The possible link between violent movies and “real” violence seems to be discussed every time we have a mass shooting incident like the one in Colorado last week.
What makes the most recent massacre even more troubling is the fact that it happened in a movie theater that was showing a violent, comic-book derived film of the sort that is especially popular among boys and young men.
The alleged perp — 24-year-old James Holmes — dyed his hair red before he went to the theater, in an apparent attempt to look like a character from the “Batman” series (he was reported to have referred to himself as “The Joker”).
It doesn’t appear to be a coincidence that the shooting spree took place at a midnight screening of “The Dark Knight Rises,” the most heavily promoted and most widely anticipated comic book film of the year.
Like everyone else who loves movies, I get nervous when pundits try to draw a connection between on-screen violence and violence in real life.
A couple of days after the Aurora shooting I got a note from one of my favorite movie bloggers, Ken Anderson, who raised some very provocative points about the way film might influence us:
“When I watch the Academy Awards and some socially uplifting film wins big, all night long you get speeches about film’s power to influence, affect change,and inspire action. However, when word gets out that some negative or violent act was inspired by a film, all you get are Hollywood people saying that entertainment is entertainment…that it has no power to MAKE anyone do anything and film can’t incite or influence action. ?!?!?
I don’t get it.
Sometimes I think we’re all just a little afraid to admit/accept that film is as influential and powerful as I suspect it to be.”
Ken also pointed out that Stanley Kubrick withdrew “A Clockwork Orange” in England for many years because he was so disturbed by copycat violence there that followed the original 1971 release of his movie.
It is interesting that Hollywood will pat itself on the back for aiding in social change through such landmark movies as “Gentleman’s Agreement” and “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” and “Philadelphia” but tries to pull the covers up over its head when it is suggested that rampant violence in movies might have a negative social impact.
Liberals and conservatives alike have pushed for less smoking in films under the assumption that when young people see Julia Roberts or Sarah Jessica Parker puffing on a cig in a romantic comedy they will go and do likewise.
I doubt that there is much that can be done to reverse the tide of violence in nearly every form of entertainment, but the questions raised by Ken Anderson should be discussed.
I think the previous poster’s comment has a lot of weight in the discussion. Advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry that banks (with considerable success) on people being influenced by images. And these are only 60-30 second images! I think that just because we humans don’t instantly leap out of our theater seats and imitate the actions onscreen is no reason not to imagine that they don’t influence us in a lot of perhaps subtle ways, whereas the damaged mind is influenced in the headline-grabbing, unsubtle way.
I don’t know that we can say we’re mindless copycats, but a certain lack of humanity in movies and the way it seems to validate the same in audiences has always bothered me. For example: have you ever been in a theater and heard the audience laughing at some particularly cruel action onscreen, and suddenly felt a little afraid inside? Like you were surrounded by those rioters in “Day of the Locust”?
Images are so powerful and can’t be unseen…who knows what a steady diet of movie violence (irresponsible movie violence) really does?
Thanks for letting me ramble!
$billions are spent every year on advertising because films and images influence behavior. there is no question that violent, sick movies influence the lives of people who see them.
Joe,
I take Ken’s point that there is a double standard, but perhaps the solution to that is to recognize the self-congratulatory blather for what it is rather than to draw a cause-effect link between a movie and violent actions.
Perhaps we could make that connection if after every violent movie people went off on killing sprees. But even if the murderer in this case claims a connection to Batman, what does he represent compared to the millions of people who have seen the Christopher Nolan films and reacted in no measurable way whatsoever? The percentage doesn’t even register, so I think it’s very tough to draw a legitimate movie-violence connection.
I think many people, including some members of Congress in particular, like to make the connection because it detracts from the real issue that nobody wants to talk about – the fact that it’s so easy for anyone to build up a personal arsenal with which he can commit the kind of atrocity that occurred last week.
If you remember, following the last tragedy of this kind in Colorado, Congress held hearings — not to discuss how two high school kids could become so heavily armed — but whether violent movies and Marylin Manson were to blame. It was a baldly cynical exercise designed to give the impression that they were “doing something” about the problem, while in actuality they were cowering before the gun lobby, unwilling to examine the true problem.
Sorry for the long-winded message.
Good point, Joe! I am of the opinion that movies do, in fact, move people to act in not necessarily positive ways. But the power of the movie is there, nonetheless. So what can or should be done about? Absolutely nothing. Let us continue be entertained by movies that have that all-powerful allure — and in the process to help us act, think and examine ourselves.
I truly hope the Knight series will not be forever tarnished by this unfortunate incident, and by the actions of one overzealous movie-goer!