Irakli Makharadze

"People ask me, 'Where does all this violence come

In the beginning of the 1930’s three gangster films have appeared on the movie screens of
the United States – Little Caesar, The Public Enemy and Scarface. For those times these movies
were harsh, violent and realistic in their physical representation. Depression-era audience responded
strongly to all the action violence, murders and manslaughter that these films contained. Public
opinion has become vocal against such violent sound films and produced the threat of countrywide
boycott by the Catholic Church. That provoked censorship battles with Motion Picture Producers
and Distributors of America (MPPDA). The final result was the imposition of the Production Code,
which ruled Hollywood with a rod of iron more than 30 years.
Hot on the trail in 1933 Henry James Forman in his volume Our Movies Made Children
suggested that the influence of motion pictures on children was both extensive and harmful. After
that according to Quentin Tarantino, “Every 10 years, there's a book which comes along and says
there's violence in the streets, people are starving, anarchy brewing - blame the playmakers. It's their
fault.” From time to time part of the society come out against the screen violence and categorically
demand the abolition of such films on the pretext that such movies affect children's self-
consciousness and pushing them to crimes. In the USSR it was believed that a negative impact in
terms of screen violence is possible only in a capitalist society. Authorities declared that "in contrast
to Soviet cinema, bourgeois films have a devastating impact on children. Particularly corrosive
effects on children have American films. In these movies the protagonist is the conqueror, killer,
robber. Under the influence of these films criminality among children is growing and adolescents
entering the path of robbery and debauchery." But the same time the demonstration of revolutionary,
proletarian, military, etc. "justified violence" is not only not prohibited but encouraged. Meanwhile,
as critics have noted today, “in 1920’s there wasn’t more brutal and naturalistic cinema than Soviet,
in fact, no "bourgeois censorship" would have pass in theaters hundredth of those atrocities that was
depicted in films about revolution.
For many years, researchers argue about whether the violence displayed on screen, raising
the real violence, promotes it. Many commentators have asked whether the amount of violence
portrayed on American movie and TV screens has anything to do with the growing violence on our
streets and in our homes. “Does violence put ideas in people minds? Asks Quentin Tarantino and
answers: “It probably does. You can’t make a blanket statement that it does or doesn’t.” There is
still no clear answer to these questions. Countless studies haven’t a clue how or if people are
affected by what they see on the screen. From the date of their appearance film and television
industry presented as the main culprits. As early as the l950s Congress held hearings on the possible
negative effects of television. When several senators expressed concern over the role of TV shows
in the increasing rates of juvenile delinquency and crime, industry representatives immediately
promised to reduce violence while simultaneously denying any evidence of harmful effects.
Some scholars acknowledges that film and television violence can negatively affect youths
who grow up in abusive families but contends that its effect is otherwise overstated. The author of
Death Wish director Michael Winner thought that there was completely no connection between
movies and real-life violence.”It’s a lot of hearsay, he said. “A lot of witch-hunting. A lot of finger
pointing.” In a commentary in USA Today magazine, Joe Saltzman also repeats the argument that
exposure to violence in the media does not automatically lead to violent crime. “Logic dictates that,
if movies, television, video games, and the internet are responsible for this kind of behavior, then
why is this event so unusual? If these media so corrupt the minds and hearts and souls of America’s
young people, then why doesn’t this kind of activity happen every day?”
According to Alfred Hitchcock, violence on the screen can cause unhealthy reactions only in
the unhealthy consciousness. When the Los Angeles serial killer caught he confessed that his third
victim he killed after watching a Psycho, reporters pounced on Hitchcock's demanding comments.
Hitchcock in response, asked, "What movie he was watching before he committed a second
murder?"
If media violence is having an effect, all communities with TV’s in all countries should be
showing similar violence rates. Television was also introduced to France, Germany, Italy, and Japan
at around the same time as it came to the United States and Canada... If television violence were
causing the increase in crime, surely it should have had the same effect elsewhere. We do not
witness the massacre of children in very many countries where Hollywood movies are the main
source of entertainment. It should be noted that in most countries the firearms is much less available
than in the United States. In Europe automatic weapons are forbidden, in Switzerland every National
Guard family member has weapons at home, but it’s not encouraged them to use it in the streets or
elsewhere.
TV and film industry most likely are not cause of the violence in the society. Many other
factors are involved, including individuals, the home, schools and churches, the work and recreation
environments, and the society as a whole. TV and films are one of the factors, reasons that
established our social-cultural environment and violence that depicts on TV and movies is a
reflection and effect what happened in and around us. American director Robert Aldrich, whose
World War II hit Dirty Dozen became an apologist for a new wave of movie violence in 1960’s,
said: "I don't think violence on film breeds violence in life. Violence in life breeds violence in
films." Dennis Hopper agree with him: “Whether it reflects the time we live in or not, the violence
we are seeing on the screen is not what is creating the violence in our streets.”
Long before the TV, radio and newspapers, there was lot of violence, bloodshed, terrible
mass murders and gory wars in the world, so craving for violence is to be found in the very nature of
man. Playwright and anthropologist Robert Ardrey claimed that man's rapacious appetite for
violence is not the product of a negative socioeconomic environment, or the traumatic early days
experience, but was instead caused by dominant instinctive drives. A man is a murderer with the
natural love of slaughter and the instinctive impulse to struggle for control over the area of territory
for himself. The author of brilliant, violent and controversial movies (Wild Bunch, Straw Dogs) Sam
Peckinpah, admirer of Ardrey’s works, insisted, that violent movies reflects the violence that exists
within us all and denial of this is more dangerous than violence itself: ”We’re violent by nature.
We’re going to survive by being violent... If we don’t recognize that we’re violent people, we’re
dead... Churches, laws, everybody, seems to think that man is a noble savage. But he’s only animal,
a man-eating, talking animal. Recognize it.” From immemorial time people have watched with
pleasure the death penalty, including in enlightened Europe, was transformed by the popular and still
remains so in some countries. It is remarkable to note that in one of the first feature short film, more
precisely 30 second clip, is depicting the execution of Mary, Queen of the Scots. This movie made
an indelible impression on viewers. According to Oliver Stone, “the nature of the world is extremely
violent... so there is a natural-born fascination with watching... the approach of death because we all
know we’re going to die.”
Myriam Miedzian, a journalist and professor of philosophy, writes that the highest rates of
violence in American society are found among males who were raised by single mothers. Across
times and cultures, children who are abandoned or who lack a parent are statistically more prone to
criminal behavior, drug abuse and violent crime. The worst effects are most apparent in teenager
boys. Some scholars came to the conclusion that if a teenager does not have a psychic propensity for
aggression, if he is surrounded by family in the care, love and affection, if it fits well in a group of
peers, the imitation of violence seen in the movies, much less offence virtually impossible. These
provisions are not overshadowed at the cinema and on society itself, its institutions and were more
"inconvenient": one thing to change the content of entertainment programming and quite another to
help disadvantaged families and "difficult teenagers". Make screen scapegoat much easier. When
Clint Eastwood was asked if violent films are damaging to society, he replied: “My generation grew
up with films like white Heat and Public Enemy, and they didn’t turn us into criminals. It’s great to
blame it all on the film and television industries, because they always run scared.”
There is a legend about old Cherokee who was teaching his grandson about life: A terrible
fight between two wolves is going on inside every human being. One wolf is evil, the other is good.
The grandson asked his grandfather, which wolf will win? The old Cherokee replied, the one you
feed.: “Parents are to bring up children,” Wrestler, actor and former Governor of Minnesota Jesse
Ventura says, “Singer Billy Joel as a kid was briefly involved with a street gang and it was inspired
by the film "West Side Story". What do you do? Ban “West Side Story"? But its authors inspired by
“Romeo and Juliet.” So if banning violence in entertainment, then you need to start with
Shakespeare. If the parents are good, then the children are not scary circus or screen violence.
Parents will be able to explain to children the difference between fiction and reality. Explain that
Dirty Harry is only a fictional character, played by actor Clint Eastwood, Harry is not quite like him.
Eastwood himself has stated “There was always violence, in the movies and in literature...Literature
has always found violence attractive... the Old Testament is the best example... But if tragic cases
occur in reality, that isn’t so much because of the movies but rather the tolerance of violence in our
society. Because when violence occurs in everyday life, many Americans say to themselves, “So
what?” But in the movies they condemn it.” People who annoying about violence in films, don’t
realize the impact and after-effects of real violence they see every day on news programs. “We
watch our wars and see men die, really die, every day on television, but it doesn’t seem real.” Said
Sam Peckinpah, “We don’t believe those are real people dying on that screen... What I do is show
people what it’s (violence) really like...”
In 1977, the television, the first time was sued. 15-year-old Miami resident killed 83-year-
old neighbor woman, which witness his burglary and threats to tell the police about it. The Court
sentenced the teenager to life prison. But his lawyer, armed with testimony from parents, has
accused all three national television stations (ABC, NBC, CBS) in "the intoxication of his client" by
scenes of violence. Parents of the accused brought a suit with the 25 million dollars. The Court,
however, ruled in favor of TV. When Oliver Stone and Warner Brothers studio were sued for
Natural born Killers inspired killings one journalist mentioned: “We’ll end up with lawsuits against
Shakespeare festivals because Hamlet (all those dead bodies!) rubbed somebody the wrong way.”
Church (Catholic, Orthodox, etc...) sometimes condemns violence and demand to suppress
such kind of films. But when the Church is beneficial, it can change their attitudes and perceptions
to anything. For example, at the dawn of its existence the Christian religion treated the martyrdom
that is the altruistic suicide with reverence. However, eventually suicide in the name of Christian
faith outgrow into epidemic and became the real headache for the Church, which understands that
martyrs became uncontrollable - just never know what to expect from them, and from about V
century an attitude to voluntary death in the name of faith begins to change. In subsequent years
suicide declared as a sin: the immortal soul belongs to God and only he can dispose of it.
When Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ came on churches have booked hundreds of
theaters, with plans to bus in church youth groups to see the film, despite that it contained horrible
images of violence and many specialists warned that any child under 13 shouldn’t see this movie.
One pastor, whose church has arranged youth screenings for middle and high school students,
declared: "I think this movie is a wonderful teaching tool for children.” Young people need to be
"spiritually arrested" by the life of Christ, and the violence in the movie is purposeful violence that
will help children gain faith and feel more secure, he said.
 Violence in art is a form of expression of dramatic conflict. The main task of the
demonstration of violence is to analyze the aggressive impulses of ordinary people, rather than to
initiate them. Cinema is a visual medium and according to Brian De Palma “...we’re interested in
terrific visual sequences, and many of them happen to be violent.” Many psychiatrists claim that
watching violent movies can be a cathartic experience. The shock caused by the on-screen violence
is a means to gain catharsis.
The word catharsis comes from the Greek word katharsis, which literally translated means "a
cleansing or purging." Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, whose poetics includes the theory of
catharsis, held that the frequently frightening tragedies served to purge the emotions through pity
and terror, leaving the audience less likely to behave horribly because they had experienced the
results vicariously. This emotional purification was believed to be useful to both the individual and
society. The ancient notion of catharsis was revived by Sigmund Freud and his associates. A. A.
Brill recommended that his patients watch a prize fight once a month to purge their angry,
aggressive feelings into harmless channels. Sam Peckinpah, who supported and believed in
catharsis, said:”Do you think people watch the Super Bowl because they think football is a beautiful
sport? Bullshit! They’re committing violence vicariously... The old basis of catharsis was a purging
of the emotions through pity and fear. People used to go and see the plays of Euripides and
Sophocles and those other Greek cats. The players acted it out and the audience got in there and kind
of lived it with them.” In his last movie The Osterman Weekend a CIA agent watches on the video
monitors the lethal conflict between the team of killers and their victims. At the same time one
monitor shows a baseball game. Peckinpah put together two types of spectacle - the athletic match
and killers hunting their victims. This juxtaposition, according to Stephen Prince, shows the
“symbolic media violence as a vicarious modality permitting viewers to enjoy a substitute
expression of the real thing.” In a normal society, people prefer a safe adventure, that’s why many of
us go to the cinema. People go to movies to have this violence acted out, participate in imaginary
bloody conflict or adventure and simultaneously do not harm themselves. But nobody after that
picks up the knife, gun or bludgeon and go to kill somebody
For any normal person violence is unacceptable, but when the film shows the real, bloody,
dramatic story, cannot do without showing the violence, it will be a reciprocal deceit - for the author
and for the audience. As Tarantino said: “If a guy gets shot in the stomach and he's bleeding like a
stuck pig then that's what I want to see - not a man with a stomach ache and a little red dot on his
belly.” It brings to mind line from Macbeth: “Who would have thought the old man to have had so
much blood in him?” When you show the death it should have the shock effect, otherwise it looks
like old movies (especially Soviet) when after gunshot person is clutching unseen wound with not a
hint of a blood, says something very wise and dropping in the ground. In Braveheart Mel Gibson
wanted to depict the battle scenes as realistic as possible. “I don’t feel I violated any kind of moral
code with what I portrayed as thirteenth-century battles. I went for realism, and it was harsh. I’m not
going to have’em go up and hit each other with pillows... I didn’t make it attractive. It was ugly.”
Although movie and television are a relatively recent invention, but the paintings and
literature throughout the ages are full of atrocities. Long before the birth of cinema, violence was the
main theme in the art, in the works of Rubens, Titian, Bosch, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci or
Goya. Look at Shakespeare’s tragedies; they’re full with bloodshed, murders, and poisonings; read
Brother Grimm’s fairy tales which parents are reading to children before sleep; or such sacred books
as Bible or Homer, where, according to Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, there are a lot of “bloodthirsty
passages... murders, wars.” (It reminds me the words from XII century Georgian epic poem The
Knight in the Panther's Skin: “The warriors he slew are countless and the blood he spilled flowed in
torrents. Till the field was soaked in their blood, as they fell, transfixed by arrows, And not one
wounded beast could struggle again to its feet.”) English dramatist Edward Bond, whose plays are
associated with violence, stated “I write about violence as naturally as Jane Austin wrote about
manners. People who do not want writers to write about violence want to stop them from writing
about us and our time. It would be immoral not to write about violence.”
In the making of normal human being besides the family, art plays a significant part, not
only because to show positive images. Very often movie violence can bring medicinal effect. Some
people, especially young men, are often looking for strong emotional experiences – whether positive
or negative. Film containing violent scenes for them may have the function of emotional excitement.
Hitchcock once said “I aim to provide the public with beneficial shocks. Civilization has become so
protective that we’re no longer able to get our goose bumps instinctively. The only way to remove
the numbness and revive our moral equilibrium is to use artificial means to bring about the shock.
The best way to achieve that, it seems to me, is through a movie.”
How is violence on film and TV violence associated with real life? Debate has raged already
for a long time – and after a massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut,
recommenced all over again. While few except criminals and psychopaths enjoy violence, many of
us love it in films. Of course there is also the possibility that screen violence might have the reverse
effect on certain individuals and inspire them to act out in real life some of the mayhem seen in
movies. The problem of violence on television and movies and its effects in the society is a
revealing example of the complex relationship between media and culture. Violence is mankind’s
one of the most serious problems. We need to learn to separate violence in the movies or on TV
which is fiction and entertainment and real violence that society often tolerate and got accustomed.
As long as violence exists in our world, films will continue to imitate and remake, who we are. The
issue of violence is not about film industry, it is about human race, its nature and enviornment we
live in; and as director Arthur Penn once said: “So why not make films about it.”

Bibliography:

Brown R. (1991) No Duty to Retreat Violence and Values in American History and Society, Oxford
University Press
DeConde A. (2001) Gun Violence in America: The Struggle for Control, Northeastern University
Press
Dukore B. F (1999) Sam Peckinpah’s Feature Films, University of Illinois Press
Fine M. (1991) Bloody Sam The Life and Films of Sam Peckinpah, Donald I. Fine, Inc.
Hoberman J. (2003) The Dream Life Movies, Media, and the Mythology of the Sixties The New
Press
Kapsis R. E., Coblentz K. (1999) Clint Eastwood Interviews, University Press of
Mississippi/Jackson
Kendrick J. (2009) Hollywood Bloodshed: Violence in 1980s American Cinema, Southern Illinois
University
Knapp L. F (2003) Brian De Palma Interviews, University Press of Mississippi/Jackson
Peary G. (1998) Quentin Tarantino Interviews, University Press of Mississippi
Prince S. (1998) Savage Cinema Sam Peckinpah and the Rise of Ultraviolent Movies, University of
Texas Press
Prince S. (1999) Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch, Cambridge University Press
Simmons. G (1998) Peckinpah A Portrait in Montage, Lilelight Editions
Simpson P. (2006) The Rough Guide to the Westerns, Rough Guides Ltd
Slocum J. D. (2001) Violence and American Cinema, Routledge
Toplin R. B. (2000) Oliver Stone’s America Film, History, and Controversy, University Press of
Kansas
Truffaut F. (1984) Hitchcock, Simon & Schuster
http://www.enotes.com/violence-article
http://kinoart.ru/archive/2003/07/n7-article2
http://www.bookrags.com/research/catharsis-theory-and-media-effects-eci-01/
http://archive.svoboda.org/programs/OTB/2003/OBT.022603.asp
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-malkenson/gun-violence-uncounted-victims_b_2766481.html
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2236&C=2058
http://www.howardsmead.com/60sviol.htm