The Influence of Violence in Film - Movie Review Example

Reel or Real The Influence of Violence in Film Oliver Stone's violent, hallucinatory film Natural Born Killers (1994) contains a scene in which the homicidal Mickey is caught by the police in front of a drugstore. The Media are present; television is capturing Mickey's capture. The police get Mickey on the ground and viciously beat him with their clubs. The camera assumes position at some distance from the action, observing it. Before our eyes, Stone re-created, in a fictional space, the infamous videotape of the beating of Rodney King by the Los Angeles police that took place in 1991. It became a major controversial issue in our society that continues to this day-Rodney King, an African American, was stopped by the police for a traffic violation and brutally beaten. The video- tape of the beating, which was broadcasted repeatedly on a national news station, viewed by many, was an articulate capture of how a simple film clip can communicate a violent truth. But film is a powerful tool, even more powerful than the truth sometimes. When the police who took part in the King beating, were first bought to trial, their lawyers used the videotape to give a blow by blow account of the event, using slow motion, fast forward and rewind to prove their point: the police was using "escalation of force", which is justified by the law. The jury believed it and predisposed against the victim. This is just one example of how film actually influenced violence. It is a curious cultural clich that says pictures don't lie. But, it is even part of the greater clich that "seeing is believing". "Somehow, a thing seen directly, especially in motion or even through a visual representation like a painting, a photograph, or a film, brings us closer to some actual activity (Kolker 16)". Images, more so, in Technicolor and high definition entrance us because they provide a powerful illusion of owning a reality. "The moving image, that which is filled, was a vibrant, story- telling mechanism and meaning- generating medium (Kolker 24)". More than literature, painting or the photograph moving images express many, almost most, of people across economic and social classes. That is the catch of how film has become so appealing. The catch is a powerful tool once again. To be able to project such instances close to reality is to actually leave a greater imprint on reality itself. Films are very influential in such a way that they begrudgingly do not care what you think about it, it just plays, even if for some, it is too offensive or too violent. The choice is actually bestowed upon the readers if they would readily sit back, relax and enjoy the show or press stop, eject or off, or walk out of the movie theater. However, the bad, the ugly, the outrageous and the gory are actually more appealing to people nowadays. Violence in film has amplified, in such a way that discretion is hardly an understatement. The effect of film, to actual violence is the imprint it leads to the subconscious. The thirst for violence could actually be an addiction, more so cause viewer aggression. Short-term exposure increases the likelihood of physically and verbally aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, and aggressive emotions. Recent large-scale longitudinal studies provide converging evidence linking frequent exposure to violent media in childhood with aggression later in life, including physical assaults and spouse abuse. "Because extremely violent criminal behaviors (e.g., forcible rape, aggravated assault, homicide) are rare, new longitudinal studies with larger samples are needed to estimate accurately how much habitual childhood exposure to media violence increases the risk for extreme violence (Bailey 106)". It is hardly that the film is to be blame, it could be innately in the person to react as such, but the film is the medium by which the stimulus is incinerated. Well-supported theory delineates why and when exposure to media violence increases aggression and violence. Film violence produces short-term increases by priming existing aggressive scripts and cognitions, increasing physiological arousal, and triggering an automatic tendency to imitate observed behaviors. The violence in film can also produce long-term effects via several types of learning processes leading to the acquisition of lasting (and automatically accessible) aggressive scripts, interpretational schemas, and aggression-supporting beliefs about social behavior, and by reducing individuals' media exposure. With the event of modern technology, is the event of modern forms of violence. Violence in film tend to be portrayed as very full-blown in this day and age, and because of such full blown instances, one can dismiss the fact of life, the little lingering violence around us, as non-violence at all. It could also be that the viewers create a form of resistance to violence and become indifferent to the violence in their surroundings. Recent surveys reveal an extensive presence of violence in modern media. Furthermore, many children and youth receive excessive exposure of time consuming violent media. Although it is clear that reducing exposure to media violence will reduce aggression and violence, it is less clear what sorts of interventions will produce a reduction in exposure. The sparse research literature suggests that counter-attitudinal and parental-mediation interventions are likely to yield beneficial effects, but media regulation in this wired society is clearly a hard task to handle. Since the dawn of convenient acquisitions of media, with or without ratings, free, legal or illegal in nature, youth could grasp easily any violent film they wish to have. Gone are the days when they have to ask permission to tell their parents to grab a video at a video-rental store, or worst, the days when parents actually care what their children are watching. Though the scientific debate over whether media violence especially in Film, increases aggression and violence is essentially over, several critical tasks remain. Additional laboratory and field studies are needed for a better understanding of underlying psychological processes, which eventually should lead to more effective interventions. Large-scale longitudinal studies would help specify the magnitude of media-violence effects on the most severe types of violence .After all, violence still ahs its range and gages. Facing the larger societal challenge of providing children and youth with a less-violent and offensive air times may prove to harder and actually expensive, even if getting a hold of violent films is expensive in itself, In. 1972, U.S. Surgeon General Jesse Seinfeld testified before Congress that "the overwhelming consensus and the unanimous Scientific Advisory Committee's report indicates that televised violence, indeed, does have an adverse effect on certain members of our society" (Seinfeld 26). The report reinforced this conclusion, and professional organizations took a similar position in viewing media violence as a serious threat to public health because it stimulates violent behavior by youth. During the early 1990s, most researchers in the field had arrived at a conclusion that the relationship between media violence on aggressive and violent behavior was real, causal, and significant. After all that's been said and done, six medical and public health professional organizations held a Congressional Public Health Summit on July 26, 2000, and issued a joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children. This statement noted that "entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behavior, particularly in children." But we ask the question, how harmful can violence in film actually is We come across the term aggression. Because media has an over-all tactile, auditory and visual experience that could easily tingle the senses and thus stimulating aggressive behavior, we then look into what Aggression really is all about. Aggression is defined by psychologists as any behavior that is intended to harm another person. (Bailey 98). There are many forms of aggression, clearly depicted in film and clearly transmitted to viewers in real life. For example, verbal aggression usually refers to saying hurtful things to the subordinate. Relational or indirect aggression refers to behavior that is intended to harm the target person but is enacted outside of the target person's view (e.g., behind his or her back), such as telling lies to get the person in trouble or to harm his or her interpersonal relationships. This could also be a known form of backstabbing. The aggressive behaviors of greatest concern usually involve physical aggression, and such aggression is the more evident among all forms. Physical aggression may range in severity from less serious acts, such as slapping, to more serious ones, that could involve injury to oneself and to others. "There is no clear-cut consensus-based line separating violence from milder forms of physical aggression, nor is one needed to understand the research findings on media violence (Bailey 112)". As the term violence surfaces, and interlinks with aggression, we use the term violence to refer to the more extreme forms of physical aggression that have a significant risk of seriously injuring their victims. Some studies have focused on the impact of media violence on aggressive thinking, including beliefs and attitudes that promote aggression. Other studies have focused on the influence of media violence on aggressive emotions -that is, on emotional reactions, such as anger, that are related to aggressive behavior. Films are concrete depictions of actions, albeit, easily imitated. When one considers the various of such violence in film, it is important to keep these three types of outcome variables (behavior, thoughts, emotions) separate, and to reserve the labels "aggression" and "violence" for behaviors intended to harm another person. Accordingly, the influence of the mass media is best viewed as one of the many potential factors that help to shape behavior, including aggression. It is likely, that not only the individual viewer is affected by the behavior acquisition form watching violent films, because the people around him will actually fall prey as victims or as influenced parties. "Research has shown that a significant proportion of aggressive children are likely to grow up to be aggressive adults and those severely violent adolescents and adults often were highly aggressive and even violent as children. In fact, the best single predictor of violent behavior in older adolescents and young adults is aggressive behavior when they were younger (Huesmann 112)" Thus, influences that promote aggressive behavior in young children can contribute to increasingly aggressive and ultimately violent behavior many years later. It is therefore important to identify factors-including media violence- that, singly and together, may play a role in these outcomes in childhood. As a matter of fact, even if more youth are influenced rather than adults by the violence in media, it still does not mean that it is just a phase. Violent behaviors could be carried out as they grow up. An alarming influence of film in violence actually suggests that even short- lived effects of a single exposure can add significant amounts of aggression and violence to society because at any given waking hour a large portion of the population either is currently being exposed to violent media or has been exposed to such violence in a certain timeframe... We have to keep in mind that mass media has such a huge impact, the world over. It could not be constrained by cultural and even geographic boundaries. Mass media is aired throughout cities and countries, regulations aside, and made accessible to the public. It prides itself on its accessibility, but not so on it regulatory nature. Society clearly promotes the accessibility of projected or print media, as it is the case that it could disseminate information. The utilization of such a powerful tool that makes for allowable behaviors is actually in the hands of makers, directors but embraced upon by the society. Violence is a medium in itself to actually uphold resistance to it and by doing so adds for two sides of the pole: either a passive society or an active, revolutionary one. . The problem is, the greater side of the story, the ones who are deeply aggravated are the viewers. Violence, as we know it, is reality. And as film tries to depict, and be closer to the depiction of realty, then its themes could actually convey and contain such. We begin to believe that violence is innately human, and that we can not do away without it. It all begins with our taste of films, by thinking to us as this specific film having less action, or too little blood, or very little gunpowder. What we do not know is after we view such cinematic masterpieces, we tend to thirst for it in reality, actually want a piece of it. Violence actually becomes a standard and it penetrates societal norms. When we see bombings or killings on the news, we dismiss it as something common and think to ourselves, "How is it any different from that film noir I have seen a while ago This is the worst part of it. At least in aggression, we show a form of reaction, but in indifference, we sit back and do nothing. Viewers actually begin to enjoy the suffering of other people, and that's how far violence in film could take you. Although the innovations of the 21st century and monumental milestones affirm great human experiences in the violence in film, there is, like a typical action flick clich poses: a dirtier side to the story. Violence in film allows, yes for viewing pleasure but with the price of real social injustices taken far beyond measure. Yes, film allows freedom and no viewer discretion, but have we considered viewer aggression When art begins to imitate reality, then it ceases to actually be an elusive medium, it becomes more of propaganda or a slogan that could very well be imitated. This is what happens to film, cause in as much as it is amazing, full-blown and nerve-racking, it is also so close to being real and very tangible that all actions, all words and all behaviors done in the reel could, actually be done for real. Bibliography Books Bailey, Ronald. Violence and Aggression. Netherlands, 1977. This has been used for purpose of justifying the influences/ effects of film in behavior. This is a concrete work that explains how stimulus, and cognitive responses adhere to media schema. Kolker, Robert Phillip. Film, Form, and Culture. Boston, 1999. pp. 4- 114 This source explains the effects of image and reality and how film actually influences reality. It allows for a brief timeline of how, as film evolves, does it responses from viewers evolve as well. Huesmann, Rowell. Television and the Aggressive Child. New York,1998. This backs up research data of how, through Scientific analysis, media has given rise to aggression and other atypical behaviors. Steinfeld, Jesse. Convergence: Integrating Media, Information & Communication. California,1996. This source cites instances for legislating and controlling the uncontrollable gratifications of media, and film to viewers. It allows for proposals to actually control film and media influences as it procures harmful influences to viewers. Film Natural Born Killers. Dir. Oliver Stone. With Quentin Tarantino and David Veloz..Warner Brothers Pictures, 1994. This film is an evidence of how the power of film influences most societal cases. Read More