TV and Film Violence. Two articles. The first one is very short, and a challenge to all filmmakers. In one study, a group of university students were shown some violent movies, and another group were shown non violent movies. They were then all instructed to fill out questionnaires about the movies, and they were led to believe that that was the end of the experiment. But it was not. The experiment continued over the next several days, when the students applied for certain courses and programs that they wanted. They were all told the courses or programs that they wanted were full, or canceled. The group which had watched the violent movies reacted with hostility and anger when told the news. The group which had watched non violent movies reacted in a more civil and friendly manner. I found the above mentioned study posted on the internet. You can search the net for other articles as well. My commentary on the above. So, this shows, that if nothing else, violent movies make the world less friendly. Is that what we want? A world that is less friendly? If you are a filmmaker reading this, ask yourself if you do not have enough imagination and talent to make interesting, educational, or entertaining movies? If you have talent, and work diligently and honestly at a project that will make the world even just a little bit better, you will succeed, and you will be rewarded. Even frivolous and silly movies qualify for this. Make people laugh, make them cry, make them think, or make them wonder. You don't have to be part of making the world less friendly. That's not what the world needs, which is so obvious. There is no end to great movie possibilities. Now is the time to think about it. An experiment you might try on yourself would be to not watch any violent movies for three weeks, and see how you feel. (It takes 7-10 days for the effects to start to wear off.) See if you are more friendly, and by consequence, if people are more friendly to you. This will be a tough experiment for some of you to do, as you may be addicted to watching violence, and there will be withdrawal symptoms. It will take guts to try it. If you cannot go three weeks without watching a violent movie (or video game) it will be a time to ask yourself some serious questions. Further commentary on the above. Now let's take what we learned from the above study a few steps further. We learned that when people watch violence, they tend to become hostile. Think about this the next time you are the victim of road rage, or unfriendliness towards you by someone in a store or on the street. Ask yourself if you may have been the indirect victim of a violent movie scene. Moving forward several more steps, consider this: Some websites say 1 in 5, and other websites say 1 in 10 women are the victims of physical violence. It is usually by a boyfriend or spouse, and such violence ranges from slaps to severe beatings. A few of the severe beatings result in death. For this discussion, let's just say that 1 out of 100 men have slapped, pushed, or punched a woman. (Exact numbers are impossible to get, and not necessary to illustrate the point I am going to make.) And let's say that 1 in 500 men have severely beaten a woman. The university study proved that watching violent movies increases hostility. The 1 in 100, and 1 in 500 men do not beat women every day. Imagine a verbal argument between a couple. Most such arguments end with a door slamming and one person leaving. But a "certain percentage" of such arguments escalate to physical violence. How much is this "certain percentage" increased if the potential abuser recently watched a violent movie? It is impossible to determine. But from the study above, a logical and honest mind will admit that there will be at least some increase in the "certain percentage". And, as some of the beatings are very severe, the number which are fatal will increase as well. The difference between fatal and non fatal can be about an inch. A blow which hits the temple instead of the ear for instance. The hard to accept truth: If people watch a violent movie you have made, you will help cause more beatings and you will help cause more deaths. Let's go ahead a few more steps. Let's say 1 out of 100,000 people have severe emotional problems which have in the past manifest in extreme violence. Such a person may have beaten someone with a piece of pipe or the like, and they may have previous assault charges, and may have been in prison. What if this person views violent movies? From the study, it is logical to predict that a violent movie might create that extra bit of rage that puts them over the edge during their next assault, where they don't stop until their victim is dead. "Yeah..... but...".... you might be saying... "This is all theoretical, and can't be conclusively proven." Our minds can rationalize anything. But an honest mind can only conclude that movie violence, increases social violence, at least in some people. Other viewers may just become less friendly. More hard truth: What if 1 in 100,000 viewers beat someone to death? If you make a violent movie, and 1 million view it, you will have contributed to 10 deaths/murders. And how many beatings? Only God knows, but it could be hundreds or a thousand. And it could be much higher. The exact numbers don't matter. I used woman battering in the above commentary, but you can include violence by teenagers and even children, against either sex. If the result is only 1 death and 10 beatings, would that make it OK? Reality is, if you are a filmmaker, and you make a violent movie, you are contributing to beatings and deaths. What will you tell your children or grandchildren when they ask you about it? "Well, there was a market for it." "It was a paid gig and I needed the money." And when you are old, will you be proud of it, or ashamed of it? We all have a choice. We can try to make the world a little bit better, or we can make it worse. I believe my own life will be better in the present, and in the future, if I do things now that will enable me to look at myself in the mirror when I am old. I invite you to visualize yourself, old, looking in a mirror. Will you be able to look into your own eyes, or will you look away? Movies are powerful. Make them wisely. Karma. Great teachers have talked about karma for centuries. Definitions..... "do something good and it comes back to you"....... "do something bad and it comes back to you". You've probably heard, "What goes around comes around". Most everyone can think of some examples in their life where they have experienced karma, and they probably think about some "good deed' or "bad deed" they may have done, rather than a bigger project like a movie. Good money, bad money. It's very simple. Money earned in an honest, ethical way is good money, and it has good karma. Money earned in an unethical, dishonest way is bad money, and it has bad karma. Either type of money can buy things. But only good money can make us happy. I believe that money earned by producing a violent movie earns bad money, and it can never make us happy. Which will you choose? The Law of Attraction, and "The Secret". "Horror movies create horrible lives." The Law of Attraction is described in a book by that name, and in the popular underground video called "The Secret" and you can find both by searching on the net. You can view the video as a download. Simply put, what we give our attention to, tends to manifest in our lives. I heard a wise, elderly speaker recently, and he said "Horror movies create horrible lives." And "Horror movies create mind pollution." *************************************************************** I found the article below on the internet. Does the violence in films and on TV contribute to violence in society? This question has been debated for decades. During that time some 2,500 books and articles have been written on the effects of TV and film violence on human behavior. In this article we're going to summarize some the latest thinking on this subject. The results of one of the most extensive studies ever done on the subject of violence and TV were released in 2003. Researchers followed 329 subjects over 15 years. They found that those who as children were exposed to violent TV shows were much more likely to later be convicted of crime. Researchers said that, "Media violence can affect any child from any family," regardless of social class or parenting. Girls who watched more than an average amount of violence tended to throw things at their husbands. Boys who grew up watching violent TV shows were more likely to be be violent with their wives. Researchers concluded in Developmental Psychology that, "Every violent TV show increases a little-bit the likelihood of a child growing up to behave more aggressively." We'll look at more of the research in a moment. Canada was one of the first countries to extensively research this issue. The results of their studies prompted some of their engineers to devise the "V-Chip." As you may know, the V-Chip allows parents to lock out TV programming they consider objectionable to their children. Although the concern in Canada was primarily violence (hence the V-chip), in the United States there is also great concern about sexual content—probably more than in most other industrialized societies. Hence, the V-chip can be programmed to screen out both violence and sex. The issue of sex, which has resulted in quite different research findings, is discussed elsewhere, so in this article we'll focus on the issue of film and TV violence. Because ours is a puritanically-based society and we have problems with depictions of sex, we tend to eroticize violence. For many people this creates an unfortunate, often even unconscious, link between sex and violence. From "Sex Research, Censorship, and the Law" Cause-Effect Proof Studies done in both the United States and Canada have shown a positive relationship between early exposure to TV violence and physical aggressiveness in later life. Even so, a clear cause-effect relationship is complicated by the fact that children are typically exposed to many stimuli as they grow up, many of which could play a role in later behavior. For example, during a child's life we can't discount the role of such things as violent video games, the social values of parents and peers, or general living conditions. If you eat something that you have not tried before and immediately get sick, you will probably assume there's a direct relationship between the two. And if at some later date you forget about your first experience and eat the same thing again, and immediately get sick again, you can be fairly sure that whatever you ate makes you sick. No rocket science here, just clear cause and effect. Unfortunately, the cause and effect in many other areas of life are not as readily apparent. A few decades ago you would see doctors in TV commercials endorsing a particular brand of cigarettes. And many medical doctors smoked. Not today. Today the evidence is clear: smoking is the number one cause of preventable heath problems and premature death in the United States. Although for years the cigarette manufacturers suppressed evidence that linked smoking to health problems, eventually the cause-effect relationship became obvious to anyone who wanted investigate the facts. Unlike the cause and effect in the example of your eating something and immediately getting sick, the effects of cigarette smoking aren't immediately apparent. It's only years later that many smokers develop lung cancer, heart problems, emphysema, sexual problems, etc. In the same way—after looking at years of accumulated data—we're now recognizing a relationship between violence in the media and social problems. A summary of much of the research and its consequences can be found in the book Visual Intelligence—Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication by Ann Marie Seward Barry. The results of a study released in March, 2002 that tracked 700 male and female youths over a seventeen-year period showed a definite relationship between TV viewing habits and acts of aggression and crime in the later life. All other possible contributing environmental elements, such as poverty, living in a violent neighborhood, and neglect, were factored out of this study. According to one of the authors of the study, the findings help cement the link between TV and violence. The study is detailed in the Science journal. Violence and TV Ratings It's well known that TV violence holds an attraction for most viewers and this attraction translates into ratings and profits. Because of this most media executives have been reluctant to admit that media violence is in any way responsible for violence in our society. If it weren't for the ratings and profits involved, producers would undoubtedly be much more willing to acknowledge the harm in TV and film violence and do something about it. Instead, we have such things as the American Medical Association finding that shows that in homes with premium cable channels, or a VCR or DVD, children typically witness 32,000 murders and 40,000 attempted murders by the time they reach the age of 18. After many high school students died in a shooting rampage at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado in April, 1999, many people were quick to blame the media. Violent video games and a well-known film were seen as contributing factors. Even so, millions of young people were exposed to both of these influences throughout their lives without going on a murderous rampage. But when you add extreme anger, easy access to guns, and an indifferent and amoral attitude toward the lives of others, the results can be very different. In 1992, TV Guide commissioned a study of a typical 18-hour TV broadcast day to determine levels of violence. The networks and the more popular cable channels were monitored for "purposeful, overt, deliberate behavior involving physical force or weapons against other individuals." There were 1,846 acts of violence that broke down this way. cartoons 471 promos for TV shows 265 movies 221 toy commercials 188 music videos 123 commercials for films 121 TV dramas 69 news 62 tabloid reality shows 58 sitcoms 52 soap operas 34 In looking at the role of the broadcast outlets in the violence equation TV mogul Ted Turner said: "They're guilty of murder. We all are—me too." The Effects of TV and Film Violence There are many problems in linking media violence to violence in society. First, as we've suggested, only a small percent of those who watch violence are responsible for violent acts. Most of us are seemingly unaffected by it. Even though we can't establish a simple, direct, cause-and-effect relationship between media violence and violence in our society, we can draw some conclusions from the data. Studies show that people who watch a lot of TV violence not only behave more aggressively, but are more prone to hold attitudes that favor violence and aggression as a way of solving conflicts. These viewers also tend to be less trusting of people and more prone to see the world as a hostile place. An extensive study in five Massachusetts communities found a relationship between viewing media violence and the acceptance of sexual assault, violence, and alcohol use. Studies also show that media violence also has a desensitizing effect on viewers. As a result, specific levels of violence become more acceptable over time. It then takes more and more graphic violence to shock (and hold) an audience. History gives us many examples. To cite just one, the famous Roman Circuses started out being a rather tame form of entertainment. But in an effort to excite audiences, violence and rape were introduced in the arena settings. Subsequently, as audiences got used to seeing these things, they then demanded more and more, until the circuses eventually became violent, bloody and grotesque, and hundreds, if not thousands, of hapless people died in the process of providing "entertainment." Next, media violence is typically unrealistic, simplistic, glorified, and even presented as humorous. The "bang, bang, you're dead" sanitized scenario that we so often see on TV or in films communicates nothing of the reality of death or dying. It is only when we see death firsthand or have a loved one killed that we realize that death in film or on TV bears little resemblance to what we experience in real life. Even the sound of gunshots on TV and in films is so different from real gunshots that people often fail to recognize them in real life. Next, the consequences of killing, especially by the "good guys," are seldom shown. Violence and killing are commonly depicted as a ready and even acceptable solution to problems. To put it simplistically, problems are solved when the "bad guys" are all dead. The unrealistic element of TV and film violence seems to come as a surprise to some. A young gang member who was admitted to a New York ER after being shot seemed amazed to find that getting shot was not only traumatic but excruciatingly painful. He was blaming the doctors and nurses for his pain, since on TV getting shot didn't seem to be all that big of a deal. Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek One of the most successful television series in history, Star Trek, was created, produced and (largely) written by Gene Roddenberry, whose primary message was peaceful coexistence. The series started in 1966 and its various incarnations continue today. The series has won scores of humanitarian awards. Colleges have even offered English courses that focus on the series. Anyone who has followed Star Trek knows that (under Roddenberry) gratuitous violence was never seen as necessary. In the end Gene Roddenberry was proud of the message he delivered week after week to millions of people around the world. Earlier, during testimony before Congress, Roddenberry had said: [Television] is the most dangerous force in the world today. Shortly before his death he was asked what he would like to have as an epitaph. Roddenberry said, just say this: He loved humanity. Based on what their work says about their true feelings, I wonder how many TV and film producers can say the same today? Summary and Conclusions We have clear indications that the long-term effects of exposure to media violence will lead to undesirable social consequences. These negative social effects will undoubtedly be accelerated as violence becomes more graphic in an effort to attract and hold film and TV audiences. In looking over the evidence of the increasing levels of film and TV violence it is now taking to satisfy viewers and the resulting effects on society, David Puttnam, a noted film director, simply observed, "We are destroying ourselves." TV producers clearly face a dilemma in dealing with the apparent conflict between the negative effects of TV violence and positive program ratings. So what's the answer? First, we have to take a look at how violence is used. Eliminating all violence from the media is not in keeping with the reality of the human condition. Violence has always been with us and probably always will be. But the 32,000 murders and 40,000 attempted murders witnessed by normal TV viewers over 18 years is clearly unrealistic and exploitative. Violence is being used as a superficial way of grabbing and holding an audience. Many TV and film producers have elected to "take a higher road" and not rely on gratuitous violence to capture and hold an audience. This route typically results in more accolades for their work and more personal respect from the creative community. But the higher road is often the more difficult one. It takes talent to engage an audience through the strength of your storytelling and production expertise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a footnote to this topic, there is evidence to show that commercials in violent TV shows are not as effective in selling products as commercials in other types of TV programming. To return to the Sam and Leah home page, CLICK HERE. To return to the investor's page, CLICK HERE.