Violent Video Films example essay topic

he British tabloid press is famous for jumping on any bandwagon that supports popular opinion. Before her death the Princess of Wales was hounded on a daily basis for nearly two decades by the paparazzi to feed the insatiable appetite of the word for her picture. This lead, putting conspiracy theories aside, directly to her death. Now these very same newspapers are feeding the publics bottomless pit of an appetite with stories of her life and loves.

A day never goes by without some mention of her charity work, her past lovers and even the dresses she wore when on royal duties. Top: British tabloid newspaper The Sun which campaigned to have all banned for the sake of our children. Right: A graphic scene from DonCoscarelli's Phantasm. The only bandwagon that comes close to matching that of the Princess of Wales is the effect that films, video films in particular, have on the viewing public. When The Omen was shown on British television in the early '80's reports came in that people had to seek spiritual guidance in order for them to come to terms with the images they had seen on the screen. Some even reported that knives and forks had somehow become bent and twisted as if overtaken by evil forces.

Had their cutlery really become possessed by the devil or were they attention seekers trying to get their fifteen minutes of fame? The newspapers were quick to latch on and appointed themselves a sour guardians against the vile influx of film and video. Films were blamed for all of our faults, it wasn't his fault if a man raped a woman because he was following what he had seen in a video, and it wasn't their fault if children used foul language because they had heard it in a film. But I have to keep asking myself one question; isn't it about time that we took the responsibilities for our actions? If a man, or woman, commit a crime then it is not the fault of some Hollywood filmmaker but the responsibility of the said individual. We all like someone to blame.

The worlds pollution is the fault of the motorist so lets tax them out of existence, the fact that little Johnny bunks off school and can't read or write is the fault of the teachers, or the government, but never the parents who don't know how to control their own children. Isn't it about time that we stopped passing the buck and admitted that WE are to blame when WE do something wrong. The killing of James Bulger, aged two in 1993, by two 10-year-old schoolboys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, was one of Britain's most shocking and memorable crimes of modern times 1. It ranks alongside the Moors murders in the 1960's and the West killings that were exposed in the 1990's. It also raised the profile of child crime to unprecedented levels and since then the issue has never gone off the political agenda. Questions and theories abounded.

How could two cheeky young lads who were playing truant from school, commit such a crime? Had watching horror movies on video influenced them? Were they the product of growing up in a poor and troubled environment? Or were they, as some of the tabloid press would have it, evil, scheming boys who ought to be locked up for life. James, who was a month from his third birthday, had been out shopping with his mother in Bootle, Merseyside, when the two schoolboys abducted him on a whim. During the trial newspaper headlines began calling for the banning (and burning) of certain video films.

It was believed that the film Childs Play had influenced the two boys responsible for the murder of little James. How the link between this film and the killing of James Bulger was made is shrouded in mystery. After the case the police went public and said that at no point was it claimed that Robert Thompson and Jon Venables had even seen the film and furthermore, the film was not even mentioned during the trial. Again we see an easy scapegoat made out of one of the most popular forms of home entertainment - video film. After the Bulger case a government study was ordered to analyse the effect of violent films and the behaviour of young viewers. The official findings said; 'There is no evidence that violent video films directly trigger violent behaviour among young viewers.

' 2 However, the report did find that young people who are violent criminals are more likely to enjoy violence on screen. Is this violent films encouraging violence in people, or violent people showing a predilection for violent films? What came first, the violent film or the violent person? The new report, by psychologists at Birmingham University, was based on a two-year observation of 122 young men who volunteered to watch violent videos. The key findings overturn previous research which suggests film violence stimulates real violence. The new study finds that a taste for violent films is more likely to be linked to the general social effects of poverty.

The report concludes that both a history of family violence and criminal behaviour are necessary preconditions for a person to develop a significant preference for violent films. The films shown to the young men were not 'video-na sties' - unlicensed and uncensored films - but were mainstream films which are regularly hired from British video-shops, including Bad Boys, Licence to Drive, Last Gasp and ID. During viewing the subjects remained passive. Afterwards, some admitted trying to imitate a film's dialogue, but none said they had copied violent behaviour. Four months after viewing, only three of the 122 claimed to have been influenced by wat they had seen. Six months later all respondents said they were unaffected by the films.

'We must condemn a little more, and understand a little less. ' So said John Major shortly after the murder of James Bulger in 1993. He was speaking as prime minister, but his sentiments were also those of the man in the street. A popular jeans ad had a young man taking his trousers off in a launderette before washing them, if the power of TV is so strong then why weren't our high streets full of near naked men showing off their smalls to the unsuspecting public? Similarly, if films have a profound effect on us then why are we not a nation of vicious psychos' hellbent on killing everything in our path? The reason is simple; we are not that easily influenced.

After video na sties, as they affectionately became know, were blamed for all of the worlds problems the newspapers were horrified to hear of a new type or film. One that sent shivers down the spine of any self-respecting human being, 'snuff' film. Taken from the title of the first real-death-film, snuff films show the genuine murder of one of the cast. The newspapers, ever quick to see a chance of selling more papers, jumped at the chance of damning this new form of entertainment.

The word gullible hardly seems appropriate. Were people really being killed in the name of art? Are people really been eaten in cannibal films? The answer to these questions, and hundreds more, is " no', people are not dying on film. It is interesting to note that not one single case has come before a court of law accusing an individual of murder on film, but then again, when as the truth ever stopped newspapers from saying what they want? When I use the term 'death film' or 'murder on film' I am referring to any film, which includes scenes of death solely for the purpose of furthering its appeal as a film.

This does not include news footage or any recording of a murder taken in the act of a crime. I am sure that there exists video footage, taken by the Mafia maybe, of real murders taking place. These are not true 'Snuff' films because these were not film.