Action in Films Doesn't Cause Violence in Reality

684 Words3 Pages
* Let me ask you a question. Have ever made the decision to watch an action pact movie, which is mostly likely going to include guns and gore? Did you feel the erg when it finished to go on a violent rampage? Most likely the answer would be No, because the average person is not inspired to pick up a gun and shoot somebody just because he or she saw it in a movie. However there is a small chance that there are people who are stupid or impressionable enough, that they should go act out a scene from these films, and these people are a small minority that don’t make any statistical difference. The issue is there are people out there that believe violent films provoke and are the cause to violence in our society, but by then end of this speech, they will be re-thinking their theory. * * Violence is a large topic. There so many un-answered questions on how to stop or reduce the amount of viciousness in our society. But blaming violent films isn’t the answer, because there is no proof the repeated exposure to cinematic horrors has more impact than, for example, mental illness, long-term unemployment and poverty, alienation, alcohol and drugs, mob behaviour or simply frustration and anger at the state of the world. Humanity is smart enough to understand the difference between the real world and the fiction world, and this talk about violence in films affecting children is another theory that isn’t supported. * * In an article I read called Not Wanted: The ugly side of Hollywood is an article written by Paul Murray about the negative side on violent films, and the writer uses the example of the movie Batman, “ I know there is an argument that the batman comic book character was conceived as an anti-hero. But that is a hopelessly inadequate justification for the sadistic horror that has replaced the Biff! Zap! Pow!”. Murray states, that the old notion of

More about Action in Films Doesn't Cause Violence in Reality

Open Document