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.
Even 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.
About The Good Feed Blog Editors
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 bullied for years will clam up into an anti-social recluse and never heal from the pain and so forth.
I’ll agree that saying “violent media makes people violent” is not entirely true and too direct of an attempt at a cause/effect link I do think it is worth looking into what kind of effect media violence has on people.
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 in the U.S. And there is a historical reason for this. Namely, the civillizing process of government is not as complete in the U.S. as it is elsewhere. It’s a matter of history and culture.
That’s it, that’s all. One day, the civillizing process will be as complete in the U.S. as it is in other western societies and the U.S. will have similarly low murder rates. Until the last vestiges of the Wild West are wrung out of U.S. society, the murder rates and rates of violence will remain higher. It’s simply a process that needs to run its course.
It’s really quite fascinating the way Pinker explains it. The really cool thing is that one can see how the historical process unfolded simply by looking at murder rates on a state by state basis. Those settled the longest and most intensely (i.e. the Northeast) have the most similar murder rates to other western societies. The more “Wild West” the states are historically (namely southern midwest states), the more violence they are (4-6 times more violent in fact).
Never had the same phenomemon in Canada, because in this country, the law (namely the RCMP), came first, then the settlers arrived instead of the other way around. And the rest is history. Fascinating isn’t it?
Anyways… This topic bores me. Ciao for now.
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 this article is there even a reference to anything legal or legislative.
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!
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 times? He had me watch the film Irreversible with him… Have you ever seen that? There’s something interesting to it, and it did a whole new thing that really teaches a crazy and fascinating lesson about revenge, and acting out of vengeance, but holy CRAP if it doesn’t disturb you then there’s something wrong with you.
But it was like this badge of honor for him and his friends and others in Hollywood at the time. “Did you see Irreversible? What did you think?” and if you had big balls you said, “It was gorgeous” and if you said, “I turned it off.” or “I walked out.” (which most people did at Sundance or Cannes or whatever festival it first premiered) then you were a puss. Or not a real artist. Or something.
The film is worth something, but I love the idea you posit that people use it as a badge of manliness to be able to tolerate violence or rape or other disturbing things.
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 X just didn’t affect me, it didn’t cut deep enough for me” then you’d be grandstanding your machismo based upon how “over it” you are… Which is bizarre.
I think your reaction is healthy and normal, and I know you enough to know Danny that you are far from being one of those guys.
Even Requiem for a Dream and Irreversible are great films. Irreversible’s point is to disturb you, as is Requiem, really, though there’s a lot more character development in Requiem, and it’s more about seeing a slice of this life and what drugs do to you.
Irreversible is played backward. Not like Memento where it’s still a forward-linear story. Irreversible literally shows the last scene first, which is two men, in a rage, beating the face in of a guy with a fire extinguisher in a dark, loud, filthy club. You don’t know why, or where or how or who they are. Then you see them going into the club. Then you see them finding out that the guy is in said club and heading there. Then you see them trying to find the guy, etc etc and you don’t even know WHY they’re killing this guy or whey they’re looking. So when you see the act of murder and revenge in the end, it’s detached form the event that caused it. At the end, you see this beautiful happiness and know that it is never going to be that way again. If you watched it front to back, you’d feel relief and revenge along with the guys who are doing the killing…
Anyway, so that film is DESIGNED to disturb you. That’s the whole point.
American History X is designed to disturb, because the subject matter is disturbing, but it’s very real and there are great characters you follow and a great story.
Does that make any sense?
TL;DR = If you appreciate that it’s disturbing but see the function of it rather than revel in it or show off that you were unaffected by it, you’re not who I’m talking about.
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 hard way that white supremacists weren’t in it for the betterment of white people but for themselves (I know that sounds weird).
But even though that scene was not created for shock value it’s still not used as such in such conversation. Like you say here:
I’m talking about showboating how un-disturbed you are by the scene. If you were like, “I don’t know, American History X just didn’t affect me, it didn’t cut deep enough for me” then you’d be grandstanding your machismo based upon how “over it” you are… Which is bizarre.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard that scene used in such grandstanding.
As in regardless of why a scene is done I wonder why some are used as a bar to measure toughness or realness as an artist and others aren’t.
Sorry for the confusion.
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 him into a woman”.
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 man raping a man is going to be significantly more traumatic for a man to watch than a man raping a woman?
Now in light of what I said about being raped by a guy being considered the worst thing that can happen to a guy there is still the socializing that a man raping a woman is worse than a man raping a man.
Now as for which is more traumatic that’s going to depend on the person. Me personally between the two I would speculate that watching a man rape a man would be more traumatic for me because I’m a man (and I’d imagine that a woman would say she would find a scene of a man raping a woman more traumatic), not a woman,
The question you pose brings differing ideas about rape together and the answer is going to vary from person to person depending on how tightly they hold onto what ideas. Do they think about it from their own gendered perspective? Would there be consideration to the idea of the mind of guy being shattered by being raped by a man? How would chances of pregnancy play into this? What affect would cultural beliefs on rape would the trauma have? Since trauma is measured not just in body but mind how would tally up those differences?
I think this question could lead to a dangerous path of people trying to subjectively declare that a man raping a woman is more traumatic/worse than a man raping a man or vice versa. (And on a side note I have to say that I’m likely to say a scene of a woman raping a man would traumatize me even 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 actually worse than murder).
Again I think it’s going to vary from person to person depending on things like how desensitized they are to what ideas they hold about rape to all sorts of other factors.
(And then of course there’s the problem of how a woman committing a sex crime against man or another woman is basically treated like it’s not even a crime or that it is a crime…against the women that committed the sex crime!)
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:
The odd combination out here is a woman raping a man. Most people are far less disturbed by scenes describing that than scenes describing a man raping a woman. I don’t think that can be ascribed to being desensitized to woman-to-man rape in the same way as you describe being desensitized to man-to-woman rape. It’s just that for a lot of people the concept just doesn’t exist. Which in itself is a real danger – because how can one protect oneself against something one doesn’t think can happen? And how can one stop oneself from committing some harm when one thinks one’s actions are incapable of inflicting that harm?