SCREEN-L Archives

August 1997, Week 1

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 12 Nov 1995 18:36:19 GMT
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (57 lines)
The notion that people are directly inspired to commit acts of
violence by films or other media programmes really is cultural theory
out of the ark, and I can't see how anyone other than moralists and
ultra-right politicians could possibly have time for it.
 
The last time this sort of bullshit got a serious airing in Britain
was when it was alleged that the murder of a baby by two
schoolchildren (in early 1995, I think) had been a result of them
attempting to re-enact scenes from the film "Child's Play 3".  The
judge at their trial stated in summing up that there was evidence to
suggest that these individuals had seen the film, though he carefully
avoided directly suggesting that the murder had been a consequence of
this.  Not so the right wing press, who got a sociologist from a
minor university to write a report describing the relationship between
children and film/television (she didn't feel the need to draw
any meaningful distinction between the two) in terms of a crude
effects theory that would make the sort of stuff Kracauer wrote seem
subtle and nuanced.
 
The Newsom report, as it was termed, was brandished by morals
campaigners as objective proof that the media corrupts children
(despite the fact that the only substantive "evidence" it contained
was purely anecdotal) and used in order to call for stricter
censorship.  The arguments against took place within academia and out
of the newspapers, although the calls for widespread video bans were,
thankfully, seen off by two major film companies who threatened to
boycott the British Board of Film Classification, whose role in
censoring theatrical releases is a purely voluntary arrangement
between the it and the industry, and has no basis in law.
 
What I think the case showed was the tendency of politicians and other
professional troublemakers to blame the film industry for all of
society's ills, as it is often the path of least resistance and
invariably a cheap and easy way of picking up votes.  Any 12-year old
who is capable of killing another human being will not have got to
that state purely through seeing violent videos: if it was the case
that the individual was motivated by that one event, then he was
capable of being similarly motivated by a whole range of other events.
  I'm sure there are a great deal of 12-year olds who have seen
"Child's Play 3" and subsequently suffered no ill effects.
 
That is not to say that I endorse 12 year-olds watching this sort of
stuff, but in any liberal society it is not something you can
legislate against.  It is up to parents to make judicious use of the
off button (and, in a more positive sense, to encourage children to
develop critical skills in viewing suitable material), not big
brother.
 
-----------
Leo Enticknap
Univ. of Exeter, UK
[log in to unmask]
 
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite 
http://www.sa.ua.edu/screensite

ATOM RSS1 RSS2