I have been following the list's discussion of violence with great interest. It seems to me that our perception of the relationship between TV/film violence and real violence is part of the broader question of the relationship between what we see and what we do as a result of what we see. We appear to accept a causal relationship in some cases and reject it in others. In this connection, I offer the example of The English Patient. I recently learned of an objection to The English Patient. The objection voiced was that the film stressed the predominance of love over all boundaries, including those of nationality and politics, and consequently that it portrayed a Nazi collaborator in a sympathetic light which might appeal to others. I was inclined to dismiss these concerns, but I realized that I did so because I saw the film (like most of us I think) as an homage to the human spirit, not a testament to the propriety of collaboration. Had audiences seen it as an endorsement of collaboration, I believe they would have reacted otherwise. I know I would. The same is true, I think of violence. Whether TV/film violence is acceptable depends in part on the overall context that is provided by the film. If the message is acceptable, we see the possibility that the film will be emulated as either a positive good, or a negative side-effect which is either minimal or tolerable because of some greater good, such as freedom of speech. If the context is unacceptable, then the possibility of emulation is also. If this analysis is correct, we can agree on what is acceptable TV/film violence only if we first have general agreement on the themes presented. There could still be differences as to the appropriate level of violence for an agreed on theme, but the scope of the disagreement would be narrowed considerably. Hope this sounds reasonable. Peter S. Latham ---- To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]