(3,356 words)
Violence is everywhere. It surrounds us, stalking humanity wherever it goes. It� s partly because our race creates so much it�s almost impossible to be sheltered from it without being completely cut off and alone. Even then there�s plenty of evidence of extreme violence outside our manmade cultures and societies, in the natural world. Violence is defined as �great force; unjust use of great force; injury or hurt� and it� s almost everywhere we turn. It is portrayed in films and TV in many ways from vivid rape scenes to a casual slap on the wrist. It�s everywhere. It�s a part of life.
The media is seen by some as a vicious poison spread through our veins. This metaphor stems from the over simplified �hypodermic needle� mode of audience response, widely dismissed by all apart from advertisers, and no advertisement is one hundred per cent effective. The audience is seen as helpless victims, strapped to their seat infront of the television. It controls them, a drug, they need it. Looking at the so-called effects of Nazi propaganda instigated the theory. �Mass manipulation� was labelled the cause of the robotic, faceless, masses. The fact they would have got shot for not conforming to the set ideology was overlooked. Some people argue the media is used as a convenient scapegoat for the ills of individuals. We�re drawn to the high profile Jamie Bulger case and the recent massacre in an American school. It� s nothing to do with the society that created such monsters; it�s down to the media and Marylin Manson. It�s easier to criticise a minute spark rather than the cauldron of factors that give it the power to be so explosive.
But even assigning the single spark as an effect of violence in film and television is a clouded assumption, in no way clean and neat. �The scientific evidence on the effects of television violence...is at it� s best uneven and more often inconclusive, weak and contradictory.� (Canadian report on television violence, 1993). It� s also impossible to deweed the vast patio jungle of suffering that�s all around us. We�re trying to isolate one strand of violent impact from the rest that is streaming from different sources, raining down on people. There�s the internet, there�s video games and life itself. For many this is a traumatic experience, shredding the moral fibre of the person, destroying them forever.
Most of the crimes that are assigned to the media are committed by vulnerable individuals, their psyches scarred, wounded and tangled. A drop more and the dam will burst. This was the conclusion the jury drew from the Ronnie Zamora case in 1977, where a fifteen-year-old killed an elderly neighbour who interrupted him in the midst of a robbery. �He was suffering from and acted under the influence of prolonged, intense, involuntary, subliminal television intoxication� his attorney Ellis Rubin explained �a mental condition of insanity was produced. Pulling the trigger became as common to him as killing a fly�.
Information about Zamora�s upbringing and psychology are sketchy due to him not taking the stand but it emerged that he emigrated from Costa Rica to New York city. He taught himself English from TV. The mother re-married and they moved to Miami. The stepfather hated the boy and abused him. Television became an increasingly attractive window of escape and he passed by hours absorbing it�s influence. He watched films all night rather than sleeping. His Mum couldn�t rip him away from the set and the fantasy world her son was living in. The real world has real problems.
Expert witnesses were called in. Dr Albert Jaslow said the constant stream of television dramas �had somewhat blunted his awareness and his capacity to understand his actions�. Dr Margaret Hanratty Thomas argued that televised hostility could have unbalanced Zamora when perhaps emotional build up of abuse may have been the underlying ammunition leading to the attack, it sheds a dark shadow over the issue.
Stable psychological people seem to absorb the same violence; it�s shielded by their personality and underlying moral values with no harmful effects. This supports the idea of an active audience who processes the information, integrating it with their own principles and opinions, a far cry from the hypodermic principle. A negotiated principle where �Audiences work upon text in complex and different ways, just as much as texts work upon audiences� (Masterman 1985). The audience can reject the intended reading of the piece or it can be combined with existing opinions.
It�s thought that young people have yet to develop the complex filtering process that builds up through individual opinion. It�s with the protection of children that�s where the main concern lies and a lot of research is focused. Violence rears its head in many forms, including children� s television. There� s the ongoing saga between Tom and Jerry, the Ghostbusters aren�t very friendly to ghosts and that He-man doesn�t like Skeletor one bit. Slapstick injury is inflicted on the bad guys in Home alone and 101 Dalmatians, who are repeatedly traumatised by clever little kids.
A great parody of the infamous cat and mouse duo is Itchy and Scratchy, from the Simpsons. They�re at the Amusement Park �Itchy and scratchy land� and Marge confronts an employee about the brutal acts of violence that are portrayed in the cartoons. Here�s a rough quote from the episode.
EMPLOYEE: We understand your concern Mrs Simpson. That� s why we are always sure to show the consequences of violence as well as the action.
MARGE SIMPSON: Do you? In one episode Itchy plays Scratchy�s lungs like the bagpipes and in the next scene he breathes normally.
EMPLOYEE: Just like in the real world. (points) Look over there!
(MARGE turns to look. EMPLOYEE runs away.)
In a society where death is illegal (apart from natural causes) and killing is banned it might be better to show the consequences of the actions, rather than assuming lungs grow back. Yet it�s the productions where hurt is portrayed more realistically are them that have been the cause of debate, concern and censorship. There are films like Pulp Fiction and Man bites dog, where cool people do cool stuff but usually end up getting killed. These are usually given an 18 certificate and frowned upon by people who blame them for the ills of society. Reservoir dogs the cops ear doesn�t grow back, in real life people�s ears don�t grow back (not even Evander Holyfield�s).
It�s argued that a more realist approach of characters throughout the film makes the audience more likely to blend into the product, become a part of the cinematic landscape for an hour or two. It adds real tension because life seems to be at risk. They might actually care about the characters and built up some kind of understanding or relationship with them during their brief visit to their world. When they inevitably suffer they are much more likely to have some kind of emotional response to the situation, more comparable to real people dying in real life. Therefore they can identify them as people like us. But now they are dead and it was violence that killed them.
If people laugh or enjoy the deaths in adult material then I think they fall into two main categories. They either are people who find real death amusing, society might define these as sick individuals who are probably dangerous no matter what they watch, or they could be people who distance themselves from the reality portrayed in the product. I clapped when Helen Daniels died in Neighbours, knowing she was really acting. I�d like to think the latter category of individual is comparable with cartoon violence. Neighbours is detached from reality. Real people can act.
Animated cats and mice beating the hell out of each other is considered so ridiculous and surreal that the audience is assumed not to identify with the torturous nature of the product. I suppose it is a bit far fetched, even at the most disorderly pet shop. You�d have to be completely thick to think lungs grow back. It seems that if violence is so ridiculously over the top that people don�t believe and don�t relate it to reality. This type of violence that seems to be harmless, Home alone was given a PG certificate and is seen as a children�s film. �Sure it�s violence, but we know it� s all fake, and we know the difference between right and wrong so it doesn�t affect us.� Rachel Levin, through her excessive work in the area of study, sums up the attitude of the children she works with in American middle schools. If children can make this distinction then surely we should have a mature attitude to adult entertainment as well.
The news that expresses a world in turbulence and is packed full of violence that we treat differently from staged imagination. It isn�t entertaining, it�s real. We may be shocked by the stream of information coming through our television, telling us about the pain people are in but the portrayal on news bulletins is usually accurate, apart from when it is censored in times of war. Looking out for the national interest, invisible forces are at work.
The example of a newspaper cutting involving a mislead individual in Coventry who thought we were being invaded by Martians, although why they would want to invade Coventry no one would be quite sure. This is strangely reminiscent of the well documented �war of the worlds� saga in which misled Americans tore their hair out, grabbed their nearest gun, tank or rocket launcher in order to defend their stockpile of beefburgers. Apart from a minor stereotypical difference there�s similarity with both of these cases is that they were portrayed as actual events taking place. More importantly was they were clones of the so called �reliable� media conventions of a non-fictional nature, implying we have developed an inbuilt dominant perception of these formats and can separate fiction from reality, most of the time.
The media is recognised as a powerful sociological force so cannot be a reckless entity, free to rove outside the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable by our culture. Recognising that the media has a responsibility to society means that it is required to converge to certain moral standards. To insure these standards are met restrictions are put in place. A framework of censorship aims to curtail the media, preventing a disease that could be seen as another force deteriorating the fabric of our society.
The body controlling the release of films into British society is called the British Board of Film Classification, changing the last part of its name from censorship in 1985. This reflects a different approach to the same issue. The board doesn�t have a set policy of rules like the Motion Picture Production Code, introduced for Hollywood in 1930s. It works by feeling and responding to the mood of the public rather than inforcing a defined straightjacket of rules and regulations, restricting artistic freedom. It still is a social guardian, which involves withholding certain material from the public. It has to be an independent body, separated from the government, the industry, pressure groups and seen to be independent. Independent but has the trust of the people. Thought you might want to know.
While considering the effects of violence on young people�s the big issue of their access to adult material. We currently employ a rating system for films. The general principle makes sense. Everyone can see kids films and stuff with a more suitable amount of bad behaviour; there�s 12, 15, 18 and 18R. In theory this should be fine, as cinemas have a defence that should not be penetrated, pimple faced adolescents on �2 an hour. Everyone knows people sneak in or blag their way into 18 films but these are more likely to be approaching the designated age rather than being seven year olds with fake beards.
The films at the cinema seem to be pretty safe, you�re probably around the right age and unlikely to see the film many, many times. The age system seems workable at the cinema but once a videotape is released into the world then the authorities have lost control of the copy. People can buy videos from the market or off their friends, sidestepping the official channels quite easily. It can fall into the hands of impressionable youth and people can watch certain parts of it again and again. The BBFC treats videos differently censoring to a greater extent, omitting stuff that could be seen at the pictures.
Examples of this include the cutting of shots out of �Trainspotting�. Some of the processes of heroin preparation were cut, refined for video release. The BBFC judged that younger viewers could see this scene out of context. There are several questions the board asks on the use of drugs. �Does it instruct how to use drug?� is one of them. I don�t suppose they mean like an instructional video or a step by step guide, but considering people can watch it many many times it may be seen by some people in a similar way. Pulp Fiction was also cut for video use, in a similar vein. That probably wasn�t the greatest wording considering the subject matter but a close up of needle penetration was cut. Such images have been found to attract drug use, seducing a small minority of people.
Today with the invention of video recorders it is possible for young people, if allowed, gain access to material that some research suggests can be damaging and can encourage antisocial behaviour. Therefore television is more harshly censored. There�s some kind of logic to this sliding scale. Young people are less likely to see violence at the pictures than on video and less likely to see a video than television.
Sometimes it�s really terrible and obvious. Arnie says �You airhead� when the most unskilled lip reader can tell he�s saying �asshole�. I can�t remember what film that was in but it was really shoddy. My memory has holes, but so does a colander and they�re quite good. I can�t understand the BBC cutting out bits of; you guessed it, the Simpsons. The example when Bart prepares to jump over Springfield gorge on his skateboard and Homer tries to talk him out of it. Bart eventually agrees and there�s a sacred father and son moment before Homer treads on the skateboard and heads for the cliff. �I�m gonna make it� he says before dropping out of the sky and falling down the cliff. We see him bounce of the rocks, his body becoming more battered. Eventually he�s at the bottom and the skateboard falls on his head. In the next shot he�s being winced up by the helicopter, banging his head on the cliff face and he goes �Ow� in that comical way. At the top he�s carted into the back of the ambulance which then hits a tree and he rolls out of the back of it. He then falls down the cliff again going �Ow� �Ow� as he hits each individual rock and ends up in a heap at the bottom again. Then the stretcher falls on his head.
The BBC saw it fit to cut out most of the second fall, using longer cutaways to Bart and Nelson watching Homers clumsy decent, their heads jerking down, following his downfall. They cut out the stretcher from falling on his head while the skateboard seemed acceptable. I think the whole sequence should be acceptable considering the realism arguments for cartoon violence. Although it may be portrayed slightly graphically, but very few cartoons are actually seen as real life. It hardly is going to inspire someone to jump off a cliff. It�s fit enough to be on Sky an hour later so what�s going on?
The issue to do with censorship is, will all television output be made acceptable to children who may happen to be watching? This would mean not catering to adults, taming the medium so it� d have no teeth, reduce the reality and the insight into life which is violent. No matter when it is broadcasted, just on the off chance that someone�s watching who shouldn�t be.
Zamora stayed up and watched films all night. Does that mean we should not have violent ninja films on Channel 4 at three in the morning? Should his parents shoulder some of the blame that was assigned to the media? It�s clear they have a role to play in the protection from such influences until they are more rounded individuals with the psychological defence barriers. Surely parents have some responsibility if their children for allowing them to be exposed for what is not intended for them. The only other way is to cut it out completely, hampering the enjoyment of adults, the few depriving the many.
I think that violence in film can spark off deep-rooted violent reactions in some unstable individuals but is clearly used as a scapegoat in certain situations. It�s an unanswerable question, but are these people like a timebomb, waiting to go off? If the media didn�t do it then something else easily could. We have had unstable, dangerous individuals longer than we�ve had television.
On the whole the issue is unclear. This is why there�s still a raging debate between people like director Walter Hill and organisations like �Stop the media violence�. Hill says �I somehow think the notion that if you disarm Client Eastward or Arnold Shwarzenegger you can change the world in some positive way is probably a little naive� while others seem to think it is the root of all evil, accountable for a series of phenomenon surrounding us.
�Time spent viewing TV, movies or videogames is time spent not exercising.� They say that �Countless food commercials aimed at children promote unhealthy foods and don�t give children the full picture about a low fat diet�. They conclude that the media is responsible for fat Americans, forcing them to pile beefburgers into their mouths because they�re too ignorant to find out what�s bad for them. Best of all is bullet point four, after the one that blames TV for glamorising alcohol and smoking, it states �Sexual activity is commonplace on television and the movies, sending out the message that everyone does it..� I was really tempted to E-mail her and ask if she was getting any.
The portrayal of violence can effect certain individuals in certain ways, not to the extent that is sometimes assigned. Censorship is understandable to safeguard and uphold some of the basic morels of our society. Society is protecting itself from any threat to itself, forbidding the breaking of certain standards that have developed over the history of our people. Basic things, killing is wrong, violence is wrong. There�s a strange attitude to sex I don�t quite get, it probably holds it�s roots in the restrictive attitudes of Christianity. Words like �fuck� and �cunt� are banned but everyone uses them. �Shit� is offensive, �poop� is not, yet they mean the same thing. But society isn�t stagnant; it flows and changes with the mood of its people. It�s good that the BBFC �Shifts in line with public opinion� rather than inforcing set practices which aren�t taken along with the tide.
I think it usually crops up in extreme cases when people with problems are looking for an excuse to reduce their sentence. If the media isn�t a controlling hypodermic force, as most research suggests, then it cannot be held solely responsible for the actions of that individual. It�s clear that, at it�s most potent, violence cases it has to be mixed with other factors. Considering the amount of violent films around and the amount of people who have watched them, if it was the only thing required to automatically spark off �unjust use of great force� in people, then we�d all be complete psychopaths and not doing a media degree.