about life and how to live it.

My point was simply that if doing/reading/seeing certain positive things can have a positive influence on an individual, then the same actions with negative experiences can have a negative influence as well.

------------------
-David

[manigrasso]

Look...

You never know what's going to set somebody off. Do movies INFLUENCE violence? Yeah, probably. I'm sure some poeple have watched a particularly gruesome death in a slasher flick and said "Ah! That's how you do it!" But do movies CAUSE violence? No. Individuals with a grievance or a gripe or a perverted need of vengeance cause violence.

The NRA, comprised of a healthy chunk of Right Wing Republicans, like to say "Guns Don't Kill People; People Kill People." The same is true of movies, of which many Right Wing Republicans try to censor.

Here's a paraphrased routine I used to do when I tried to break into standup comedy, concerning the Manson Family.

People used to ask Charlie Manson how he could set up such a horrible plan for murder as means to start a race war. FIrst Charlie said "Well, you gotta rememberm, I was doing a lot of drugs at the time..."

And uptight religious/moral dogmatists said "You see? YOU SEE?!? THAT'S why we gotta keep drugs out of the hands of our young people!"

Then Charlie said "And to be honest, I was kind of influenced by some Beatles songs..."

And uptight religious/moral dogmatists said "You see? YOU SEE?!? Rock and roll is evil, and we've got to build huge bonfire and burn all rock and roll and anything that promotes rock and roll!"

Then Charlie said "And there were also a lot pf passages in the Bible that told me to kill people and start a race war, here let me show you..."

And uptight religious moral dogmatists went "WOW! Look at the time!"

"We'd love to stay and talk New Testament with you, Chuck-O, but we've got that whole drug-busting, Beatle-burning thing to take care of, you take care, and if you can think of any movies that may have influenced you to kill, give us a call, y'hear?"

Personally, I think every time one man kills another man in God's name, we should petition the Gideons to get their damn bibles out of our hotel rooms. Keep our Holiday Inns safe for soft-core porn and sleeping off booze binges, if you ask me.

------------------
If He had the opportunity to get to know you first, maybe Jesus would not have died for your sins...think about it...

[Taxi]

So, we've gone from "does violence in the media cause more violence" to "the Bible caused Charlie M. to kill people" in only 20 posts. Wow.

Next thing you know, we'll be bashing the Phantom Menace.

[clortho]

Does the media make people do the evil things they do? No, I think not.

That Doom excuse is getting old, but parents and other adults just fear to admitting that they are as much to blame as anything else. Those boys (adults, both were over 18 if I recall) were building bombs in their rooms, had hate notes in their rooms, and the parents did not have a clue...what kind of parents are those that don't involve themselves in their child's life? I know I would have received a serious whoopin' had any such materials as those been found in my room. The playboys that were found in my room when I was 17 were thankfully ignored though.

Though violence can be a predisposition, I think there are too many parents of the type that 'I don't want to be his father, I want to be his friend,' type that does not punish or show any sort of consequences for negative behavior. Of course, the parent is not the only factor to blame, but considering how much we learn from them...it has to be a rather large one (imo).

Still, I find it humorous that those that blame violent cartoons/tv shows/movies/music are generally in the age groups that grew up watching Looney Tunes, Tom & Jerry, & Popeye...don't you? That poor Bluto/Tom/Daffy/Wile E. who got maimed and beaten every week...


Clortho

------------------
I am the Keymaster
clortho@hotmail.com

[This message has been edited by clortho (edited 02-01-2000).]

[1138]

I'm sure that people can be influenzed by media when they commit violent acts. It might give them an idea for how to commit this violence. However, these people were going to commit this violence anyway, in one form or another. Any sick person can be influenced by something and then do something horrible in the theme of said influence.

------------------
Floyd is pink.
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/3924/

[Miggy]

j70chlngr,

Hey, thanks! Just saying what I feel here. I have just been able to catch up on this conversation today. Really interesting stuff.

Miggy, the Thief

[DJRobX]

I've definitely played my fair share of Doom, but it certainly didn't make me want to go out and kill someone. If anything it was a good place to channel aggression.

If people are really looking for something to blame for kids that go ballistic, in addition to a parental reality check, they should probably take a good, hard look at how they are being treated by their classmates in school. I'm rather biased here, since I look back on my own schooling as 12 years of pure terror, but kids can just be downright brutal to one another.

I know it sounds cliche', and is satirized in virtually every movie involving a school, but unlike movies and video games, the anger and hurt kids cause one another is very real.

Dear oh dear what a minefield I'm entering here. I just had to post a reply as I cannot believe the immaturity (no offence intended) shown by some on this forum. May I start by saying that I am primarily a lover of film and then home cinema. I work within the industry and see, on average, between 30 - 50 new films per month and I love all genres of film-making.
The question about violence is an interesting one but I don't think that anybody seriously believes that seeing a violent film or series of images will 'make' somebody commit an act of violence. The arguement is rather more subliminal than that. The fact is, and this cannot be denied, that violence in films and 'popular entertainment' de-sensitises people. This is a very serious issue. Yes humanity is naturally, biologically greedy, cruel, violent and aggressive but we are also gentle, kind, loving and considerate. Which is the side of your personality that you would most like to promote?
Of course playing Doom and watching Halloween when you were a kid didn't turn you into a homicidal maniac - grow up for goodness' sake. What people are talking about are people who ARE impressionable as many, many young people are. It is common sense that if at an early age you see hundreds of images of people being shot, tortured, mutilated and so on all in the name of entertainment then how can you NOT be affected by what you see. Violence and killing become run of the mill - this in turn leads to de-sensitisation which in a very small population of people can lead to them finding an excuse or 'crutch' for their actions. How many of you played soldiers as a kid or cowboys and indians or Batman or Superman, these characters had an effect no?
This is an important issue that needs to be addressed - I am not in favour of censorship but we all have a responsibility over what minors and those in need of help are exposed to. America is one of the most violent societies in the world and even the death of one person is one too many. What signals and teachings do we want to imbue in the next generation, what values and so on. There are a small minority of people who can do an awful lot of damage and at the present moment it's just all too easy for them - that is what really frightens me...

While I do concede that violence in the mainstream desensitises(is that even a real word? ) the general population, it is still the responsibility of the parents to teach their young the difference between wrong and right. And what good parent would expose a young impressionable child to the level of violence we are talking about. Also, do we consider one film's level of violence to be "ok" and another gratuitous(?). For example, SPR, I believe could be watched by anybody to show us just how horrible war can be. But, The Matrix, however much I liked the movie, is not something children need to see, IMHO.
j

[Greg Solo]

Well, now that I think about it, The Phantom Menace made me want to blow shit up.

Actually, I used to play Smash TV...one of the greatest games of all time...and that really allowed me to get my frustrations out. I mean I'd sweat. Afterwords, I felt so relaxed and accomplished. Can't complain about that.

[RegniL]

tv and movies do have influences on our lives.. some more than others..
we all have to be influenced by something... if it's not tv, it's from parents and so on...
violence on tv or movies does play a role in desensitizing people... just that more people are not as reasonable as others...
hey, i took a psych class.. you never know why you're doing the things you're doing.. we are all poor detectors of what influences us.

------------------
RegniL is Linger Backwards!