HOLLY CHERMAK said, when you stand back and look at the large number of violent action films that portray violence as heroic and women as inanimate objects, you realize these images must have some impact on the population, teenagers in particular, who want to be like these heroes. I was not allowed to see any violent or horror films growing up and have to wonder what effect they would have had on me at a younger age. You say we disdain the films that are destined to make millions. That is exactly what concerns me. The violent action pictures ARE making a lot of money so I assume they affect a greater number of people. The main change in recent years in the adventure series has been its reliance on violence, a sign of white male anger. Blasts, putdowns, mass murder are all justified by stripping villains of any humanity. That is what made "Under Seige" with Tommy Lee Jones so notable, that it was not angry enough to sustain the Steven Seagal bone-crunching anger. I think that differs from earlier adventure films, where the heroics were the focus rather than the anger at terrorists or radicals or psychotics. That kind of anger is very justifying, and tends to legitimate the extremities of violence, which after all, are feelings of frustration and impotence. In that sense, these white male dramas--the Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris, Steven Seagal films-- (for that is who they are addressed to) have a good deal of influence among certain segments of the audience, those who are already most alienated. It is the alienation from society that makes them powerful to teenagers. Gerald Forshey Professor of Humanities, Daley College City Colleges of Chicago