Do Chavs learn Extreme Violence from films

[Moor Larkin]

The Chav thread elsewhere seems to me to have a resonance that while thugs have always been around, the levels of physical violence in recent years has stepped outside the historic bounds of the severity of that physical violence.

I wondered how much the extreme violence perpetrated in films now so popular amongst young people has contributed to this phenomenon - if such exists.

If it does, should such movies be made.

Stanley Kubrick seemed to conclude that, in retrospect, his 'Clockwork Orange' was too easily used as an encouragement to violence by being 'selectively' viewed. So he elected to suppress it. Should other film-makers do more to suppress the direct representation of extreme violence?

[dogstar]

Copycat violence apeing things seen via the mass media is but a regrettable modern aspect of something that has always been with us, i.e violent thuggish behaviour. If anyone has any doubt that levels of violence were as bad in the past as they are now check out the relevant section in Peter Ackroyd's 'London' where he describes what earlier generations of hooligans got up to ( especially the C18th ones known as 'Mohocks' ). The depressing thing for me is that historical thug violence often took place in an environment where there was little or no effective policing - that we are plagued with it today in one of the most security-conscious ( some might say security-obsessed ) cultures in the world is truly disturbing.

[batman]

There was some research done a few years back which demonstrated a definite connection between what children (aged 4-10) watch and how it affects their behaviour. The more 'aggressive' the programme the more confrontational their behaviour became. The more 'sedate' programmes elicited a much more calm response. The conclusion reached was that regular watching of programmes featuring confrontational behaviour leads to many children (especially those with already established behavioural difficulties such as ADHD) becoming more defiant and, on occasion, violently aggressive. This research also concluded that regular access to violent PC games was even more likely to produce confrontational behaviour in children than if they did not use these games. The result of continued access during the teenage years to such programmes/games was predicted to be an increase in anti-social behaviour with a reduced aversion to violence against others.

Pretty scary stuff.

I have a particular interest in this not only through my job (forensic psychiatry) but also because my son has been diagnosed with ADHD. We monitor what he watches on TV and restrict the amount of time he spends watching stuff like Transformers and Biker Mice etc. He is encouraged to watch 'gentle' programmes and he does enjoy these but, being a boy, he also likes the sort of 'action' stuff boys like. The only programme we have banned totally is Power Rangers because, unlike most of the other 'action' programmes, there seems to be no story to connect the many scenes of violent fighting, therefore IMHO the programme is depicting violence in a very casual manner. Fortunately my son is, by nature, very gentle so the effect on him of watching the 'action' programmes, though noticeable, is mild. He charges around the room shouting 'transform' and copies the actions of the characters.

The fact that children/youngsters are effected by what they watch is proved by the amount of TV related products on sale in shops. Young people want to relate to what they are watching and, in many cases, to copy what they see. In general there is nothing wrong with this and if this is monitored by parents/guardians any signs of abnormal behaviour can be spotted and dealt with in most cases. The real problems begin when youngsters are left alone to view what I call 'degenerate' or 'perverted' material such as certain adult themed movies/video games depicting violent aggression and/or sexual aggression. It is possible that, if individual situations are left unchecked, we may end up with another tragic James Bulger type scenario.

I feel it is a social responsibility for film/PC game makers to at least be aware of the types of research I have outlined and have some sort of knowledge of the possible consequences of impressionable/unwell people viewing this type of stuff. I have seen interviews with PC game makers who are in denial about this issue. This scares me just as much as the research itself, because these are the people who will keep pushing back the boundaries.

My admiration for Kubrick's stance is immense because, whatever his motives, he demonstrated that he felt some kind of responsibility for the effect his film was having on society and did something about it.

Bats.

[Pye]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin The Chav thread elsewhere seems to me to have a resonance that while thugs have always been around, the levels of physical violence in recent years has stepped outside the historic bounds of the severity of that physical violence. I wondered how much the extreme violence perpetrated in films now so popular amongst young people has contributed to this phenomenon - if such exists. If it does, should such movies be made. Stanley Kubrick seemed to conclude that, in retrospect, his 'Clockwork Orange' was too easily used as an encouragement to violence by being 'selectively' viewed. So he elected to suppress it. Should other film-makers do more to suppress the direct representation of extreme violence?

I don't agree with that, I suspect violence in the earlier eras of history was a bgood deal more barbaric. I think generally youngsters are far better behaved now, its just that the smaller number who are troublesome are very extreme. But bearing in mind the widespread rioting, football violence or razor gang cultures of the past that have now vanished, I don't think we're necesaarily in a worse state now.

As for Kubrick, I do think he should have quite ruightly felt a little responsible because in my opinion Clockwork Orange is a terrible film on so many levels and not least its total failure to understand the story's points about violence. The ending, by choosing to omit the book's ending, makes nonsense of the story, and the violence is so slick and choreographed: real violence is clumsy, ugly and bloody. As Michael Caine said in defence of Get carter, it avoids the "pornography of violence" so many films suffer from.

Also I do wonder if films no are actually more violent. Television is most definitely LESS violent I would say.

[batman]

Originally Posted by Pye I think generally youngsters are far better behaved now, its just that the smaller number who are troublesome are very extreme. But bearing in mind the widespread rioting, football violence or razor gang cultures of the past that have now vanished, I don't think we're necesaarily in a worse state now. Also I do wonder if films no are actually more violent. Television is most definitely LESS violent I would say.

Televison is definitely less violent than a few years back and that is a good thing. The bad thing is that the violence TV used to portray is now available in a much more graphic form via DVD and PC games. Prior to the 80s there wasn't much TV on during the day and there were no dvds/computers etc for kids to watch while their parents were out. These days kids can get their hands on virtually anything and there is often no one there to stop them watching it, in fact some parents watch it with them!

As for youngsters being better behaved, I have to disagree, even here in rural Norfolk I regularly encounter youngsters who spit, swear, obstruct and throw things at others and, when challenged, they usually reply 'who's gonna fucking stop me ... you?.'

Also, if the razor gang culture has vanished, who is responsible for the 18 teenage deaths by stabbing in London alone this year. A young lad was shot dead only last night by two youths on BMX bikes!

Pye, I acknowledge and agree with your inclusion of the Michael Caine quote. I am not against violence in films, just the 'extremes' to which it is often portrayed and its availability to youngsters.

Bats.

[ChristineCB]

I think certain activities can be learned from films. I know excuse-making is a learned experience, and blaming something or someone else is learned, too.

[batman]

I am not blaming anyone or anything specifically for the amount of violence/aggression displayed today, it is a social problem and all of society must take it's share of the blame. However, if certain activities are shown to have a direct connection to anti-social activities, we have a responsibility as human beings to try and correct it. I am not saying films/games are responsible for all the problems of society, in my life and in my current job I have seen and experienced the types of social deprivation etc that breeds such behaviour, this thread was about whether people can learn extreme violence from films etc, and the answer IMHO is 'yes'.

Bats.

[Moor Larkin]

Originally Posted by batman this thread was about whether people can learn extreme violence from films etc, and the answer IMHO is 'yes'.

That was what I wondered about: the techniques of violent behaviour rather than it's existence.

[Wolfgang]

Did Kubrick ban Clockwork Orange out of fear of copycat violence then? I always understood it is because he received death threats.

I think there is no doubt that image affect behaviour - commercial TV is built around this principle, and it is well known that woman persuades her lover to take her to romantic films to try and elicit romantic behaviour from him. But like they say about hypnotic suggestion, you probably cannot make somebody do something that they would not do without any external stimulus.

[Steve Crook]

A little perspective please chaps.
While I deplore every killing or other act of violence or aggression, especially when undeserved, we must remember that
a) Young people have always fought each other for no particular reason
b) If you look at the Metropolitan Police crime statistics you'll see that the crime figures are generally coming down and that we do live in a more peaceful society. Especially note the figures for murder and violence against the person, all of which have been steadily falling over the last 5 years and are a lot less now than they were in any "golden age" in the past.

Steve

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Wolfgang Did Kubrick ban Clockwork Orange out of fear of copycat violence then? I always understood it is because he received death threats.

From the Wikipedia article about the film:

British withdrawal
In the United Kingdom, the sexual violence in the film was considered extreme. Furthermore, it was claimed that the film had inspired copycat behaviour. In March 1972, a prosecutor at a trial of a 14-year-old boy accused of the manslaughter of one of his classmates referred to A Clockwork Orange, telling the judge that the case had a macabre relevance to the film.

More direct connections were made after the murder of David McManus, a homeless 60-year-old man who had 1½p stolen from him. The attacker, a boy age 16 from Bletchley, pleaded guilty after telling police that his friends had told him of the film "and the beating up of an old boy like this one"; defence counsel told the trial "the link between this crime and sensational literature, particularly A Clockwork Orange, is established beyond reasonable doubt".[6] The press also blamed the influence of the film for a rape in which the attackers sang "Singin' in the Rain". Kubrick subsequently requested that Warner Brothers withdraw the film from UK distribution.

At the time, it was widely believed that the copycat attacks were what led Kubrick to withdraw the film from distribution in the United Kingdom. However, in a television documentary made after Kubrick's death, his widow Christiane confirmed rumours that Kubrick had withdrawn A Clockwork Orange on police advice after threats were made against Kubrick and his family (the source of the threats was not discussed). That Warner Bros. acceded to Kubrick's request to withdraw the film is an indication of the remarkable relationship Kubrick had with the studio, particularly the executive Terry Semel.

Steve

[batman]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook A little perspective please chaps. While I deplore every killing or other act of violence or aggression, especially when undeserved, we must remember that a) Young people have always fought each other for no particular reason b) If you look at the Metropolitan Police crime statistics you'll see that the crime figures are generally coming down and that we do live in a more peaceful society. Especially note the figures for murder and violence against the person, all of which have been steadily falling over the last 5 years and are a lot less now than they were in any "golden age" in the past. Steve

As Disraeli so correctly put it .... there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Bats.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by batman As Disraeli so correctly put it .... there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Bats.

That means that statistics aren't lies

That quote is variously attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, Alfred Marshall, Mark Twain and many other dead people.

Steve

[batman]

The full quote is ... there are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics. Twain actually attributed it do Disraeli who used it to describe the way statistics are often used to assist with an unsound argument. So it is in fact referring to statistics as lies.

However many others names have indeed been put forward as the originator of the remark, including a former President of the Royal Statistical Society who claimed it as his, and stated that the remark was meant to prove the accuracy of statistics. But then he would say that wouldn't he (as a certain young lady once said).

I'll stick with Disraeli .

Bats.

[DB7]

Originally Posted by batman it is a social problem Bats.

It is. Kubrick's films have been seen nationwide but most of these attention-grabbing headlines take place in deprived areas of London, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham and Glasgow. It's nothing to do with cinema, it's the breakdown of respect, community and parental responsibility.

That said the media play their part, it's a slow-news day so they focus heavily on a tragic event. I think if you cut through the headlines you'll discover that violent crime has probably been wavering around the same level for a decade.

There's no quick fix, if the government wish to address the problem it will take a multi-pronged attack on the root causes rather than Jacqui Brown promising more "ABC's" (son of Asbo). It's an acronym sticking plaster to a larger problem.

Imho filmmakers are fairly responsible, sadly ratings-hunting tv execs are not and wish to push the pre-watershed envelope.