Critics say that violence in films is a bad influence, it teaches people that it is ok to use violence, it desensitises people to real life violence, it glamorises violence and encourages copy cat crimes. Arguments say that children are particularly influenced by what they watch in films and it affects their attitudes and behaviour.
Perhaps this is all just speculation because scientific studies have provided little concrete evidence to back up the hypothesis that violent films have negative effects.
It is worth us pausing for a moment to take a look at the kind of films that are categorised as violent. Website,
Film School Rejects, provide us with the top ten violent movies of all time and the top ten ultra-violent movies of all time. The website comments about both categories as follows: Violence – “Just as a keg of beer needs a bung hole to relieve pressure, we need violent movies to relieve the pressures of everyday life.” And Ultra-Violence – “this list is all about the most shocking, bloody and unbelievable gut-wrenching cinematic adventures in the history of film. It’s not just about slashing up unsuspecting victims; it is about leaving a lasting imprint of terror in the minds of audiences…”
Their definition of ultra-violence does little to quash fears that violence in films is a negative experience and the films that appear in both lists probably don’t help either.
At number ten in the list of
top violent films we have ‘The Godfather’ which tells the story of the head of an organised crime dynasty (the Italian Mafia) and provides the audience with violence a plenty. FSR writes: “If guns and garrotting aren’t enough to convince you ‘The Godfather’ belongs on this list, how about punch-outs of Sonny’s pregnant sister or mass killings simultaneously shot with the latest Corleone baptism.” And that film is the supposed mildest of the bunch as we work up to the likes of ‘Silence of the Lambs’ (1991), ‘Natural Born Killers’ (1994),’Reservoir Dogs’ (1992) and coming in at number one ‘Scarface’ (1983) which chronicles the life of a fictional Cuban refugee who arrives in Florida and becomes a gangster who finds himself rising and falling in the criminal underworld. FSR writes: “Bloody killings with a chainsaw, mass slaughter of authorities, other gangsters and just about anyone close at hand; weapons galore and Pacino’s immortal “Meet my li’l fren,” this 1982 Brian de Palma film with story by Oliver Stone, has enough violence to insure its place in cinema history.”
As if that wasn’t enough, wait until you see what turns up in our
ultra-violent list. Number ten is given to ‘The Hills Have Eyes’(2006) which pushed the violence and gore even further than the 1977 Wes Craven original, with a family being stalked by a psychotic group of desert-dwellers. The list goes on to give us the likes of ‘Saw’ (2004), ‘A Clockwork Orange’ (1971) – interestingly this appears midway in both the violent and the ultra-violent list, ‘Hostel’ (2005) and coming in at number one ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ (1974). FSR writes: “After more than 30 years, very few films can stand up against Tobe Hooper’s terrifying trip into the Texas countryside. Inspired by the killings of Ed Gein, this film was actually shot with the hopes of a PG rating. By avoiding on-screen blood and graphic horror, ‘Chainsaw’ became one of the most disturbing films to watch because your imagination did all the work.”
All the above mentioned are enough to make anyone cringe but, perhaps critics of such films are looking too much into things. These are, after all, just films, made with the intent to entertain the audience and to bring in the money. The makers of such films don’t set out with the objective to corrupt the minds of the viewers with the hope that they will be influenced enough to carry out their own mad murders, they just want to produce a good piece of film that will be remembered as a gripping cinematic experience.
Theories such as ‘the hypodermic needle model’, the ‘social-learning theory’ (Bandura 1973) and Berkowitz’s ‘priming aggression’ theory from the 1960’s, all suggest that audiences are influenced by violent cinema. Bandura’s theory goes as far to suggest that people watching their role models carrying out violent behaviour on screen can teach them to do the same. All such theories assume a great degree of passivity on the audience’s part. They fail to assess the ability of film fans to interpret the meanings behind the violence and to be able to comprehend that what they are seeing is not intended to make them think it is ok to go out and have a go themselves. These theorists would have us believe that we view films in a vegetative state, passively absorbing everything we see without processing or thinking about it whatsoever but, we know that’s not true. I would argue that few people leave the cinema without thinking about what they have just seen and perhaps questioning aspects of the film. As a modern audience, we also have a good understanding of the film-making process which makes it virtually impossible to take on board everything we see in a film. We understand, to some extent, what goes on behind the scenes and so levitate ourselves from the passive position we have been branded as having.
Professionals who work with children are often also quick to criticise the influence of violence on screen. Play development Officer Joanne feels that a combination of violent media exposure definitely has a negative effect on children and agrees with Bandura’s theory, to a certain extent, that watching heroes act out violence will influence children: “you know, children, they want to be like their heroes so they will copy the behaviour that they see their heroes doing... you hear of some of these crimes with samurai swords and things and that is definitely down to, sort of, scenes they’re watching on the telly so, yeah I think it is down to heroes and media and TV.”
Critics argue that viewing too much violence can cause people to be de-sensitised to real-life crimes but, Joanne raises a valid point about the theory: “I think a lot of streets in Britain today do have violence and kids are hanging around in gangs, so I do think those children are de-sensitised but, then other children, who may watch perhaps a violent movie, because of their family values and where they’re being brought up, I don’t think they are de-sensitised, so I really do think it is about a number of factors.”
Violent films are often blamed for supposed ‘copy-cat’ crimes. The murder of James Bulger in 1993 caused a stir as the film, ‘Child’s Play 3’ about Chucky the evil, possessed doll was blamed for the behaviour of the two boys that kidnapped James. Allegations were made that the murder resembled a scene from the film and it was assumed that because one of the boy’s fathers had recently rented the film, the boys must have watched it. However, it was later revealed that the boys hadn’t seen it and they didn’t even like horror films. So, ‘Child’s Play 3’ was off the hook despite tabloid newspaper, The Sun, launching a campaign to burn the ‘video nasties’.
As someone who works with children, Joanne doesn’t necessarily think that film violence causes copy-cat crimes: “I think children need to know the difference between right and wrong and, you know, I just think it’s just an excuse for their behaviour.”
A major issue with children viewing film violence is perhaps not the content of the film, which is obviously intended for an older audience but, the fact that these children are unsupervised and are gaining access to the aggressive content. When conducting my own research on the matter, I surveyed children on the types of films they are watching and was shocked to find that at ages 8-16, they had seen films like ‘The Exorcist’, ‘Saw’ and ‘The Boogeyman’, which are all intended for an older demographic.
Joanne has had first hand experience with this kind of situation: “I’ve also found that in the play centres I’ve worked with children aged 5 to 14 years but, if we had a film night, I can say that I’ve never seen an under 18 film come onto the play centre, they all just wanted the over 18s, particularly violence, which of course we could never play and yet these are children aged 5 to 14.”
A lot of the time, children are left unsupervised to view such content, meaning that they have no one to explain it to them and that for me is the real problem. We shouldn’t be blaming the films; certificates are there for a reason and it is a parent’s job to enforce them.
Moving back to violent films in general, we need to consider the creative aspects of them before we accuse film-makers of bombarding us with barbaric images. Let’s take Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction for example, which is packed with violence and gore pretty much from start to finish. To a critic, this would be damaging and would encourage aggression but, to anyone with a bit of film knowledge or an open mind, it is an innovative and gripping example of post-modern cinema. Pulp Fiction has an unconventional non-linear narrative and presents an ironic mix of violence and humour. It is a perfect example of how violent films shouldn’t be taken at face value. We must remember that violence in films is there to help tell the story and not as a piece of propaganda, it is part of everyday life and so should be able to be translated to the big screen.
Finally, why is film violence suddenly such an issue anyway when violence has been part of our story-telling culture for as far back as we can go? It can be traced right throughout history - from paintings, penny novels and theatre to the Bible and other such religious readings – and so is definitely no new occurrence or phenomenon.
