In 2007, Mike White, producer, director, and actor wrote a compelling Op-Ed in The New York Times in response to the shooting in Virginia that killed 32 members of the Virginia Tech community.
White, who has directed, written and/or produced films and TV series such as Freaks and Geeks, School of Rock and The Good Girl (and also competed on The Amazing Race alongside his dad) wrote a moving exploration of the role that media violence plays in encouraging violence in young American men. The Op-Ed is a great, easy read that everyone should check out but I will excerpt a few paragraphs as starting points for the conversation about how media violence influences real-life violence:
The first movie I ever made was called “Death Creek Camp.” It told the age-old story of a group of teenage guys who set out on a fun-filled wilderness excursion only to be stalked and murdered by a psychopath disguised in a hockey mask and a blue kimono. It was no masterpiece of cinema… I was 12.
The inspirations for this home movie (and the centerpieces of many Saturday night sleepovers) were slasher films like “Friday the 13th,” “Halloween” and “Terror Train.” My friends and I would eat junk food, drink soda and watch these cinematic bloodbaths until we dozed off, visions of gore and mayhem dancing in our heads.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad freeEven though we all came from religious families — my father was a minister — it was rarely questioned whether our adolescent minds should be exposed to this kind of gruesome material. And clearly, we were the intended audience. My parents never sat and watched, nor did my sister, for that matter. The movies were titillating, shocking and dumb — and we teenage boys thought they were so cool. We devoured them and they, in turn, juiced us up.
White goes on to describe how Americans, reflecting on the tragedy at Virginia Tech, were searching their souls and our culture to try to figure out what may have motivated the shooter. Filmmakers and other producers of media had to ask themselves if somehow they may have been responsible.
These commentators insist there’s no point debating which came first, the violent chicken or her violent representational egg, since no causal link has ever been proven between egg and chicken anyway. Besides, violent images can be found everywhere — on the news, in great art and literature, even Shakespeare!
For those who believe that violence in cinema consists of either harmless action spectacles or Martin Scorsese masterpieces, I might suggest heading down to the local multiplex and taking a look at some of the grotesque, morbid creations being projected on the walls. To defend mindless exercises in sadism like “The Hills Have Eyes II” by citing “Macbeth” is almost like using “Romeo and Juliet” to justify child pornography.
Mike calls on his fellow Hollywood bigwigs and asks them to take a moment to search their souls:
Most of us who chose careers in this field were seduced by cinema’s spell at an early age. We know better than anyone the power films have to capture our imaginations, shape our thinking and inform our choices, for better and for worse. At the risk of being labeled a scold — the ultimate in uncool — I have to ask: before cashing those big checks, shouldn’t we at least pause to consider what we are saying with our movies about the value of life and the pleasures of mayhem?
What do you think of White’s challenge to fellow screenwriters?
Is it true that “movies don’t kill people, people kill people” or is that an oversimplification of a much more complicated relationship between boys, media, mental illness and violence?
Or is the focus upon media and guns as the reasons for the horrific mass-killings at the hands of young men a red herring, intended to distract us from digging into the meat of what is happening with young men in our society?
Read Mike White’s “Making a Killing” in the New York Times
Editor’s Note: This is an open thread that will not be moderated except in the instance of verbal abuse or name-calling. Please keep this discussion civil.
Sorry for any misunderstanding once again…
What gets my goat is the kind of middlebrow devotee of torture porn who pops up on iMDB reviews and such places. He uses phrases like “this film is not for the squeamish” – framing the tolerance for hyperviolence as a sign of strength and bravery – and throws the word art around like an incantation when discussions of violence come up, insinuating that art must not only shock, but carry the potential to traumatize.
I think that is an amazing insight, Peter. “Framing the tolerance for hyper violence as a sign of strength and bravery”… “…insinuating that art must not only shock, but carry the potential to traumatize”… WOW. I have this ex who is a director. When we were young, mid 20s, he loved the darkest, most disturbing shit and it was almost to prove what an artiste he was. You know? I could see what was great about so many of the films he liked, like Requiem for a Dream, but why the F would anyone watch that a whole bunch of… Read more »
On a side note I have to say something about using tolerance of rape in media as a bade of manliness.
Anyone ever see American History X? There is is one particularly violent rape scene in that film as well.
But despite the brutality of that scene I have rarely (if ever) seen it held up as a bar for measuring how tough someone is when watching media.
Just saying.
I don’t think every film that has a disturbing scene is designed to be hard to watch… American History X wasn’t just a good film, it was an important film with amazing acting. Just because you liked the film despite the disturbing scene (or even *because* they included a rape scene that was disturbing – I mean, ALL rape scenes should be disturbing instead of sexy – so they’re doing it right) doesn’t mean you’re doing what I’m talking about. I’m talking about showboating how un-disturbed you are by the scene. If you were like, “I don’t know, American History… Read more »
I should have explained better. I certainly agree that that scene in American History X was not put there just for the sake of putting in a brutal scene. That scene was a crucial turning point in his life. Between being and raped and earlier on when he saw that they were selling drugs to whites (he knew how destructive drugs are and that is why he thought they were to be sold to non whites, to profit from their own self destruction, or in short selling drugs to whites hurts white people so don’t do it) he learned the… Read more »
I’m not sure American History X would be used that way. I think it depends upon what people you know. IE Peter mentioned torture porn, I mentioned disturbing “art” or indie films…
I bet it varies, but the basic notion here is that a guy (or woman) proves his “toughness” by pretending to be (or maybe genuinely being) unaffected by things that are traditionally considered damaging to other people.
I bet it varies, but the basic notion here is that a guy (or woman) proves his “toughness” by pretending to be (or maybe genuinely being) unaffected by things that are traditionally considered damaging to other people. As you say I think it might depend on the people you deal with. On one hand I see what you’re saying but also bear in mind that (supposedly) to a lot of guys being raped by another man is one of the worst things that can happen to a guy on a count of such an act being a way of “making… Read more »
Dude, for sure that’s one of the worst things. That is for sure going to upset a guy.
Do you think that a scene with a man raping a man is going to be significantly more traumatic for a man to watch than a man raping a woman?
I think it would be, but I’m speculating. Would it be because we don’t see it that much in the media, or is it because it’s just too personal?
I put that supposedly in there because while there is no question it’s a horrible event it’s the reasoning that bothers me. While it is certainly a horrible and traumatic violation of the body (and mind) that “supposedly” was because of the idea that the act of one man raping another somehow “makes a woman out him”. Again I’m not saying it’s not a terrible thing. I’m saying that it’s messed up to say that when a man is raped by another that man becomes a woman. See what I’m getting at? Do you think that a scene with a… Read more »
Yes, let’s certainly NOT let a discussion happen about which is worse. I think everyone would agree both are just as bad.
I’ll say something weird: I think watching a scene of a man raping a man would disturb me more than a scene of man raping a woman because I think to some degree I’ve been desensitized to man-to-woman rape. That’s so fucked up, isn’t it?! I blame society.
PS to my last one, that does NOT mean I think EITHER rape is worse than the other. Just making a comment about our media and what it’s done even to me.
I’ll say something weird: I think watching a scene of a man raping a man would disturb me more than a scene of man raping a woman because I think to some degree I’ve been desensitized to man-to-woman rape. That’s so fucked up, isn’t it?! I blame society. I can understand that. But at the same time (at least as guys) we are told that a man raping a woman is subjectively one of the worst things that can possibly happen to a PERSON short of killing them (and I’ve actually seen the occasional try to argue that rape is… Read more »
Danny: I’m saying that it’s messed up to say that when a man is raped by another that man becomes a woman. Yeah, that analysis (often described as femmephobia) of male victims is something I consider messed up as well on several levels. A complete lack of knowledge of even the possibility of being a male victim of female sexual abuse/assault/rape is more likely to lead to denial (“it is nothing”, “I should like it”) rather than rationalization in the form of “shit, that would mean that I am a woman now so it can’t have happened”. Joanna: I’ll say… Read more »
La la la First Amendment freedom of expression art Art AAART I can’t hear you layler layler layler.
First Amendment protects the *right* to express oneself. White isn’t saying that the rights should be removed, simply saying that those in his industry perhaps should take a look at oneself. If one believes in the simplest form of government, then people would police their own morality and not make excessive laws that violate personal freedoms. In this case, White is doing just that. He is a member of the community, asking other people to police themselves. This whole “first amendment” thing you’re spouting is one of the most blatant uses of a strawman argument I’ve ever seen. Nowhere in… Read more »
Joanna, I’m sorry if I appeared to embrace said argument. I tried to present it as sarcastically as I could, after the manner of a “creative” person who just wants to put his fingers in his ears and ignore the issue.
Oh that makes a thousand times more sense. Stupid First Amendment confusing us!
I keep reading this weird shit online from people whom I suspect are mostly Tea Party gun-lovers who use the First Amendment as this taunt against those who say anything like this and it’s so weird how they use the First Amendment as a defense against people who want to speak out as White did, like “it’s their first amendment right to make whatever they want” without realizing it’s also White’s First Amendment right to call them out on it!
Anyway, duh, I get it now! Thanks!
Nope. Young men have been the more violent ones from time immemorial. Back in the good ol’ days when the killing was truly rampant and violence was as normal as breathing, it was still young men who did most of the violence. Always have. Always will. Media has sweet F.A. to do with it. It’s simply the mediator of culture nowadays instead of learning about Achilles slaying foes by the multititude around the family hearth. Don’t believe me? Read “The Better Angels of Our Natures” by Stephen Pinker and take his word for it. Note, things really are more violent… Read more »
I think it does to an extent. Violent media serves as reinforcement that “violence is the answer”.
Reminds me of the T-shirt I saw recently:
“I know violence isn’t the answer. I got it wrong on purpose.”
Seriously, though, I think seeing millions of violent images over your lifetime probably will have some effect on you. It would be absurd to think they would have no effect. But, I don’t think it’s a simple cause and effect situation. There are actually parts of the human psyche that are incredibly resistant to external programming.
But, I don’t think it’s a simple cause and effect situation. There are actually parts of the human psyche that are incredibly resistant to external programming. Agreed. Even with those parts that are incredibly resistant you still have variations from person to person. I think this is how you have one person who is mercilessly bullied for years retaliate by killing a few dozen school mates while another person who is mercilessly bullied for years won’t retaliate but grow up to be a counselor to try to prevent it from happening to others and yet another person who is mercilessly… Read more »