It's well known that TV violence holds an attraction for most viewers and this attraction translates into ratings and profits. Because of this, many in the media have been reluctant to admit that media violence is in any way responsible for violence in our society.
If it weren't for the ratings and profits involved, producers would undoubtedly be much more willing to acknowledge the harm in TV and film violence and do something about it.
There are many problems in linking media violence with violence in society. First, as some people have suggested, only a small percent of those who watch violence are responsible for violent acts. Most of the world it seems are unaffected by it.
Even though we can't establish a simple, direct, cause-and-effect relationship between media violence and violence in our society, we can draw some conclusions from things that have happened.
It seems that considerable media attention is given when film violence is imitated in real life as in the case of "copycat killings." In many studies during the years easily available to see, we have been told again and again that "exposure to violent images is associated with anti-social and aggressive behaviour". As a society deeply shaped by visual culture, we are increasingly desensitised to violence and anaesthetised against empathy with the pain of victims. We are, in effect, "habituated" to violence not only by watching it on screen, but by the way such behaviour is repeatedly depicted as both "natural" and "right"
Studies show that people who watch a lot of TV violence not only behave more aggressively, but also are more prone to hold attitudes that favour violence and aggression as a way of solving conflicts. These viewers also tend to be less trusting of people and more prone to see the world as a hostile place.
An extensive study done in America found a relationship between viewing media violence and the acceptance of sexual assault, violence, and alcohol use.
Studies also show that media violence also has a desensitising effect on viewers.
As a result, specific levels of violence become more acceptable over time. It then takes more and more graphic violence to shock (and hold) an audience.
History gives us many examples. One example is the famous Roman Circuses started out being a rather tame form of entertainment. But in an effort to excite audiences, violence and rape were introduced in the arena settings. Subsequently, as audiences got used to seeing these things, they then demanded more and more, until the circuses eventually became extremely grotesque, and hundreds, if not thousands, of people died in the process of providing "entertainment". This just shows how if people are given a taste of something they will want more and more of it.
Although in some cases media violence is typically unrealistic, simplistic, glorified, and even presented as humorous. The "bang, bang, you're dead" scenario that we so often see on TV or in films communicates nothing of the reality of death or dying. It is only when we see death firsthand or have a loved one killed that we realise that death in film or on TV bears little resemblance to what we experience in real life. Even the sound of gunshots on TV and in films is so different from real gunshots that people often fail to recognise them in real life.
Even the consequences of killing, especially by the "good guys," are seldom shown. Violence and killing are commonly depicted as a ready and even acceptable solution to problems. To put it simplistically, problems are solved when the "bad guys" are all dead.
On the other hand, according to most newspapers, Britain is awash with violent on screen behaviour, which are openly available to young children; there is a direct casual link between the video Child's play 3 and the murders of James Bulger and Suzanne Capper; some people have now started to make assumptions between screen violence and real-life crime.
In fact, "video nasties" as they are called were outlawed by police action under the Obscene Publications Act even before the Video Recordings Acts was passed in 1984; there are no casual links between Child's Play 3 and the Bulger and Capper murders, as the police involved in both cases readily testified. Although, it seems some people still are unable to get over the fact that the police officers leading the Bulger and Capper cases had consistently denied that the video's, specifically Child's Play 3, had caused the killings, most of the press simply fell back on repeating that there must be a link because common sense demands it. The problem with common sense assumptions in a society such as our own is that, when it is delivered to everyone by the press, it is difficult to challenge it. This is because it becomes deeply rooted in people's minds because of the obvious or not so obvious link between the film and real life.
I am not illustrating that these films are the best things for society, they are just not the worst. It is easy to blame films such as this because of it elements.
Violence on screen could also good when another element is worked into it with it. One example in my opinion is religion. Religion can often serve as an aid to victims of violence in popular film; it is regularly portrayed as supportive of or leading to violence. This does not mean that religion is always portrayed in a negative light in such instances. Though religion can lead to immoral or unrighteous violence, it is often depicted as supportive of redemptive and righteous violence. One may certainly ask whether violence can ever be righteous or redemptive, but in popular film, it most assuredly is. Various films have combined religion and violence into one another. There are many examples from films; Mel Gibson's Braveheart offers yet another spin on the crusader image with the standard convention of having a priest bless the warriors on screen before they engage in battle. This is a visual clue that the cause of the warrior is just and the opponent is evil. So, too, Friar Tuck in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves blesses the band of Merry Men as they sack, pillage, and rob. Also in the film, Morgan Freeman is a faithful Muslim who has joined himself to Robin Hood out of fulfilment of a religious vow and whose violence flows from his religious commitment and disciplined spirituality. Another more recent variation can be found in Saving Private Ryan, where Private Jackson is a sharpshooter who quotes from the Hebrew Psalter prior to each of the carefully calculated shots that invariably strike their targets. These quotations are not ordinary prayers offered up by a frightened soldier. Private Jackson quotes scripture as a way of lining up his rifle, and each shot is offered up as a prayer. Finally a film seen as controversial for its violence but never the religious aspect looked at. In Pulp Fiction, two gangsters, Jules and Vincent, are on a routine hit for their boss. They enter an apartment, begin a conversation with two young men who have double-crossed their boss and then execute the two men. Unknown to Jules and Vincent, however, a third man has been hiding in the bathroom. He emerges into the room unloading bullets at close range. None of the bullets hits either Vincent or Jules and they, of course, proceed to blow him away. The dialogue then turns to a debate between the two gangsters as to whether this event was in fact divine intervention or just luck. Jules (played by Samuel L. Jackson), who likes to quote a passage from Ezekiel just before he kills people, experiences the event as a miracle and decides to give up his life of violence and crime. Jules has had a "moment of clarity" and believes that "God got involved." This is nothing less than a religious conversion and it leads Jules to a rejection of violence. It is ironic that Pulp Fiction, which is generally perceived as one the most violent films of the 1990's, should be one of the only films that features an explicit rejection of violence out of a clearly religious motivation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Studying The Media O'Sullivan, Duton, Rayner
The Media Studies Reader O'Sullivan, Jewkes
Politics and Mass Media In Britain Ralph Negrine