On the 19th of June 2001 the Telegraph newspaper featured an article on Guy Ritchies newest piece of work which back then, was the film "Snatch" the sequal to his first hit "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrells". The article is focused on how Guy Ritchies films glamourise violence for commercial gain and profit. This is a perfect source for my hypothesis.
(In formation retrieved from www.telegraph.co.uk on the 19th of November 2008)
Lord Attenborough who is an influential figure in the British film industry provoked new controversy on the subject of FILMS GLAMOURISING CRIME AND VIOLENCE. Attenborough accused Ritchie of "succumbing to the pornography of violence." He also said that the only reason that he was putting violence in his films to make them sell.
Attenborough was also backed by officers in the police force. The Chief of the Metropolitan Police stated "The people who commit these type of crimes are vicious, nasty thugs, not glamorous film stars. If you had seen the consequences of violence like i have you would not glamourise it". Attenborough backed up this statement saying "Violence on screen is much worse than sex. It makes us lose the capacity to be shocked or moved. I dont want to be guilty of that. And if it means that i make movies that some people find boring, then so be it".
This statement would back up the Cumlmination Theory which states that too much viewing of violent films hardens the sensitivity of people toward violence and crime.
Snatch was a sequal to the first big hit Lock Stock covering pretty much the same ground as the first on but equally as good. Both films are set in the East End of London and deal with a group of cartoonish villains carrying out acts of great brutallity interlaced with scenes of slapstick humor. The cast included Vinnie Jones a well renound harman from the football scene and Brad Pitt the American A list celebrity. The film was condemned by many critics as callous, cynical retread of his previous film.
The film includes constant bad language, violence and crime. Lord Puttman stated "Violence begets violence. It creates a casualised attitude to violence. It stirs people up"
And what i think he means by that statement that it "stirs people up" is that people start to loose the idea of what is right and what is wrong, which may well be the case. If people are continuously seeing people in these films commiting simple crimes, and acts of brutality and getting away with is without any trace of trouble then they may begin to think that they can perform the same crimes in the same way and get away with it forgetting that the film is still a fictional story.
Leading Police Officers said that "Violence in film was influencing young people". As the culmination theory is a more generic theory that just states the people who watch these films over a long period of time will be influenced by the characteristics and behavior of characters in the film then this could well be happening with Guy Ritchies film. They may not be committing crimes like that of the film but the violence in the film may be influencing them to fight.
I think this will lead me to my next argument for my hypothesis.
"Is the way that organised crime in film portrayed influencing people to commit these offences?"
No comments:
Post a Comment