Spectators and Audiences - Essay Example

? Violent Films: Limited Influence on Violence and a Reflection of Violence in Society 19 August Some of the most popular films are violent ones, for aside from sex, violence sells too. The Godfather (1972), Saving Private Ryan (1998), Kill Bill (2003), Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), and Saw (2004) are only several of numerous violent films that captured the interest of audience who enjoy the macabre and the insane. But what does the audience of violence films look for and obtain from watching the suffering and/or death of characters, whether they are based on fictional or real stories? Aaron (2007, p.4) described people as a “visual culture,” where people generally enjoy looking at either/both the most common or uncommon people and events. Something about the privacy of violence, when mass produced, turns into a wildly attractive venture for its target audience, at least (Aaron 2007, p.4). Consuming violence publicly may appeal to that desire for seeing scenes as an audience and spectators. This paper explores the effects and implications of violence in film. It asks: Do violent films promote/influence violence in society, or are violent films just a reflection of violence in society? The answer to this question is not a simple yes or no, but a conditional response that considers diverse factors. This paper pursues a case study that examines two movies, Natural Born Killers (1994) directed by Oliver Stone and A Clockwork Orange (1971) directed by Stanley Kubrick, in determining the answer to the research question. These films are chosen because Natural Born Killers (1994) is loosely based on a true story about a couple on a murder spree, while A Clockwork Orange (1971) is fictional, but can be argued as somewhat signifying violence in the youth and modern society. Violent films may promote or influence violence in people who have tendencies for or are vulnerable to showing aggression because of particular conditions in their lives, including the absence of ethical spectatorship, and at the same time, violent films also relatively reflect violence in society. Chapter 1: Spectators and Audience: The Ethics of Consumption of Violent Films In order to understand the impact and implications of violent films on the audiences’ behaviours, the concept of audience and spectators must also be understood because they are the recipient of the media. The audience of violent films, especially when they go there by choice, face the process of consuming, not only the spectacle of the film itself, but also possibly its values and viewpoints. Kuhn (1992, pp.305-306) argued that the social audience are viewers of the film, but they turn into spectators when: ...they engage in the processes and pleasures of meaning-making on watching a film...In taking part in the social act of consuming representations, a group of spectators becomes a social audience... (cited McCabe 2004, p.46). By interpreting violence in film, spectators are compared to the social audience, who merely look and do not give meaning to what they see. This paper is not about whether the government should censor violence because of its potential effects on spectators, but on understanding the responsibility of spectators in their post-violent-film consumption. Debates regarding the effects of film violence shape the concepts of spectators and audience. On the one hand, scholars assert that audiences are passive recipients of violence. Aaron (2007, p.68) noted that with assumed passivity, the audience do not need to be controlled by the government in viewing violent media, such as what the Irish government did when it stopped Natural Born Killers from being broadcasted in TV (“Irish terminate killers TV3” 2000, p.40). The government should then allow media freedom with their violent themes because people consume them for pure entertainment purposes only. Another point is that an increasing number of films avoid closures or do not emphasise moral issues or values, which can result to rationalisation. Violent films engage people’s “unpleasure,” according to Wheatley (2009). “Unpleasure” pertains to the dissatisfaction of not activating the pleasure drive and the creation of “negative” affect, such as “embarrassment, anger and guilt” (Wheatley 2009, p.78). Through unpleasure, the audience may consume the film in a more rational manner, as they seek to understand why they feel that way about the film. These ideas suggest that as audiences of violent films, they can either passively consume the latter for entertainment purposes or rationalise them so as to consume them without being overly affected in terms of behaviours. On the other hand, several scholars indicate that spectators have a responsibility in contextualising their consumption of violence, so that it does not affect their own attitudes and/or behaviours. Hill (1997) explained that people have thresholds when it comes to consuming media violence and that men and woman test and protect these boundaries in different/similar ways. Sexual violence, for instance, can trigger self-censorship practices, such as looking away or anticipating the act so as to feel either desensitised or less angry about it (Hill 1997, p.51). Spectators watch violence and put them into context, thereby helping them understand that violence is not acceptable in real life. Aaron (2007, p.68) stressed that spectatorship has its ethics: “...it becomes easy to see how spectatorship is ethically loaded, that is, that it represents a negotiation of personal pleasures and others’ interests.” Spectators can view these films as a process of interaction where their values interrelate with the latter’s in ways that can affect the former’s own attitudes and behaviours toward violence. With ethics of spectatorship, they can derive meaning from these films that will not devalue violence’s negative effects and desensitise them. Hall (1997, p.15) discussed the methodological approaches to audiences and spectators, where representation, meaning and language can be understood through “reflective,” “intentional” and “constructionist” approaches. The reflective approach pertains to meaning that is present in the world; the intentional approach refers to language that the media producer wants to express according to his/her “intended meaning”; the constructivist approach sees meaning as formed through and within language (Hall 1997, p.15). By understanding the meaning of violence through the film’s symbolic and actual language, spectators can form meaning from their media consumption and can act more responsibly toward violence in real life. After discussing the boundaries between spectators and audiences, the paper supports the argument that violent films do not cause violent behaviour among audiences, unless they are vulnerable spectators. Media-violence-breeds-violence is a myth because it signifies assumptions and generalisations about the causes of human behaviour and attitudes and disregards individual people’s thresholds for violence in films and actual lives. Barthes (1994, p.115) defined a myth as kind of “depoliticized speech” with signified and signifier elements. People who say that violent films cause violence assume that violence in film is a sign that affects people’s consumption of these signs in their lives. They might even go as far as generalising that heavy consumers of violent films become aggressive individuals. This generalisation is not entirely unfounded because of evidence linking media violence and aggressive attitudes and behaviours. Brady (2007) studied the effect of watching violence on young adults. Using survey research design, he learned that the more that men watched violent movies, the more they favoured aggressive military action and punitive criminal justice laws, while women showed more preference for interpersonal violence and military preparedness, although these effects were reduced when covariates where changed (Brady 2007, p. 523). Anderson et al. (2003) reviewed literature on media violence and found out that shot-term exposure to media violence can lead to aggressive emotions, thoughts and actions. They explained that violent media can produce these effects because they can result to modelling of aggressive behaviour, arouse aggressive attitudes, and/or create aggressive thoughts and emotions (Anderson et al. 2003, p.81). However, these findings have its nuances, such as considering the age of viewers, where young children tend to be more prone to copying aggressive behaviours because of their developmental stage and other external factors. Coming from a family with a history of violence or neighbourhoods and friends that exhibit violence, as well as experiencing violence as a bully/and or victim, can affect one’s violent tendencies with or without the consumption of violent films. Furthermore, it is possible that violent people or people with aggressive personalities or those with emotional issues may already be attracted to violent films. Violence in films is not causes of violence for people who already have violent tendencies. Chory and Goodboy (2011) learned from their survey study that people with lower agreeableness and neuroticism tend to play more violent games than those with higher scores on these values. In addition, some people might even need violent media to help them deal with their emotional problems. An interesting economics study showed a linkage between the showing of violent films and lower violent crime rates. Dahl and Dellavigna (2009) used time-series variation to assess the connection between the violence of movies and reported violent crimes. They learned that in days when violent films were shown, “violent crimes decrease,” suggesting that violent films veer some violent people away from conducting violence and even drinking alcohol that can promote violence (Dahl and Dellavigna 2009, p.725). Jones (2000) mentioned several children who used violent media to deal with their personal or family problems. He noted that he himself used violent comics’ characters to improve his confidence as a kid. These articles suggest that violence can even be good for some people who use it to deter their own violent acts or to cope with their problems. Hence, not all people who watch violent films become violent toward others. Aside from arguing that not all people who watch violent films become violent because of their spectatorship, this paper asserts that violent films somehow represent violence in modern society. Gangster movies, like The Godfather (1972), for instance, are not figments of imagination, but replicate the lives of real gangsters, whose “careers” peaked during the 1920s and the 1930s. Some movies are based on or inspired by true stories about psychopaths and sociopaths, such as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003). These are movies that depict violence in real life, especially in times and societies where aggression comes from social, economic, political, gender, religious, and cultural inequalities. Stein (1995, p.21) emphasised that violent films represent violence in humanity, but people must “rise above it,” if they want to preserve their humanity. Thus, violent films can also signify violence in people, but not necessarily promote it among all audiences. Chapter 2: Case Study: Natural Born Killers (1994) and A Clockwork Orange (1971) Two films indicate that violence in real life, not violent movies, already influences people’s violent personalities. Natural Born Killers (1994) shows that some conditions influence people’s aggression, and movies are not always the main cause or antecedent of their violent actions. Mallory Knox (Juliette Lewis) has a sociopathic father who physically, emotionally, and sexually abuses her (Natural Born Killers 1984). Her violent history affected her so much that from being a victim, she becomes an aggressor. Anderson et al. (2003) underlined that people from abusive homes and neighbourhoods can promote violence. They might be attracted to violent films, but it does not mean that these films cause their violent actions towards other people. Another example is when Mallory is in a bar and a couple of strangers flirt with her in a sexually oppressive manner (Natural Born Killers 1984). The man’s sexual actions demean her as a human being and as a woman. As a spectator, she is not a passive audience but reacts to her abuser in a violent way. One more example is Mickey’s (Woody Harrelson) violence toward other people. Like Mallory, he comes from an abusive family. During the chanting scene with their Navajo host, Warren (Russell Means), Mickey dreams about how his father (Phil Neilson) hurts him, while his mother (Sally Jackson) tells him she hates him. His past is sufficient for him to wake up enraged and to shoot Warren. These examples demonstrate that violence in real life is enough to compel people to be violent to others, whether they watch violent films or not. A Clockwork Orange (1971) does not show that film violence inspires people to violence, and instead, it is possible that these youth’s boredom and alienation push them to violent behaviours. Alexander DeLarge or Alex (Malcolm McDowell) does not experience violence in his family, but it can be argued violence is present through the overwhelming absence of positive emotions from his parents. His mother (Sheila Raynor) and father (Philip Stone) do not exhibit any strong positive or negative emotion toward the welfare of their son (A Clockwork Orange 1971). Because of the absence of love and attention, including a semblance of discipline, Alex might feel alienated from social and human connections. Another example is Alex’s droogs, who are as violent as he is- Georgie (James Marcus), Dim (Warren Clarke), and Pete (Michael Tarn) (A Clockwork Orange 1971). The symbolism of them drinking milk with narcotics at the opening scene shows that they are young and yet they know so much already about the boredom and disappointments in life. They are bored, but they have latent energy and anger in their bodies. When they see an Irish wino (Paul Farrell), he becomes their perfect punching bag (A Clockwork Orange 1971). These youth are no different from another group who wants to rape a girl. They do not feel that their lives have meaning, so they engage in meaningless violent and sexual acts. These actions, in turn, desensitise them from seeing their crimes as evil, instead, they have become a norm. Apart from the claim that violent films do not necessarily cause violence among already violent or vulnerable groups, these films reveal that they only reflect real violence in society to some extent. Natural Born Killers (1994) demonstrates that violence in films reflect violence in real life. Mallory experiences all kinds of abuse from her father. In one scene of their fictional televised love story, her father Ed (Rodney Dangerfield) does not let her go out with her friends and treats her like a slave. He also uses language that indicates incest, such as ordering her to take a bath, so that he can check her cleanliness later (Natural Born Killers 1984). His language signifies that he is a bad man who does bad things to his own daughter. Mallory’s mother (Edie McClurg), on the contrary, does not abuse her, but her silence and lack of involvement in her daughter’s abuse portrays her as a neglectful mother. She does not do anything to prevent violence from affecting her children because of expanded violence threshold as a victim herself (Hill 1997, p.51). These instances illustrate that violence in films can also reflect real violence. Another example is violence from media personalities and authorities. Wayne Gale (Robert Downey Jr.) approves of (though not publicly) and uses violence to raise the ratings of his show, “American Maniacs.” His show covers mass murderers, thereby showing that in real life, mass murderers exist already (Natural Born Killers 1984). His intention is to represent violence in a way that makes it attractive and interesting to his viewers, even to the point of exaggerating stories (Hall 1997, p.15). Violence in film is not realistic then at all points. In addition, Wayne signifies media’s role in promoting violence through glorifying killers. Natural Born Killers (1984) shows Wayne interviewing people who see Mickey and Mallory as their idols. These people are desensitised and no longer remember the value of human life which has made them see the “unpleasure” of violence as a source of pleasure (Wheatley 2009, p.78). One more example is Detective Jack Scagnetti (Tom Sizemore). He kills a prostitute by strangling her. Then, when the police catch Mickey and Mallory at the pharmacy, the cops beat Mallory, after Scagnetti cut her. These actions demonstrate that even authorities can show violence to other people. A Clockwork Orange (1971) suggests that violence comes from both people and the government. Alex and his droogs arbitrarily beat up a wino, while also driving carelessly enough to hurt other drivers on the road (A Clockwork Orange 1971). These instances are present in real life too, such as when the news report about what seems to be senseless beatings and homicides. Another example is when Alex and his droogs trick and beat Frank Alexander (Patrick Magee). Not finding this enough, they even gang raped his wife (Adrienne Corri) (A Clockwork Orange 1971). Alex sings Singin' in the Rain while all this violence happens, which means that he does not feel anything anymore when violence is around him, and in fact, violence makes him happy (Hill 1997, p.51). These murderers have lost their sense of ethics as spectators of violence in media and real life (Aaron 2007, p.68). Another example of violence is the government’s treatment of Alex. They physically abused him by entering him into an inhumane therapy, the Ludovico technique. Through classical conditioning approach and medicine, the doctors made Alex hate violence, where the stimuli are violent thoughts and activities and Beethoven's Ninth symphony (A Clockwork Orange 1971). One more instance of violence is when the government continues to use Alex for its political aims. The Interior Minister (Anthony Sharp) wants to save the face of the government from the humiliation that it experienced when Alex was compelled to commit suicide and the media discovered the inhumane process of the Ludovico technique (A Clockwork Orange 1971). Though Alex is back to his violent personality, he teams up with the Minister to overturn public scrutiny on the government by saying that the therapy works (A Clockwork Orange 1971). As Alex tells the media people who interview him that the therapy cured him, he is thinking about sexual images. The irony is that the government releases a maniac into the streets again only because it has self-interests to protect. Thus, the film suggests that violence is already present in real life and it can come from any individual or sector. Conclusion The case study supports the argument that violent films may arouse unpleasure that attract audiences, but it does not cause violent behaviours per se. Certain audiences, however, may be prone to becoming violent after watching violent films, considering their history and family/social background. Violence in the media does not instigate violent behaviours in the long run because violent attitudes do not automatically translate to violent actions and short-term aggression does not frequently result to long-term aggression. Natural Born Killers (1994) and A Clockwork Orange (1971) both show characters whose backgrounds made them vulnerable to adopting violent behaviours. In addition, these films suggest that violence in films is a form of representation of violence in real life, though they may be exaggerated versions for media purposes of sensationalism. Hence, the case study and review of literature prove that violent behaviours in real life is a complex product of individual and social factors that cannot be blamed on violent film consumption, especially when audiences become ethical spectators of violence. Bibliography Aaron, M., 2007. Ethics and spectatorship: response, responsibility and the moving image. In: Spectatorship: the power of looking on. London: Wallflower Press, 87-123. Althusser, L., 2002. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In: Mirzoeff, N. ed. The visual culture reader. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 139-141. Anderson, C.A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L.R., Johnson, J.D., Linz, D., Malamuth, N.M. and Wartella, E., 2003. The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(3), 81-110. Barthes, R., 1994. Myth today. In. Storey, J. ed. Cultural theory and popular culture: a reader. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 107-116. Brady, S.S., 2007. Young adults' media use and attitudes toward interpersonal and institutional forms of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 33(6), 519-525. Chory, R.M. and Goodboy, A.K., 2011. Is basic personality related to violent and non-violent video game play and preferences? CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(4), 191-198. Dahl, G. and Dellavigna, S., 2009. Does movie violence increase violent crime? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 677-734. Hall, S., 1997. The work of representation. In: Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices. London: SAGE, 13-74. Hill, A., 1997. Thresholds and self-censorship. In: Shocking entertainment: viewer response to violent movies. Luton: John Libbey Media, 51-74. “Irish terminate killers TV3 being taken to court over its intention to broadcast 'Natural born killers.’” 2000. Screen international, (1244). Jones, G., 2000. Violent media is good for kids. Mother Jones, June 28. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/06/violent-media-good-kids-0 McCabe, J., 2004. Feminist film studies: writing the woman into cinema. London: Wallflower. Stein, M.E., 1995. The new violence. Films in review, 46(3/4), 14-21. Wheatley, C., 2009. Ethics of aggression. In: Michael Haneke’s cinema. New York: Berghahn, 78-112. Filmography A Clockwork Orange, 1971. Film. Directed by Stanley Kubrick. UK, USA: Warner Bros. Kill Bill, 2003. Film. Directed by Quentin Tarantino. USA: Miramax Films. Natural Born Killers, 1994. Film. Directed by Oliver Stone. USA: Warner Brothers. Saving Private Ryan, 1998. Film. Directed by Steven Spielberg. USA: DreamWorks. Saw, 2004. Film. Directed by James Wan. USA: Evolution Entertainment. Texas Chainsaw Massacre, 2003. Film. Directed by Marcus Nispel. USA: New Line Cinema. The Godfather, 1972. Film. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola. USA: Paramount Pictures. Read More