How Violence in Movies Influences Real Violence

Can Hollywood’s portrayal of violence on the big screen influence its audience to commit violent acts? After the 2012 mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, when James Eagan Holmes open fired at a screening of ‘Batman: The Dark Knight Rises’, the public feared the entertainment industry was doing just that. Bob Strauss, a film critic with the Whittier Daily News (LAFCA), wrote about this topic in his article, “Is Hollywood violence to blame for mass shootings? ‘It’s a really complex question’”. He attempted to shed light on the subject matter as most people today are confused about the connection between the screen and reality. Yet, is this actually true? Can the tone and subject matter of a film influence a person to commit a violent act or are we still confused?

Strauss states screen violence and real violence is complex and not a simple yes or no answer. Strauss interviews Brad Bushman, a professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State University, and Robert Thompson, a professor of popular culture at Syracuse University, to gain insight if screen violence can influence a person. This influence could not be summed up with one answer. The article states there are risk factors, but screen violence is a low-risk, actors who support gun control but act in violent movies are hypocrites, and if you ask the public they will state it is true. Thompson asks Strauss, do other types of movies influence the audience to act a certain way? No. People were more influenced to do the opposite. Thompson compares the Baby Boom Generation with the television show “Dick Van Dyke Show”. The television show did not portray marital sex, none the less pre-marital sex, but the Baby Boomers normalized pre-marital sex. If the Baby Boomers were not influenced by a popular television show, how could it now? The article ends with these types of films will continue to be made as we, the audience, keep returning to watch them.

I chose this article as Strauss quotes Buchman and Thompson on numerous occasions about the possibilities of why someone could be influenced but does not explain the meaning of the quotes. With this article directed toward the general public, the lack of clarification might amplify the public’s confusion and misinterpretation of the content. The article is a great start to ignite the public’s interest in finding out the answer, but that is all you will get from it. You have to do your own research if you want to find an answer. When I read the article, I felt confused as I did not have a conclusion about what the quotes meant and the significance of Hollywood and mass shootings. Strauss simply reiterates quotes from Bushman and Thompson and does not translate or support these opinions through explanation or evidence. It is just a commentary on the situation.

In particular, I wanted to analyze the low-risk factors that were mentioned at the beginning of the article. I believe this should have been explained in-depth as it has a larger impact on the question of Hollywood influencing violence. Perhaps if Strauss provided insight or an explanation as to what a low-risk factor is and what the primary or high-risk factors could be, such as mental health issues or the history of an offender, the reader might understand how watching a film could be considered a low-risk factor. My interpretation with no knowledge of low-risk factors would be a person could watch a film and be influenced to commit violence. With some background knowledge on risk factors, my interpretation changes to watching a film with violence are not the primary reason for a person to commit violent acts. It is as if someone was on the “edge” or at the “breaking point” and could be “tipped over the edge” into committing violent acts. Having an understanding of risk factors would benefit the public to form a more rational opinion rather than an emotional opinion.

Does screen violence influence real violence? After reading this article, it could but you need to look at various reasons as to how Hollywood is handling gun and general violence, laws on gun control, risk factors, and the public’s opinion. Overall, the article did not provide sufficient information to be able to understand the situation. It did bring awareness where further research is required to analyze what the true connection is between screen violence and real violence. I did not get a definitive answer, but I am now interested in researching this matter to try to get closer to obtaining a clearer conclusion as this article could not provide that for me.