Violence in Movies - Essay Example

Running Title: Violence in Movies Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code and Name: Institution: Date Submitted: Violence in Movies Introduction This short essay seeks to critically examine the topic of movie violence. Several examples of recent movies have been given to illustrate the current trends of incorporating high levels of violence in movies. The paper begins with an introduction into the phenomenon of violence in movies including a definition of what violence refers to in media contexts. Next, the paper introduces the latest trends in the media, particularly in the movies citing several recent examples. This background provides the basis for the paper’s analysis. The essay examines the postulation of media violence critics by examining whether according to the available literature, movies are exhibiting too much gratuitous violence. Critics often contend that movies are becoming increasingly violent and that violence is becoming the basic ingredient of most production. To validate this belief, the paper will examine whether particular scenes in the movies cited as examples have a role in enhance the plot, whether the violence is relevant to the story or whether the violence is simply meant to excite and attract the audience. The paper then progresses to analyze theories of media violence relevant to the paper’s argument, by first highlighting available theories and then concentrating on one theory to develop a theoretical conclusion on movie violence. Throughout the paper, there are many examples and empirical evidence to support the argument, such that a viable conclusion is reached on the issues raised by the paper. Violence in the Media Most academic discourses in regards to media violence conceive violence from a social theory perspective. According to Hurston et al, (1992), over 4, 000 research studies have been carried out in the US alone on the social effects of media violence since 1950. Most of these studies have been experimental and longitudinal (Olson, 2004). To these studies, media violence is conceived as any violent actions depicted by a form of mass media communication such as fighting shooting killing etc. Gerbner, Gross, Morgan and Signorelli, (1980) in Olson (2004) defined media violence as an overt expression and depiction of physical force whether such force uses a weapon or not, or a compelling action that forces another against his or her will by causing pain, death or killed threats as part of the movie plot (Ozawa, 2007). Gunter (1994) in Olson (2004) says that the last decade of the 20th Century saw media violence increase with unprecedented rates, an outcome that is attributed to proliferation of media forms. Experts agree that violence has become a universal language especially in movies, where it is used to compel the plot and maintain viewer’s attention/interest. It is universal since it requires no education for one to interpret and understand it across cultures and geographical locations (Ozawa, 2007). Media presents violence as a problem solving strategy or as a way of overcoming evil. There are two types of violence on movies and they are classified in terms of the intent borne by those perpetrating it (Olson, 2004). One type of violence is one perpetrated by evil doers (bad guys) and the other type is the one perpetrated by good people trying to overcome the evil doers (good guys). An Analysis of Recent Trends A typical movie will have an aggrieved character try to get even or to punish other characters who have injured them or their loved ones. A police officer who have had his wife and child murdered will set out to find the killers and the killers will fight back. In more violent movies, notably the horror movies, there will be a character that uses senseless violence to torment innocent people and the main character will simply be fighting to survive. Plots vary in movies but the use of violence is almost similar in all movies. Research has shown that out of every tem movies released in the last two decades, nine of them have had violent scenes (Ozawa, 2007). Out of the ten movies that made it to box office between 1994 – 1998, all of them were violent movies (Ozawa, 2007). The biggest rated box office movies with the highest income of all time have all been action-packed violent movies, with Star Wars, Titanic followed by Harry Porter Series, on top of the list. The three most successful series ever produced in Hollywood, Harry Porter Series, 24 and Prison Break are all violent productions with violence being the fuel on which the plot rides. Today it is hard to watch a movie in theatres or on TV that does not have violence and sex content. Of particular interest to this paper are the movies Lethal Weapon, James Bond, Die Hard, Star Wars and Independence Day. In all these movies, all of which have had recent releases, the hero of the film (main character) is perceived as the ‘good guy’ despite killing more people in the course of the film even than the ‘bad guys’ do. Violence in these movies is seen as a solution to problems and as a way of stopping evil and crime. Violence has in recent time being able to permeate into all genres of film ranging from love stories to comedy, adventures movies to documentaries. Even in the blandest movies produced in the last 15 years, there will be at least one murder or one fight (Ozawa, 2007). The number of deaths witnessed in a film can range from one to thousands. In Natural Born Killers for instance, 50 deaths are recorded by the end of the film while in Independence Day film thousands and thousands of people are killed as the plot advances. Most violence in movies is acts of violence such as shooting, shouting, hitting, fighting, car crashes, car chases and vandalism (Ozawa, 2007). In analyzing such violence and the role the violence plays in the story line of the movie, one needs to ask such questions as, how does the violence help the plot to develop, would the movie still have a story to tell without the violence etc (Ozawa, 2007). Further, one needs to consider whether the violence coming in regular intervals throughout the plot (used as a measure of adding excitement) or in most scenes story (as the central theme of the film) (Ozawa, 2007). Finally, one needs to consider whether the story developed as it did because it had a violent theme, or whether the story accurately depicted human relationships wherein violence is an integral and even necessary part (Ozawa, 2007). Some proponents of the violent movies (most of the media practitioners themselves) argue that the mass media only reflects what is in the society (Olson, 2004). To them media is a mirror that reflects the society. In this regard, movies are seen as a reflection of the popular culture (Olson, 2004). On the other side of the debate, opponents of media violence argue that when violent behavior becomes the main ingredient of movies, it exposure young minds to violence as a way of life, as fun, as desirable and as an ideal way of solving problems (Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder & Huesmann, 1977). No empirical study has been able to directly link exposure to such violent entertainment to violent behavior among the youth (Anderson, 2003), but research is repeatedly arriving at a consensus that there are numerous indirect consequences of having violence as the core content of media productions such as movies (Alexes, 1986). In recent movie production trends, the most violent kinds are those with scary themes. In this group belongs the highly popular Saw, in which man-eating men cut up innocent people with a saw and Wrong Turn, in which another set of man-eating characters specialize in hunting, killing and eating way-laid people in the Amazon jungle. According to research, most young people when exposed to such gross violence react by having numerous nightmares, downplaying the significance of death and frequently imagining things with a killing motif (Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder & Huesmann, 1977). Such violent images have a lasting negative effect particularly on minors; with some studies showing that over 26% have a ‘residual anxiety’ accumulated in years of viewing horror since childhood (Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder & Huesmann, 1977). One of the explanations offered on why violence has become such a highly esteemed content in movies is the cost of production and gross in sales (Ozawa, 2007). In this age of globalized markets, the movie industry relies on the amount of international rights sale for every production (Ozawa, 2007). Action-packed violent films have a very impressive export value as compared to dramas, comedies and adventure stories (Ozawa, 2007). To translate a comedy for instance into a different language such as Chinese or French costs three times more than it would the action movie (Ozawa, 2007). This is because dramas, comedies and adventure stories rely heavily on dialogue rather than action and the dialogue requires a lot of transition and post-production editing. Action movies on the other hand have little dialogue requiring translation and can thus be sold in as many foreign languages as the available markets require, both cheaply and easily. This makes violence very profitable for movies, today (Ozawa, 2007). Critics Appraisal of Movie Violence Current research on media and violence has focused mainly on determining the existence of a link between exposure to media violence and aggressive and or violent behavior (Ybarra et al, 2008). Social scientists have been in the forefront in support of such a link although there have been numerous theoretical and methodological problems cited in the literature arriving at the critical findings of media violence (Olson, 2004). Some scholars have even criticized the media researchers for exaggerating the effects of media violence, most notably Ferguson and Kilburn (2009), Pinker (2002), Freedman (2002) and Savage (2004) all quoted in Ozawa (2007). The Lancer medical journal for instance carried a special edition in 2008, whose editorial concluded that current academic discussions on media violence effects were based on overly exaggerated hypothesis (Olson, 2004). The editorial pointed out that many explanations offered for contemporary aggressive behavior in youths do not necessarily emphasize the role media has played to inspire the same (Anderson, 2003). Other factors involved must also be accounted for when discussing contemporary aggressive behavior in youths (Anderson, 2003). Agreeably, many researchers have also suggested that the aggression in the contemporary society is largely genetic (biological/), as many others explain aggression using principles of the evolutionary psychology process (Alexes, 1986). These varying thoughts on violence in the media however, do not water down the important role that media plays in shaping public thought and lifestyle. There is a lot of credence in the fact that children always imitate the behavior they see in such violent movies when playing with other children or alone (Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder & Huesmann, 1977). It is the movies for instance, that have to explain why gun toys have become a sensation with Australian children when in 1988, car and train toys sold 11 times more that gun toys (Paik & Comstock, 1994). Even when the children do not imitate such violent behaviors directly, the exposure to violence in movies has been linked by several studies with aggressiveness in teenagers (Alexes, 1986). This has triggered widely publicized concerns that have even led many governments around the world to legislate control measures against the exposure of children to violent media programming and productions (Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder & Huesmann, 1977). Violence- regulation legislation such as in Britain, USA, Australia require that the more the violence and sexual content a movie has, the high it’s audience rating should be (Paik & Comstock, 1994). The legislation also requires limited access of movies to children if the rating is higher than their ages. In rating a movie for viewership, there are several parameters used. To begin with, the consequences of such violence should be shown in movies targeting younger ages. However, the box office movies that glorify violence rarely concern themselves with justifying their use of violence since it has become accepted as an industry tradition (Paik & Comstock, 1994). Their concerns are in creating violent heroes that appeal to the audience for their ability to propel such violent actions against the ‘bad guys’. In such cases, the violence plays a central purpose in advancing the plot, in developing the character and in espousing a theme or themes (Osborn, 2007). Movies with low ratings should ideally not show people being extremely hurt or even bleeding. The people who die in these movies simply disappear. However, in movies rated for older audiences however will show more graphic contents of the violence. Saw and Wrong Turn both belong to this category where humans are shown on screen being slaughtered. When violence is portrayed at such a grand scale, even some adults cannot bear the sight. Critique have posed that violence in movies has different effects on adults and on children. For children, the movie violence becomes a model behavior that they will most probably try to imitate (Paik. and Comstock, 1994). Children rarely note the consequences of the violence. The journal discussed above (Lancet), conducted a survey in 2008 on the three-sequel movie Terminator featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger, in which the heroic action character is a robot has graphic violence in almost every scene. The survey was carried out on a sample of 12-18 year olds and they were told to identify the consequences of the violence. A whopping 64% of the respondents did not have an idea of the consequences despite having seen the films and enjoyed them. Critics have based their arguments on this fact, that children and even teenagers cannot identify the consequences of violence in movies; to postulate that to most children and teenagers, the violence only teaches them negatively aggressive behaviors (Ferguson, San Miguel & Hartley, 2009). Violence has also seen its launch in children-targeted productions such as King Kong, and other cartoon animations. In these productions, heroes aptly use violence (Ferguson, San Miguel & Hartley, 2009). This, the critics argue, sends the message to children that justified violence is appropriate in responding to problems (Ferguson, San Miguel & Hartley, 2009). On the other hand, violence in movies also affects adults. Adults see more violence in the movies that what actually happens in real life contexts. Movie producers believe in extraordinary violence as the major attraction for adult viewers. The fact that the movies have become a favorite thing to pastime in almost every society, people have come to believe that there is more violence in the world than there actually is, thanks to the movies’ extraordinary violent themes. Scholars in this domain have called the phenomenon, the mean-world syndrome (Paik &Comstock, 1994). Psychologist have propounded on the effects of the mean-world syndrome to include insecurity, sleeplessness, anxiety, stress and many other adverse character traits (Olson, 2004). Even as one appreciates the argument that violence in movies may have a link to increasing violence in the society, one must also realize that violence has also been on the rise by its own (Ybarra et al, 2008). Many critics would like to attribute such a rise to the rising levels and frequency of violence in movies. Nonetheless, life has increasingly become more dangerous and violent if statistics are to be considered (Olson, 2004). Even in areas where the TV and the movies have not yet become as predominant as they are in developed of developing nations, the rate of violence has risen (Buss, 2005). In America for instance, in every six youths ranging between the ages of 11 and 18, one of them has seen someone who had been shot (Anderson, 2003). Child abuse victims have increased in the US with over 40% from 1985 to 1991 (Anderson, 2003). For children under the age of 18, they were over 244% more likely to die from gunfights in 1994 than they were at around 1986 (Anderson, 2003). In Australia and Britain, violent crime rates have gained with over 560% since 1960 (Anderson, 2003). Movies can be entirely to blame for such dramatic rises (Paik. & Comstock, 1994). The Role of Violence in Movies It is therefore valid to say that violence has become a chief foundation on which contemporary films are based. Violence has actually become a synonym of action in the movie world. Screenwriters, producers and directors employ violence in a range of ways and for different intents (Osborn, 2007). In the movies sampled for this paper as discussed above, violence has been used to achieve different effects. In Natural Born Killers, Terminator, Independence Day, Lethal Weapon, James Bond, Die Hard, Saw and Wrong Turn, violence has been used to drive forth the storyline such that without the violence there would be no storyline. It is an initial crime such as a murder, a fistfight, a threat, a terrorist attack etc that launches the movie plot in each one of them, either by natural causes or imaginary ones. These particular theme runs in most productions with such titles as Show of Force, Missing in Action, The Killers, Masters of Menace, Hell Squad, Conan The Destroyer, The Naked and The Dead, etc being the norm. Other examples include Star Trek: The Next Generation, where Geordi the hero finds himself attracted romantically to the Starfleet lieutenant who has been suspected of murder, in Father Dowling Mysteries, where an angry ex-con launches the actually by taking a shot at Dowling etc. In such instances, the film’s plot begin with a violent event and then the impending conflict helps drive the storyline forward (Osborn, 2007). The heroes in these movies are never safe since danger is always lurking around the corner (Osborn, 2007). The second way that violence in the movies is used is to produce entertaining action without major consequences resulting from such violence (Osborn, 2007). This is mainly used to create an exciting addition to the storyline, although the story could run without the violence (Osborn, 2007). Titanic is a love story that could well be told without Jack having to fight with the guards and Rose’s fiancée. However, to make the action interesting, certain scenes of violence are added to the story. In this usage, violence is never part of the plot. The final way in which violence is used in the movies sampled for this paper is to create a world of the ‘good’ and a world of the ‘bad’ (Osborn, 2007). Movies using this kind of violence only want to recruit viewers' emotions and enlist their interest by starkly contrasting some good characters and bad characters (Osborn, 2007). This violence is simply used to help characterization where the film criminals are portrayed as l00% bad with only nicknames for identification and deserving no sympathy but punishment (Buss, 2005). The good guys in such films act in helping punish the bad guys, either under or above the law (Buss, 2005). James Bond is a good example of such movies. Theoretical Analysis of Movie Violence The analysis above has helped contextualize the raging debate among contemporary media researchers in trying to establish a connection between the media depictions of violence and what happens in real life (Anderson, 2003). As already pointed out effects of movie violence are themselves mitigated by many other factors in the society and cannot be directly attributed (Sparks, Sparks & Sparks, 2008). While some theorists believe in a strong correlation and interplay between the exposure to violence and behavioral contexts in real life, others contend that media violence research has been grossly overstated (Olson, 2004; Anderson, 2003). In projecting the arguments, several theories have emerged. One such theory is the mass media magic bullet theory, also called the hypodermic needle theory (Ferguson, San Miguel & Hartley, 2009). This theory postulates that media messages always impact people directly and immediately in measurable ways, just as in being hit with a bullet or having an injection, media messages are transmitted directly to the human mind, in much the same as effects of advertising accrue (Ferguson, San Miguel & Hartley, 2009). This theory has been criticized for overly emphasizing media reception since it is less likely that a student watching an incident school shooting will immediately purchase a gun and attack his or her school. Another popular theory in the literature is that of desensitization (Sparks, Sparks & Sparks, 2008). The theory postulates that when people are exposed to so much violence, then violence stops having its strong emotional effect on them (Sparks, Sparks & Sparks, 2008). The more that one watches violent movies, the more one feels comfortable with such movies (Ferguson, San Miguel & Hartley, 2009). What the theory has not clarified on is whether when people desensitized about violence, they usually translate such desensitization to real life contexts (Ferguson, San Miguel & Hartley, 2009). For instance, if a person watches many violent movies in which people die off like flies, can the person still treat dead bodies as casually if he or she was to see a dead body on the streets while going to work? The most probable answer to this question is no. this robs the theory of much credence (Ferguson, San Miguel &Hartley, 2009). The third relevant theory in the literature is the cultivation theory, which mainly focuses on how viewer’s attitudes are influenced by the media and not just their behaviors (Buss, 2005). Attitude and behavior is intricately related but cultivation theorists mainly focus on what people think and not what they feel (Buss, 2005). The available research on cultivation mainly compares attitudes shown by heavy, moderate and light moviegoers (Buss, 2005). The cultivation theory has posted the mean-world syndrome hypothesis discussed earlier as a symptomatic attitude of heavy exposure to violence in movies (Buss, 2005). All the three theories analyzed above have certain methodological and application limitations that make them less empirical in their hypothesis (Ferguson, San Miguel and Hartley, 2009). The theory that hold more weight and which is emphasized by this paper the behavioral theory of social learning. This theory has become a cornerstone in the constructs of popular social psychology. Advocated originally by the Stanford psychologist, Bandura Albert, in 1960’s, the theory has evolved to become the most relevant theory in analyzing media violence. The social learning theory posts that people do model and imitate their behaviors through a process of learning (Bandura, 1986). Human beings always, “have gradually evolved an advanced capacity and ability for observational learning, which enables them to easily expand their skills and knowledge on the basis of the information conveyed by various modeling influences” (Bandura, 1986, pp. 87). This means that humans learn by observation. Therefore, when people observe the increasingly violent themes on the media productions, they learn that same behavior and then go on to display it in real life (Bandura, Ross and Ross, 1963). The theory as postulated by Bandura, is based on 3 fundamental assumptions in the philosophical sense, that of epistemology, axiology and of oncology (Bandura, 1986). Epistemologically, the theory posts that people can never be passive observers or passive recipients of any external stimuli (Bandura, 1986). Secondly, the theory assumes that individuals must always interact and actively create or develops their own world or version of knowledge (Bandura, 1986). Thirdly, that all knowledge is created through an active participation of an individual (Bandura, 1986). While the theory does not answer to the calls of eliminating these assumptions, the theory does project very valid arguments on the power of example in behavioral learning. If Bandura's main premise- that people can learn through observing others- was to believed, then it means that people will gradually learn to behave and live with such behaviors as are depicted by the violent themes of the movies in real life (Bandura, 1977). Vicarious experience in this case would be the only way human beings can change towards the directives of the media violence (Bandura, 1977). This scenario is what Bandura calls modeling, where what people watch in the movies becomes a direct example or experience of what they become (Bandura, 1977). Conclusion The essay has critically examined movie violence using numerous examples of recent blockbuster movies. A trend of incorporating high levels of violence in movies has been discussed and the reasons why violence is becoming fashionable media content presented. From being more entertaining to more exportable, violence has been explained as desirable to most contemporary moviemakers. The paper defined violence in movies as referred to in media contexts as a basis of identifying what constitutes violence in the movies. As the paper established, movie violence include such acts as shooting, fighting, killing, chasing etc where the violence is either defensive or offensive. The essay also examined the two sides of the media violence debate highlighting the major points posted by either side according to the available literature. In this regard, the paper established that movies are exhibiting too much gratuitous violence, which is indirectly linkable to violence in real life settings, both among children and adults. The paper has pointed out that movies are becoming increasingly violent and that violence is becoming the basic ingredient of most production. Many movies were cited in the paper as examples and even the role that the violence plays in such movies ranging from enhance the plot, creating occasional entertainment , developing the story/plot etc. Finally, the paper analyzed four theories of mass media communication and highlighted the social learning theory as postulated by Bandura as the most viable explanation of how violence affects movie viewers. References Alexes T. (1986). Social Learning of Aggression of Television, in Perspectives on Media Effects, Bryant, J & Zillmann, D. (eds). Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 41-55. Anderson, C., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. Johnson, J., Linz, D., Malamuth, N. & Wartella, E. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Vol. 4 (3). pp. 117 - 134. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A., Ross, D. & Ross, S. (1963). Imitations of Aggressive Film-Mediated Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. 66 (1). pp. 3-11 Buss, D. (2005). The Murderer Next Door : Why The Mind Is Designed To Kill. New York: Penguin Press. Ferguson, C., San Miguel, C. & Hartley, R. (2009). A multivariate analysis of youth violence and aggression: The influence of family, peers, depression and media violence. Journal of Pediatrics. Vol. 155 (6). pp. 904 – 908. Freedman, J. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression.: Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Lefkowitz, M., Eron, L., Walder, L. & Huesmann, L. (1977). Growing Up to Be Violent: A longitudinal Study of the Development of Aggression. New York: Pergamon. Olson, C. (2004). Media Violence Research and Youth Violence Data: Why Do They Conflict? Academic Psychiatry, Vol. 28 (1). pp. 144-150. Osborn, B. (2007) “Violence Formula: Analyzing TV, Video and Movies”. Center for Media Literacy. Viewed at 28 July 2010 From Ozawa, M. (2007). “Violence in the Media: What about Violence in Movies?” TOPICS Online Magazine. Issue 12. Viewed at 28 July 2010. From Paik, H. & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research. Vol. 21 (4). pp. 516 - 546. Sparks, G., Sparks, E. & Sparks, C. (2008). :Media Violence”. In Bryant, J. (Ed). Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Third edition. pp. 269-286. Ybarra, M., Diener-West, M., Markow, D., Leaf, P., Hamburger, M., & Boxer, P. (2008). Linkages between internet and other media violence with seriously violent behavior by youth. Pediatrics. Vol. 122 (5). pp. 929-937. Read More