CENSORSHIP! in Media Magazine

In the April 2008 edition of Media Magazine there was an investigation into "Censorship, how strict should it be?" By Stephen Hill, Head of Media at Burgate School and Sixth Form Centre in Fordingbridge, and also teaches at Bournemouth Media school. 

(Information taken from Media Magazine april2008 on 25/11/08)

In his article he looks at 3 films, A Clockwork Orange, Platoon and Freaks. None of these films are really in the same genre as the ones stated in my hypothesis, but some of the views Hill puts forward in his investigation are very interesting ways to look at the theories i have been studying such as the culmination theory.

VIOLENCE AND HOW IT IS PERCEIVED!!!

In this article Hill talks about wether some films that have been viewed in the past and caused controversy should have been censored for viewing purposes. 

However Hills take on how films effect the viewers is not as Black and White as most that i have come across, either saying that the film either does or does not influence the viewer. Hill suggests that these scenes in the films make us question our own humanity.

"Graphic depictions of brutal crimes that invite the audience to confront their own humanity; neither Stone nor Kubrick is celebrating these atrocities, but asking the reader to question their own response"

This would suggest that it isn't the films injecting the viewer with the idea to go out and copy the crimes they have just seen, or over time hardening them up to the point where they dont feel it is wrong anymore. This would suggest that the people who are influenced, or claim that they are influenced by these films to commit crimes similar to that of what they have viewed are inhuman in a sense. Which i agree with on some grounds, its not as black and white as some people such as Lord Attenbrough and the Chief of the Metropolitan Police suggest, but as they dont have an as in depth knowledge on the matter and the theories behind it they are not likely to be able to argue this case to any real sense.

However, a little further down the article Hill then states. 

"On the other hand no director ever has full control over how the representation of violence will be received by the audience"

Therefor he is looking at this from both sides of the spectrum, at first saying that the scenes are put there to make the audience question their own humanity and any one with regular morals would never dream of recreating such scenes or crimes, however he is now saying that the director never has control on how the audience view the crimes, or in particular the people committing these crimes. 

It is a well known fact that a lot of people look up to movie stars as their idols, therefor people who watch their favorite actor in this text are likely to thoroughly enjoy the performance and repeatedly view that particular film. I think what Hill is trying to say here is that different people will perceive these graphic events in different ways. Some will think that they are shocking, disturbing and unbearable to watch. Where as at the other end of the scale people will be thinking that these scenes are exhilarating and exciting. So exciting maybe that they are influenced by this feeling to go out and re enact it for themselves?...

This part also links in with the next point in the article, how many of these films, especially now are glamorized and exaggerated to fit the Hollywood characteristics they need to sell!

He uses "Platoon" as his example.

"Stones critical commentary of the Vietnam War is lost in pyrotechnics of his high budget film produced to mainstream Hollywood production values."

This links into my theory of "Is the way that organized crime in film is portrayed influencing people to commit these offenses?"

The way that some directors glamorize the characters in these films make them appealing to some audience, especially the younger generation. The gangsters in these hollywood films are portrayed as "Living the high life" which is very appealing to someone of easy influence. The characters in the films, very rarely get caught by the police, and if they do its toward the end of there spree. So this may influence certain people in an audience.

Another quote used in Hills article is "Highly Stylized" again talking about the way that the director portrays the characters in these types of films as a tight group of friends who enjoy committing these friends which comes out in the humor elements of these films which dampens the impact of the violence. This could be one of the explanations for the culmination theory. Its not that its just extended viewing of these scenes, its the WAY these scenes are viewed. When a director such as Tarrantino in Pulp Fiction shows a scene of a man having his head blown off in the back of a car by accident, but then scripts the actors to react to that situation in a comical manner it softens the blow of what has just been viewed.

I think this element of production and script writing has a massive effect on how viewers perceive what they have just seen and wether it shocks them or not. I do not however believe that if a film that was showing these scenes would be so easy to watch with out the slapstick humor.

On viewing this article it has opened my eyes to many different explanations for many things and has shown that the theories for these media texts such as the hypodermic syringe and the culmination theory are not as simple and black and white as they seem.

For this reason i am going to going to investigate a new theory.

"Is violence that is surrounded by humor easier to watch?"

I will do this using primary research using a questionnaire.

I will get a selection of people to first watch a scene of extreme violence followed by this humor element, and then ask them to view a scene of similar intensity which is not followed by the humor element and get there views via my questionnaire.