Cinematic Violence: Can Anything Be Justified?

[DarkImbecile]

If there were a causal connection between violent media and violent actions, why have the latter declined precipitously over the exact decades where exposure to the former has exponentially risen?

Yes, but certain types of violent actions have undoubtedly risen precipitately over the last few decades. For instance, in the 1950s kids were taught how to protect themselves from nuclear attack, not the possibility of a maniac treating them like disposable characters in a shoot-em-up video game. (Granted, there are loads of other factors at play here - most obviously, easy availability of powerful weapons, which is why this is a largely US-centric phenomenon.)

I'm not sure of your point. Violence including murder have gone down dramatically over the decades, the leading reason scientists believe is the reduction of lead exposure, and if you are referring to school shootings specifically as you point out that is largely an American problem yet violent media isn't an American phenomenon. Why doesn't Canada have more school shootings? The simple fact is that no causative relationship has been shown with violent actions which is where I see you overstepping the study you referenced as well as others which only refers to a desensitization to stimuli. That's not equivalent to action.

School shootings are actually a very good illustration of my point, and a good illustration of one of the stronger arguments for banning assault weapons. The overall number of school shootings is lower now than it was in the early 1990s, while the lethality of mass shootings has skyrocketed with the increased availability of high-powered semi-automatic weapons.

[swo17]

Yeah, I definitely didn't mean that statement in a judgmental way though I think it's important to still be able to make such distinctions (perhaps there is a better way to word what I said?) For instance it's a mantra that allows me, without causing cognitive dissonance, to both politely accept a friend drinking in front of me as well as a parent counseling a child not to ever even try drugs or alcohol

Yeah, I feel like that's a different kind if example though because your own utility placed in the safety of your child is going to consider risks with stricter alerts that outweighs the benefit of accepting these risks without intervention.

OK, or what about a school or church that teaches a roomful of children to "just say no." Or better yet, I can make a personal decision that I'm not even going to find out if it's something I would struggle with or not, by completely abstaining from it in the first place. Not that would make me an inherently better person, but I would think that's a sound life choice for someone to make

[FrauBlucher]

Not sure how old Michael B was when he saw the two films he mentioned

That post was from just Michael, a different user

My apologies to MichaelB for confusing users.

My main point that may have poorly been laid out had more to do with movies and mass entertainment. I was born in 61. My first exposure to horror was watching a Universal horror film, I was 8 yrs old... Wolfman and Frankenstein. It scared the be-guises out of me. Do you think that those movies would frighten an 8 yr old today? Probably not. I guess my reference point is much wider than many here.

Today with the internet (especially in your phone) movies and video games the dynamic of horror and violence is much more prevalent in media. Of course kids today have to have a different mentality to such things then my generation. I don’t know how that can be disputed. There was no such thing as mass shootings in schools before 1998 (Columbine). In my day that was never even a thought. Why? No exposure to that kind of stuff, that’s why. It’s not to say I didn’t see violence first hand. I watched a few mafia beatdowns in the neighborhood I grew up in. But that was the worst thing we saw where I grew up.

You folks remember the famous photo of when the Buddhist Monk set himself on fire in the early 60s. It made Time Magazines cover. It was shocking. I’m not even sure the evening news aired it back then. Today it would be mildly shocking and the google clicks would be in the millions to watch it and many more than once.

[Mr Sausage]

There was no such thing as mass shootings in schools before 1998 (Columbine).

The École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal was 1989.

[DarkImbecile]

Columbine was April of 1999, and was the culmination of series of pre-meditated, seemingly randomly targeted school shootings (as opposed to gang-related or heat-of-the-moment shootings, for example) over the previous 18-24 months (including one in which two middle school boys pulled the fire alarm and then used hunting rifles to shoot down 15 classmates and teachers as they filed out, killing five). But as this list illustrates, this unfortunately isn't an entirely modern phenomenon.

[domino harvey]

Columbine was not the first, but as someone who was in high school when it happened, let me assure you it was the first to have an impact/register at my school, and in a big way

[DarkImbecile]

Oh, Columbine was definitely different in its impact and scope than any before; I highly recommend Dave Cullen's excellent and comprehensive book on the topic (for those who can stomach the subject matter).

[FrauBlucher]

It kind of proves my point. Never heard of the mass shooting in Montreal. But now you hear about them immediately with the ability to find these on the internet and watch them over and over, creating copycats and desensitizing the public.

BTW.. the mod that split this should've started with what I responded to to put this in its proper context.

[colinr0380]

I pretty much agree with Robert McKee's statement at the end of his television introduction to The Terminator on this subject. Its often context of how violence is handled as much as content itself.

[Mr Sausage]

It kind of proves my point. Never heard of the mass shooting in Montreal. But now you hear about them immediately with the ability to find these on the internet and watch them over and over, creating copycats and desensitizing the public.

We heard about it every year in Canada as it became a national day of mourning, White Ribbon Day.

Also: I was born in the mid-80s, started watching Universal horrors at 6-7, wasn't scared of any of them because, you know, they're not scary, and by that point the internet wasn't around and the most violent thing I'd seen on tv was Reading Rainbow. This proves...nothing at all.

On the other hand, if I'd been born in the Renaissance, I'd probably have seen a public drawing and quartering by the time I was 10, or in the 60s in certain parts of the Southern US, a lynching.

There're a lot of complexities to this issue, none of which I find reflected in your posts.

[FrauBlucher]

So you don't think modern technology hasn't added to these troubling issues?

By the time you were watching horror films the slasher films were popular. Much different than what my generation watched

[knives]

Given these troubling issues have gone down with the modernization of modern technology an occam's razor approach would say they are subtracting from. Conjecture is meaningless on such topics and so are opinions.

[Mr Sausage]

So you don't think modern technology hasn't added to these troubling issues?

I'm much too tired to be straw-manned today.

By the time you were watching horror films the slasher films were popular. Much different than what my generation watched

This is only coherent provided I had seen a slasher film by the time I was 6-7. I hadn't, obviously. My frame of reference was Bambi and Fantasia. The Universal movies still weren't frightening. Nor the Hammers when I was 8, nor Night of the Living Dead and The Birds when I was 9, nor Psycho when I was 10... My god, those Universal monster movies must've totally desensitized me to violence! What sicko ever let me watch them?! What has society come to...

Also, Blood Feast and 2000 Maniacs are considerably gorier than Halloween or Friday the 13th or A Nightmare on Elm Street. This proves...nothing at all.

[knives]

The (book of) Satyricon is gorier than Halloween!

[FrauBlucher]

My god, those Universal monster movies must've totally desensitized me to violence! What sicko ever let me watch them?!

I never said these movies lead to violence. LOL. That's why the initial post I responded to needed to be included.

[Mr Sausage]

My god, those Universal monster movies must've totally desensitized me to violence! What sicko ever let me watch them?!

I never said these movies lead to violence. LOL. That's why the initial post I responded to needed to be included.

There are so many confusions here I don't even know where to start. Like, were you taking me seriously? And, also, even if I was being serious...I mean...I said nothing about anything leading to violence...so...what are you talking about?

[Mr Sausage]

The (book of) Satyricon is gorier than Halloween!

Shit, The Iliad has people being sliced open so thoroughly you can see their spine through the front of them. Amazingly gory book. If The Browning Version is anything to go by, generations of very young school children were reading that thing.

[FrauBlucher]

Goodnight Mr. Sausage.

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah, I definitely didn't mean that statement in a judgmental way though I think it's important to still be able to make such distinctions (perhaps there is a better way to word what I said?) For instance it's a mantra that allows me, without causing cognitive dissonance, to both politely accept a friend drinking in front of me as well as a parent counseling a child not to ever even try drugs or alcohol

Yeah, I feel like that's a different kind if example though because your own utility placed in the safety of your child is going to consider risks with stricter alerts that outweighs the benefit of accepting these risks without intervention.

OK, or what about a school or church that teaches a roomful of children to "just say no." Or better yet, I can make a personal decision that I'm not even going to find out if it's something I would struggle with or not, by completely abstaining from it in the first place. Not that would make me an inherently better person, but I would think that's a sound life choice for someone to make

There are plenty of people out there who practice teetotalism and abstain from alcohol whether as a risk management technique, a fear of family history of addiction, etc. - but I don't think I quite understand what your point is as linked to your initial statement. I think the verb "handle" in all its vagueness and negative connotations as connected to the idea of will power and weakness is what I found problematic anyways (though not personally offended or anything), but if your point is to pluralize the idea that some people can drink in safety while others may not be able to/choose not to/shouldn't, as well as the position of separating those who you're impartial to their consumption vs. those that you aren't, or validating the choice to drink or not drink regardless of reason, without feeling a sense of hypocrisy, I couldn't agree more (but I just think this concept we call 'hypocrisy' is a given amongst mankind because I believe the human mind - hell, the world - is full of pluralism in holding contradictory attitudes that have their own internal logic and therefore are only hypocritical to the outside critical eye). But I'm not sure that's what you were saying either, so forgive me if I'm lost!

[swo17]

My initial point was that while violent media may not "cause" most people to be violent in real life, that doesn't rule out the possibility that it could still be harmful

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah, I didn't get that from your post at all, but that's absolutely true. My argument was not that it isn't a factor but that the position is problematic when honing in on this as the sole focus which ignores other factors of equally or potentially (or when combining all the factors together that are being ignored - definitely) greater significance

[bottled spider]

(Sorry for having triggered an off-topic debate with such an unsubstantive post. I had rented Criterion's Night of the Living Dead, only to discover later that Disc 1 of 3 was missing, so I haven't even seen it yet! But I expect to be able to watch it sometime over the next week, and will try to say something less inane about it in the Criterion thread.)

[mfunk9786]

It's not off topic at all - in fact, we already had a running thread on violence that this was a good fit to be married to - and now with an improved thread title

[tenia]

My initial point was that while violent media may not "cause" most people to be violent in real life, that doesn't rule out the possibility that it could still be harmful.

Pretty much anything that isn't rather safe (alcohol, drugs, speedy cars, available guns, etc) is likely to be harmful, but the question is : can it be harmful to anyone or just predisposed people ? If I'm not mistaken, I don't think any study about violent media impact have then been followed by studying the predispositions of those haven't been deemed showing an impact. It might be even more of a key element considering Venn diagrams of the populations playing violent VGs or watching violent media and people having violent behaviors most certainly don't fully overlap at all, while there is of course an aggravated factor in the States with the easy availability of guns (easing the possibility of acting out visible violent behaviors).

I also feel there is an important difference in saying "it is harmful" and "we can't rule out it might be". In the second case, it's pretty much just precaution and common sense, but there is 0 need for studies to act this way.

[swo17]

Or perhaps put another way, just because I can watch violent movies without becoming violent myself doesn't mean I can say that this isn't a serious issue