Violence On TV
The last five years have seen an increase in
the stand on violence in movies. As
action movies with their big stars are
taken to new heights every year, more
people seem to argue that the violence
is influencing our country’s youth.
Yet, each year, the amount of viewers
also increases. This summer’s smash hit
Independence Day grossed more
money than any other film in history, and it was
full of violence. The other
summer hits included Mission: Impossible, Courage
Under Fire, and A Time
to Kill. All of these movies contained violence, and all
were highly
acclaimed. And all, with the exception of Independence Day, were
aimed toward
adults who understood the violence and could separate screen
violence from
real violence. There is nothing wrong with having violence in
film. If an
adult wants to spend an evening watching Arnold Schwartzenager Save
the
world, then he should have that right. Film critic Hal Hinson enjoys
watching
movies. In fact, he fell in love with movies at the same time that
he
remembers being afraid for the first time. He was watching Frankenstein,
and, as
he described in his essay "In Defense of Violence," it played with
his
senses in such a way that he instantaneously fell in love with movies. .
The
danger was fake, but Hinson described that it played with his senses in
such a
way that he almost instantly fell in love. Hinson feels that most
movie lovers
were incited by the same hooks as himself. Movies were
thrilling, dangerous, and
mesmerizing (Hinson 581-2). Hinson says that as a
culture, we like violent art.
Yet this is not something that is new to
today's culture. The ancient Greeks
perfected the genre of tragedy with a use
of violence. According to Hinson, they
believed that "while violence in life
is destructive, violence in art need
not be; that art provides a healthy
channel for the natural aggressive forces
within us" (Hinson 585). Today, the
Greek tragedy is not often seen, but
there are other shows movies that embody
and use violence. Tom and Jerry, The
Three Stooges, and popular prime
time shows including the highly acclaimed NYPD
Blue and ER are all
violent. There is a surplus of violent movies in Hollywood.
Usually, the
years highest moneymakers are violent. Even Oscar winning movies,
those
movies that are "the best of the year," have violence in them.
Silence of
the Lambs, Unforgiving, and In the Line of Fire are just a few. Even
with all
this violence on both the small and big screen, Hinson makes a
clear
statement that real-life violence is the problem, not movie violence.
He feels
that people fear screen violence because they fear we might become
what is
depicted on screen. Hinson feels that to enjoy violence, one must be
able to
distinguish between what is real and what is not (Hinson 587).
Another essay,
this one entitled "Popcorn Violence," illustrates how the type
of
violence seen in film and television is completely different than real
life
violence. The author, Roger Rosenblatt, describes how young children can
be
exposed to screen violence early on in life, yet the type of violence is
so
fictional that the connection between what is seen on television and what
goes
on out in the streets is never made. The example Rosenblatt uses to
illustrate
this point is wrestling. In professional wrestling there are good
guys, such as
Hulk Hogan and Randy "Macho Man" Savage, and bad guys,
which includes
the likes of The Undertaker and Rowdy Piper. Every Saturday
morning they go into
the ring and fight. Its good versus bad. The show, of
course, is humorous, as it
is meant to be. The characters are so strange that
they are comical. They roam
around the ring, yelling and screaming, looking
quite ridiculous. They play to
the crowd, either making them boo or cheer.
Occasionally, for example, if say
Hulk Hogan is winning a fight, the bad
guy’s friends might join in and gang up
on Hulk. All of this violence, and
the kids love it (Rosenblatt 589). The same
occurs in "action" movies. There
is a good guy and a bad guy, but the
bad guy usually has lots of friends, and
they all gang up on the good guy.
Rosenblatt explains that sometimes you
root for the good guys, and other times
for the bad guys. He says that we
root for the bad because sometimes
"you’re simply bored with the good guys
and the bad are beautiful" (Rosenblatt
589-90). But when we do root for
the good guy, it is because all odds are
against him. In his essay,
Rosenblatt explains that admiration for the either
good or bad comes from the
desire to achieve what ultimately the that person
achieves: success. The
winner of the battle is the one who succeeds and does so
with power and
strength and the ability to outwit an opponent (Rosenblatt
590).
Sometimes, Rosenblatt explains, you really want the bad guy to
succeed. He uses
two good examples to illustrate this point. First off is
Terminator, the movie
that started Arnold Schwartzenager’s career. In the
movie, his job as a cyborg
was to kill Sarah Connor(AKA Linda Hamilton). No
matter what amount of
destructive force was aimed at the Terminator, as long
as some part of him was
functioning, he would still go after her. Rosenblatt
also uses an example that
is not particularly violent, but does show how we
sometimes tend to root for the
bad guy. The example he uses is The Great
Gatsby. Gatsby, according to
Rosenblatt, is so appealing because he not
only was a self made millionaire, but
also because he was a criminal. On his
way to the top, Gatsby murdered a man. He
makes the ultimate sacrifice to
achieve success (Rosenblatt 590). After reading
this novel, I can say I was
quite upset when Gastby died. He was the bad guy,
the criminal, yet I wanted
to see him succeed. There is another aspect of
violent movies that Rosenblatt
touches briefly on. This is the progression of
weaponry in movies. The
progression has been incredible, indeed. In many violent
movies, it is the
type of weapon and how it is used and depicted that make the
movie so
violent. It has gone from the .357 Magnum that Clint Eastwood held to
a
thug’s face and said "Go ahead, make my day," to the magnetic
pulse
rifles seen Arnold Schwartzenager’s latest The Eraser. Men seem to have
a
fascination with gadgets and technology, and this is what Rosenblatt uses
to
defend this progression. Just as with a new cordless power super duper
drill, a
high tech weapon to even the odds is "neat." Rosenblatt uses a
good
example in the movie In the Line of Fire. There is a scene where two
duck
hunters at a pond are approached by the assassin. They are fascinated by
the
double barrel pistol made by the assassin, as most guys probably would
have been
(Rosenblatt 591). Rosenblatt concludes by saying that men’s
fascination with
violent movies stems from our competitiveness and wanting to
succeed. He says
that we are not violent people for watching these films. He
claims that most of
us would want to take all the guns off the street and
burn them all. Rosenblatt
also mentions one of his friends, a police officer,
who loves action movies but
hates the violence that he has to deal with
everyday. Rosenblatt says that men
don’t take violence in films seriously
(Rosenblatt 592). We know that
Schwartzenager is fake, and that there is
no Rambo. Unfortunately, there is some
evidence that television and movies
are schools for violence. In the book
Children in Front of the Small
Screen by Grant Noble, results from tests show
that young children will
imitate that which they see on screen. Several
experiments were performed to
prove this point, all involving children. In the
tests, the children viewed
different acts of violence. These violent acts
included a man hitting a bozo
the clown self righting inflatable doll with a
mallet, and two grown adults
fighting over some toys. They were then left in
rooms for observation. In the
case of the children who saw the man hit the doll
with the mallet, in the
room was the same mallet and doll, along with numerous
other toys. In most
cases, the children would imitate the exact action they
viewed. Some would
even imitate the exact body stances and facial expression
that the watched on
screen. The experimenters did not, however, state for how
long each
aggressive act took place. They concluded "that film models are
as effective
in teaching aggressive behavior as real-life models as parents and
teachers"
(Grant 127). All right, so maybe there is some validity to the
idea that
violence on screen adversely affects children. The fact is, children
like to
mimic what the see and hear, whether its on the television or in real
life. I
won’t deny the fact that this is a serious problem. The types of
behavior in
many violent films are not what most parents would want there kids
to
imitate. Indeed, this is solid evidence that screen violence is
very
impressionable for children. Of course, what parent would allow they
child to
watch Rambo or Terminator at a young age? These movies aren’t made
for young
children, and therefore, should not be seen by them. That’s why
there is a
rating system for movies. A child of six years old shouldn’t be
sitting in
front of the television watching Die Hard or similar films. Its up
to the
parents to monitor their child’s viewing. When I was growing up, my
parents
were very careful in monitoring what watched and what I played with.
In fact, I
don’t think I ever owned a toy gun. They hardly ever let me watch
R rated
movies. If, by chance, I did, I watched them under their supervision,
and they
usually explained to me that what was going on in the movie was
wrong. Though I
watched a few while growing up, I don’t feel that they had
any adverse effects
on me. I am not a violent person or perform random,
spontaneous acts of
violence. I believe this is because my parents told me
that what I was watching
was not an acceptable way to act. This is what
parents have to do. It is their
job to teach wrong from right. Lately,
violence in film and television has been
getting a bad reputation. Many
activist groups have sprung up, demanding that
the film industry and the
Hollywood executives stop making violent films. There
main claim is that the
violence is bad for the children. Yet these films are for
the adults, not the
children. It is the adults who are able to distinguish the
difference between
what is real and what is fake. Personally, I love those
action movies that
have death counts close to the hundreds. I love the feeling
of leaving the
theater in awe of what I just saw. Being an adult, this is a
privilege that I
have, and I want to keep that privilege. So, probably, does any
other person
who likes to watch these same type of
films.