Do violent movies cause violence?

I believe that we are looking at the subject backwards. Violence causes violent films. Some are done intelligently and open up a discussion. Some are exploitative and don't, at least not as much. However, the mind which may be susceptible to violent films will probably not be able to differentiate the social commentary/satire from the exploitation. Even so, I don't believe in trying to protect a film like A Clockwork Orange any more than The Last House on the Left. I mean, The Last House on the Left is a remake of Bergman's The Virgin Spring and directed by a guy with a Master's Degree and an expert in English and Psychology (Wes Craven), but the cinematic/artistic comparisons stop there. Even so, I find Craven to have transcended that film and made some good social satires of his own.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Yep, though as I said earlier, when I murder somebody I'm gonna blame every movie under the sun in the hope of a lighter sentence/diminished responsibility rap.

If violence causes violent films, pretending to hang the blame for violent acts on them causes tiresome moralistic nimbys. Or something.


And this is from someone who thinks that Tipper Gore would make a fine name for a building site-based horror movie...

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

This proves a point: Some kids really haven't learned to differentiate between fantasy and reality, and it sounds as if these particular youths who went out and committed crimes (i. e. stealing, beating people up, etc.) were violence-prone kids who clearly couldn't/wouldn't draw the line between fantasy and reality, if one gets the drift.

Trying to say people don't know the difference between reality and movies or video games is reaching. You are born with an innate sense of right and wrong, reality and fiction. The super small percentage of people who can't differentiate are not even a part of what is being discussed here. Primarily you are talking about teens whenever the discussion of violence and media is concerned. Which leads to one thing, the parents.

If a kid never watched tv in his life he is still as likely of violence as some one who watched it all the time. The world is just always looking to blame something else for what happens, there has been far more violence in humans history far before there was violence in media to blame it on.

__________________

Http://SurrealUniverse.com Reviews on food, games, manga, new movies, and more!

I don't agree ... 'Right vs Wrong' these things are learnt. You get your morale code from parents, school and society. I unfortunately know many who have a sense that the world owes them ... this they got from their environment in their informative years. The attitude of to hell with everyone else as long as I'm ok I'm happy and bugger the rest is prevalent. If a kid grows up in a household where a fist or yelling is the way to solve an arguement, usually becomes an adult with the same reactions to altercations.

__________________

Way to go, FernTree!! I couldn't have said it more articulately myself!! Bravo! Thanks.

I always think that's a stupid connection to make.
O_o
There has been violence since the dawn of man and it's stupid to think violent movies beget violent people.

I agree, Cinephile. A person(s) who goes out an committs a violent act(s) after watching a given movie or TV program would've more than likely gone out and committed violence anyway, whether they watched that particular movie or not.

I don't think violent movies can lead a person who watch it to be violent. It depend on the mindset of the person. According to the Research in American Academy, Kids who view violent events, such as a kidnapping or murder, are also more likely to believe that the world is scary and that something bad will happen to them. But I believe if parent explain and guide them this problem will be solve.

You've made another excellent point, Zorro. Thanks.

I don't think so, People who are violent do violent acts and watching a movie isn't going to stop a violent person from doing such things. People that cannot distinguish between reality and the fantasy of the movies are the ones that are screwed up , NOT the Directors and actress that are putting on a show about violence.

Right on, Anybodys!!

I would say it certainly aides in bringing out violence in a person. Violent movies can be a stimulant for certain people who are so inclined

While I wholeheartedly disagree with the first sentence in your post, D.Bree (it's sounds too much like a generalization), I think that the second sentence in your post is somewhat true, but not entirely, if one gets the drift.

Violent movies can stimulate an act of violence in an already violent person. Some regular Joe isn't going to come off the street and see a movie like Taxi Driver or some other violent movie and start killing people. It must be already installed in the persons nature or character to have them impulsive act like that because of a movie plot.

That's very true, Anybodys! Yet, this whole discussion begs yet another question: How can anybody know whether or not a person is violence-prone to begin with, and how can such a person be prevented from going to see such a movie at all? It's highly doubtful that preventing such a person is necessarily the answer, but who knows?

It'll probably only work in one of two worlds:

1) Somebody who works for a fascist government records your actions all the time;

2) Somebody who loves you and wants to protect you and others records the evidence or enlists someone else to do so.

No joke! Don't think for one minute that the government couldn't/wouldn't have tracking implant chips put into everybody in order to monitor everyone's individual move(s). Scary, indeed.

I agree, because of a movie plot, a holy book, a piece of music, a role playing game or whatever.

These people (and their families) like to put the blame on X stimulus but really any thinking person knows where the blame belongs.

You can't opt out of responsibility for the things you choose to do. Trying to only makes you look ridiculous. That's my opinion anyway.

__________________
Bleacheddecay

I think anything I say will end up being redundant, but here's my 2 cts:

1. To answer the question of this thread - no.
2. To add a caveat (that has already been discussed) - life does imitate art in a great way, and what we watch is (loosely or closely considered) art, in some way. Unfortunately, television does socialize people these days - this is why you every occasionally run into people who come to America and express incredulity that life is not as they saw it on our TV programs - it means they actually considered that the TV might truly depict our way of life. If I had a nickel for the foreign residents who told me that "America is not like it is on the Movies!," I'd probably have a couple bucks. If an adult is capable of making the mistake of believing that what we show is what we accept - how much more so children?

As to my point #2, there is an entire sub-argument that parents are responsible to combat the misperception in their children that the intended fantasy/escapism/un-reality of TV/movies/games is real, and is acceptable in society. As much as I agree with "responsible" art, I dont believe that the responsiblity of parents and any ensuing blame should be transferred to a random 3rd party artist.

Simply put, its like this:
1. There are forces of evil in this world
2. There are forces of good in this world
3. Everyone will come into contact with both forces of evil and forces of good.

It is NOT sufficient for a parent to "opt-out" of teaching their child good, or giving their child a reserve of good to draw upon in order to combat the evil they will most assuredly face. It is ASSININE for a parent to refuse to teach/give their child good, and then require that no evil exist in the world to corrupt their children. This is a bad parent. It is also incorrect say a parent failed (what parent wouldnt grapple with shame, though?), when they have given their child all the good they can, and the child comes out bent and evil anyway. What that means is that their child has truly made an informed choice to be bent and evil. In this case, the child has failed him/herself.


In Sum:
There IS a social responsibility and awareness that art should have. However, it should not have to compensate for, apologize for the lack of, or take the place of real parenting.

__________________
something witty goes here......