It seems to me that attempts to get at the issue of violence in film through strictly social science means (e.g., can film violence be shown to lead to a propensity for real violence in a laboratory setting?) do not do justice to the complex relationship we have to media in the modern age. One can argue all day on the micro level about the relevance of research findings one way or another. Likewise, one can point on the macro level to the fact that, for example, Oslo remains peaceful despite a steady diet of Schwarzenegger, Seagall and Stallone. But in the USA at least, we live in a culture in which lots of kids are virtually brought up with television as a surrogate parent/extended family/circle of friends. Can anyone doubt that the assorted media we are saturated with do not now comprise an essential, critical and central element of our culture, specifically as a means of acculturation? How could it be otherwise? Framing the issue defensively (as in "the connection between screen violence and real violence has not been proven") misses the point, I think. A recent American Scholar (Spring 1996, I think) has an interesting article by Stanley Rothman on violence and religion in film. He and his research associates sampled films over a fairly long period--several decades--and coded the content for various types of imagery. No surprise, religious imagery (at least in terms of a benevolent God) is way down. Violence, non-religious supernatural imagery and aliens popping out of stomachs-- no surprise, way up. Rather than get caught up in a cause-and-effect cycle, Rothman takes the longer view about this. He brings up Bruno Bettleheim's Uses of Enchantment, pointing out that, in Bettleheim's view, the violent imagery in fairy tales performs a useful function of sanctioning (in *both* senses of the word) a child's violent impulses, both accepting their existence while, at the same time, showing that there are right and wrong ways of coping with them. To the extent we all carry the child around with us, do we not have the need for similar mythic structures as adults? In this sense, violent imagery in movies can be understood and sympathized with as a coping/growing tool and (maybe) should not be criticized so heavily for "contributing" to the problem. However, the bigger question then becomes: what is it about *this* culture at *this* time that would give rise to a need for *these* myths as opposed to (as Xyvind Staalen says with reference to Norway) myths dealing with "nice and harmless things such as children, puberty, pregnancy, unemployed comedians and hopeless love"? Jeff Apfel ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]