Media Theory: Fictional Media Violence

Media production – Unit Title: Media Theory: Fictional Media Violence

Research-led Essay 1

There is in fact no one thing, no chemically isolatable and analysable substance, that is violence, any more than there is one thing that is sex, even though it is easy to slip into talking as if there were. John Fraser, Violence in the Arts (1974:9) – a quote taken from Kendrick, J, (2009)

There are many difficulties in providing a definition for fictional media violence. If it is purely visual, then this leaves no room for context – a sadistic or authentic spectacle is entirely separate to something slapstick or comical. Conversely, if the nature of the scene were all, then violence could constitute anything implied or inferred. Furthermore, violence can also represent a form of education, for example, in the case of government ‘Drink Awareness’ ad-campaigns. Andrew Irving in Morrisons ‘Introduction’ (1999:4) explains this as ‘Big V’ and ‘Little v’ violence; that is, violence, which infringes on the moral well being of viewers, and violence, which is harmless or even intellectually improving. However, even then, there is no one expression that can entirely encompass the opinions of all viewers across a vast cultural terrain with innumerable contexts.

In this essay, I will explore these issues of screen violence in relation to the justification of their nature, paramount to this being the nature of media consumption. Particular professionals who monitor historical violence in media have stated violence is. Carter (2003) quotes Potter arguing that ‘Violence is a violation of a character’s physical or emotional well-being. It includes two key elements – intentionality and hard  - at least one of which must be present.’ Carter also quotes Potter by saying “when we have to write a definition, it is difficult to translate our understanding into words” Not all portrayals of fictional media violence is the same, other factors such as the context and the medium specificity need to be taken into consideration. The realism is that socially we have not yet positively outlined what violence in media is as it elicits highly individualised responses, it is like epistemology the theory of knowledge, we will never know it all/it as it is always growing and expanding, whether when examining the material we watch/play/listen/read, or exploring the possible follow-on violent conduct that an individual may commit. When deciding is something is violent we have to consider a lot of factors like the type of act – was it done in a humors way or a serious way, the intention – was it on premeditated or an accident along with the degree of harm to the victim(s). Real violence has been defined by Hartley, J (2002) as a “Physical attack or abuse, normally interpersonal, but also person-to-object (and in some scenarios, vice versa).” He goes on to say, “what counts as Violence requires both contextual and cultural agreement.

Fictional violence is a lot harder to define, as there is no physical interaction with the viewer of it.  What makes things violent? Is it more violent when Tom a cartoon gets a bullet blown into his head from Tom and Jerry (1965-1972) or when Peggy in Eastenders (1985-present) a soap opera slaps a person around the face, Are they both violent? And is so which one is more violent and why? Specific reports state these concepts contrarily; we may never find a definitive answer.

Shortly from the release of Stanley Kubrick's motion-picture apartment of ‘A Clockwork Orange’ in 1971 the film was extremely culturally analyzed and taken apart to be thoughtlessly violent. It has been said that Kubrick elevated and promoted the violence in his film.

A ‘Clockwork Orange’ is the perfect example of violence presented within moral framing of everyday life or as John Connor (1998) would say “turn off violence”. The significance of immoral as well as moral acts and feelings in individuals is a central subject of ‘A Clockwork Orange’ similar things have been said about Kubrick films such as ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (1968) which additional has a lot of political elements to it. Alex is contemptible since he is given unrestricted restriction to his violent desires, but that awareness of choice is also what makes him a person. This is dissimilar to a lot of the ‘grown-ups’ in the picture, as they seem, less energetic and free.

The scene in which Alex is humming "Singing in the Rain" along with realistic raping Mrs. Alexander is feasibly the utmost memorable instant in the 136 minutes of the film. The inappropriateness of Alex singing and moving around to the renowned play about love whilst physically pounding the Mr.Alexander and raping his wife leaving a large degree of hard is strikingly commanding of the viewer’s attention, leaving some shocked and offended. A similar film with contrasting elements is Lars von Trier’s ‘Antichrist’ (2009), with the act of ‘making love linked with the death of a baby. The differences being in ‘ACO’ Alex is the protagonist, which makes it hard for the viewer to dislike him even after such unmoral acts. Striking in the awareness that it constructs in the spectator such conflicting emotions: an desire to enjoy at the complete disconnection concerning listening to this tune as Alex's aesthetically performing like he's Gene Kelly, and the repulsion of observing anti-feministic shot of a lady being raped. Alex willingly puts himself into the deed with off-balanced enthusiasm, but is the audience meant to go along with Alex's crimes and enjoy as he behaves like a savage?

A wide disapproval gathered alongside ‘A Clockwork Orange’ is that Stanley Kubrick promotes a type of unethical authentic violence like in this scene, showing it to the spectator in an impressive, opera style, vibrant, and superbly enhanced way. Inter-textually the differences in which ‘ACO’ is seen to be much more violent then other modern films like the playful violence of ‘Saw’ (2004) is that Alex has no redeemable motivation for this crimes, no justification or redemption, an psychoanalysis of Alex would suggest beside his own personality Alex has developed into this monster by events in his early childhood, but unlike Jigsaw in ‘Saw’ where the violence could arguably be appropriate/fair or justified, the audience is never told about a backstory which would explain for Alex’s deeds. Alex happily describes his ideological journey throughout the ‘ultra-violence’ he demonstrates in especially explicit crime such as when he and his droogs sexual assault Mrs. Alexander and assault her husband Mr. Alexander.

Kubrick keeps using the same methods that he initiated in the gang war scene: The satirical manipulation of music, representational mise-en-scene and the prominent emphasis on sex. In ‘A Clockwork Orange’, lots of distinctive subjects are shown - for instance government, art and topics of an ethical kind. The ‘rape’ in ‘ACO’ pays a lot of attention on the writer's wife, here Alex acts sadistically, violently, and deprived of sympathy, but what primarily separates him from the ‘grown-ups’ is that he has a lot more energy and life in his evil deeds. In the home invasion sequence, the gang put on clown disguises along with there iconic white uniform, this now sets a additional relaxed feeling to the action of rape nearly letting the spectator accept it. A similar example of this is in Nolan’s ‘The Dark Knight’ (2008) where the Joker wearing a mask is killing people but due to the comicalness of the mask the brutal killings seems less of a crime. The perverse moralities and mise-en-scene confronts conventional thoughts about music’s primary job, and here is the most overriding factor in Alex’s love for violence. During the rape, Gene kelly's singin' in the rain music stimulates Alex to a sense of heighted enjoyment during his assault of Mrs. Alexander. Music is representable as a sign of Alex’s choice to commit violence. Kubrick uses different music when the sexual assault starts. He changes from the humor of "Singin in the Rain" to the predictable use of music to demonstrates and enhance the meaning of the visuals. Kubrick's manipulating of the viewers love to watch strengthens the opposing reactions in the audience.

Violence with Alex in ‘A Clockwork Orange’ can be seen as a result of affection or love, more then simply a demonstration of control and ferociousness. Alex may not love Mrs. Alexander who he is hurting but he loves the act in which he hurts her and is empowered by the music, which lifts him. The huge bulk of violence in the scene is erotic, Alex’s rape of Mrs. Alexander, is conducted with gratification, this is what makes the film theoretically hazardous to some viewers, offering them distasteful principles of how they should treat people but also that it is alright to feel good about it. Alex’s determination for being present in Mr. Alexander’s house, and also the entirety of the film, circles throughout the notion of power: who will control and who will be controlled. In this depersonalized realm of manipulators and manipulated, violence stops being an exploit of inhumaneness but an undertaking of control and affection much like postmodern views of Isabelle Huppert’s character in ‘The Piano Teacher’ (2001).

I am able to comprehend the dissimilarity of real and fiction is that violent exploits occur extremely more frequent in movies than it does in the real-life society that I live in. In England, I have never seen a murder; I have never seen a person get shot or cut into pieces but in Rambo (2008) this is nothing out of the ordinary yet I have a consumption to watch it. One of the main things about fictional violence for me is that it’s not an insight into everyday life, so I find it very hard to be indulged, captured and ‘sucked in’ by it, saying this however technological advances is making violence on screen more and more realistic. Television programs like ‘Coronation Street’ (1960-present), full-length Hollywood productions like ‘Machine Gun Preacher’ (2011) and even documentaries such as ‘March of the Penguins’ (2005) are layered to make them seem more realistic, and from the scripting to the final edit, the meaning is continuously manipulated and evolving which the viewer should have in mind. Knowing this I find it hard to see what harm can come from viewing it. However, say for what ever reason (ignorance, young age, disability etc.) you do not understand what you are seeing to be fake, you can be subjecting yourself to potential trauma, disturbing images that could lead to mental or physical acts that are outside of the norms of functioning society. For example what would happen if a person believe Leather-face from ‘The Texas Chain Saw Massacre’ (1974) was real? This could lead to potential damage. In W. James Potters ‘On Media Violence’ (1999) he describes media violence as being “serious physical assaults” which ‘The Texas Chain Saw Massacre’ definitely falls under, so why would people want to watch something that could course them harm?

Carter and Weaver quotes a Daily Telegraph article (25 October 1993) that reported on research claiming there was a link between children’s use of violent video games and violent behavior.

“Children ‘Act Out Video Violence’ – Children who regularly play video games admit they can be addictive and lead them acting out the violent scenes that are an intrinsic part of many games, according to a survey by researchers at Aston University. Many described violent scenes ‘with relish’; they found Almost 60 percent had witnessed other children mimicking violent games.

As for myself being exposed to fictional violence”,

 I’m sure that I have been desensitised to real violence though not to the extremes of mimicking violence. For instance when I see or hear about an environmental tragedy or a terrorist attack in which countless amounts of real people have lost their lives, I seem to not even ‘bat an eye lid’ and soon forget about it.

A commitment to learning and media has stimulated me to query how violence is interpreted in movies and interactive games like ‘Grand Theft Auto IV (2008); and even to examine why it's there in the first place. For me the deciding factor of whether the use of violence is appropriate depends on the reasons behind it. Is it for ecstasies and exhilaration, a delight in the unknown? Fictional violence is like a substitute for real violence, meaning that violence in films or video games has no realistic consequences for me at least. One of my refusals to fictional violence is that it illustrates such things as individuals raping and getting away with it or being shot and still able to walk. For example:

 “The methodical, slow-burning violence found in Laurel and Hardy’s films, for example, does not have any real consequences in their own world.  A sharp poke in the eye, or the setting of the seat-of-the –pants on fire, creates a momentary yelp, but no sense of lasting damage to the fictional character.” (Schneider, 2004)

These unrealistic images distort the customer’s reality, leading them to believe that this is how reality works to. An alternative instance of how observing violence is damaging is that there is no consequences to the ferocious acts, you never see the emotional suffering, the repercussions, the way victims undergo pain after being subject to violence.

For me there are many pleasures and anxieties linked to the consumption of fictional media violence, I want to watch ‘Scream’s (1996) ‘slash’ teenagers up and ‘Hostel’ (2005) mutilate people. I want to feel scared, a rush but I don’t want to feel that I am in any real danger at any time. However watching violent content is unlikely to impact my choice in what events I do after, or how destructive I present myself. Doing a case study on myself however may not be fair as due to my broadcasting training I have learnt to answer considerately and unsympathetically to television/game content which in return has desensitized me to being manipulated to strong content. Hill talks about how “the social context of viewing is clearly a key factor in the pleasure of horror” Hill, A, (1999:181)

 The enjoyment of group-watching violence is the entertaining part and not the act of violence for example in ‘Paranormal Activity’s (2007) I enjoyed watching people ‘jump’ more then I enjoyed seeing the on screen violence. Examining violence has allowed me to evaluate it, to permit me to question what media violence means and how it narrates to the reality. Nevertheless if you have no knowledge in the media field you may be more perceptible to the violence on screen or in books.

Violence on screen or anything to that matter can be harmful as no one understands or ‘takes in’ the same thing as each other. The way I respond to a movie, a record, computer games or television series is shaped by my own different factors.  My own particular outlooks, values and experiences, including my past exposure to media violence are what forms this response.

What makes the general public apprehensive is the elevation of ‘dangerous’ interactivities with the violent content that vulnerable people ingest.

There is no way to entirely exclude forceful and vicious material, or to promise that younger family members will avoid participating in interactive games or films that are certified as being to mature for them. All that can be put into action is to try and secure that the public’s thoughts on what is unsuitable will coincide with the British Board of Film Classification. Is the ‘Human Centipede II’ (2011) to far? And if so why?

The moving image both traditional and modern can reveal adolescents to some strong matter, but researchers have progressively demonstrated that they also encourage benefits.

At the same time, many of the television, film and interactive media commodities to which we are unprotected to, such as horror pictures, deliver positive assistances.

What should be evident to us when we see all these types of statements and readings is that media violence covers extremely hard and complex questions. There are evidently anxieties with concerns to violent media artifacts such as desensitization, mature content, satiety, and encouraging distress in spectators.

Bibliography

Kendrick, J (2009). Film violence: history, ideology, genre. London: Wallflower. p01.

I found this book paticualy useful as Kendrick’s book is not a too deep-thinking or even that theoretical so is fairly easy to understand, It very good at shortening what would other wise be very ‘wordy’, Kendrick’s book serves a easy purpose that the other more academic books do not: it helped me where to begin, Kendrick was by far the best for a quick overview.

Morrison, D E et al (1999). Introduction. Luton: University of Luton Press. p04.

Like the title would suggest, Morrison gave a nice introduction to my research.  I used this book to begin exploring the meanings and contexts in which violent actions occur, Morison stresses the commanding essential motivation for violence.

Carter, C (2003). Violence in Media . London: Open University Press;. p02.

Carter helped me bring together sources on violence, along with general studies, on and around violence.

Hartley, J (2002). Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: ‪The Key Concepts. London: Psychology Press. p234.

This wasn't as useful as Morrison’s Introduction, though it was more of a literature review of theory. Hartley explains topics that are often not connected with media violence but still makes a provocative case for studying media through. However, having read a variety of similar books, I didn't feel that Harley brought much new to my essay.

Carter & Weaver (2003). The dark side of cyberspace. Buckingham: Open University Press. p140.

Schneider, S J (2004). New Hollywood violence. Manchester : Manchester University Press. p130.

Hill, A (1991). "Risky business: film violence as an interactive phenomenon" from Stokes, & Maltby, Identifying Hollywood's audiences: cultural identity and the movies. London: British Film Institute . p181.

Films:

Tom and Jerry. (1965-1972). TV series. Directed by Hanna Barbera. USA: MGM Television.

EastEnders. (1985-). TV series. Directed by Dermot Boyd, David Andrews. UK: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

A Clockwork Orange. (1971). Film. Directed by Stanley Kubrick. UK|USA: Warner Bros. Pictures.

2001: A Space Odyssey. (1968). Film. Directed by Stanley Kubrick. UK|USA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM).

Antichrist. (2009). Film. Directed by Lars von Trier. Denmark: Zentropa Entertainments.

Saw. (2004). Film. Directed by James Wan. USA|Australia: Evolution Entertainment.

The Dark Knight. (2008). Film. Directed by Christopher Nolan. USA: Warner Bros. Pictures.

The Piano Teacher. (2001). Film. Directed by Michael Haneke. Austria: Arte.

Rambo. (2008). Film. Directed by Sylvester Stallone. USA: Lionsgate.

Coronation Street. (1960). TV series. Directed by Tony Warren. UK: Granada Television.

Machine Gun Preacher. (2011). Film. Directed by Marc Forster. USA: Relativity Media.

March of the Penguins. (2005). Documentary. Directed by Luc Jacquet. France: Bonne Pioche.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. (1974). Film. Directed by Tobe Hooper. USA: Vortex.

Grand Theft Auto IV. (2008). Video Game. Directed by Rod Edge. UK|USA: Rockstar North.

Scream. (1996). Film. Directed by Wes Craven. USA: Dimension Films.

Hostel. (2005). Film. Directed by Eli Roth. USA: Hostel LLC.

The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence). (2011). Film. Directed by Tom Six. USA: Six Entertainment Company.