Question One

I started off researching my hypothesis by looking into audience theories. Finding the meanings for these theories such as the hypodermic syringe theory and two step flow pointed me in the direction of the Culmination theory. The theory suggested that the extended viewing of violent media influences the viewer and desensitizes them, this linked in with films glamourising crime as it suggests that glamourising crime will influence the viewer to commit it.

I used the www.Google.co.uk search engine to look for results on the culmination theory. I think that Google is a very strong source for research, it is fast, accurate and easy to use.  916,000 results where shown the first of which led me to an article on the theory (www.northallatoncoll.org.uk/media/audiences.htm written by Steve Baker, Titled The Audience as Mass Accessed 06/11/08) which give me a more in depth view on the theory stating "No one media text will have any great effect on the viewer, years and years of watching violence may desensatise you to it". I then went searching for any articles or storys of events related to this theory. From my own knowledge I knew that the film "A Clockwork Orange" had incidents that related to the film. Using again the Google search engine I entered clockwork orange banned?" and 96,000 results where shown. This led to an article www.thefilmroom.org on some reasons the film was banned in 1973 stating that "throughout 72 and 73 police linked several cases to the film that had been committed by teenagers. one of the culprits in a particular case admitted to reading the book which was enough proof for the public to slate Kubricks work. I found out that it was actually the director himself who withdrew the film due to fear for his familys safety. I think the source for this information was very useful and reliable as the information was taken from Steve Baker who is well known in the media industry. The information was strong and useful.

I also attended a lecture (Lecturer:Kristaa Van Raalt Title:Media Audience:Media Effects Attended 28/11/08) about audience theories. This gave me alot of information and opened my eyes passive and active audiences.

It was then I decided to have a more in depth research into these crimes. I searched "crime related to clockwork orange" and I got 71,000 results and on the second results I found an newspaper article (www.theindependant.co.uk/news/uk/crime/clockwork-orange-gang-found-guilty-of-kiling-bar-manager-519576.html Title:"Clockwork Orange" gang found guilty of killing bar manager Author:Arifa Akbar Published:15/12/05 Acessed 11/11/08). I read this article and found out that in 2005 a group of teenager beat a bar manager to death on a "happy slapping" spree which they recorded on their mobile phone. It was the statement that the girl who was recording the beating asked the victim to smile to the camera" that reminded me most of the arrogant fashion in which the gang in the film committed violence. Even though this may not be a direct influence this a great example of a culmination theorists opinion on how the media effects people. I evaluated this source coming to the conclusion that although I believed it to be a reliable source, I know that at that time there where a lot of happy slapping cases that were happening and a few that just went way to far. So this mean that the gang where in know way influenced by violence in film but however influenced by what was happening at the time with happy slapping being the latest "craze". 

The strengths of this source was that the writer of the articles main area of focus was arts, which includes film, books and magazine so is a lot more reliable than any old journalist writing the report as they have an understanding of the film. Therefor for them to link that to CWO must have some purpose. The weaknesses however of this report are that the information could be exaggerated slightly to exploit the ever concerning factor of teenage violence. Also some of the opinions in the report may have been fueled by hate and disgust. This crime again intrigued me to dig deeper. On the second page of the search i found a sight titled "The Clockwork Orange Files" (www.tabula-rasa.info/horror/clockworkorangefiles.html Author:David Carrol Accessed: 12/11/08) 

This lead me to an article about a boy of the age 16 who beat a tramp to death. This intrigued me as there is a scene almost identical to this crime in the film. The boy openly admitted to the murder and told the court that his friends had told him about the film "and the beating up of an old boy like this one". It is stated in the article that "The link between the crime and sensational literature, particularly A Clockwork Orange, is established between reasonable doubt. It is very hard to see how it was not the film that has influenced the boy to commit this crime. And it was at this point that i thought that the explanation of this crime could not have been purely the culmination theory so I decided to look at other reasons that people may have been committing these crimes. The boy may have had a history of violence that was not stated in the article or he may have just been trying to gain sympathy and trying to say it wasnt all his fault. And it was when I started to research the theory of past events and sympathy votes I found another article of a boy that strangled and stabbed his best friend to death on the same site. He told the court that the whole reason he did was because of extended viewing of the film. The media may be emphasizing this for something to blame. I think the strengths of this source are that the crimes are directly linked to the film in many ways. However they are still articles and are open to the writers emphasis. Another weaknesses is that the articles are quite out dated. It was at this point in my research i felt like i was straying off from my focus task which was crime. It was then that i started to look into Guy Ritchies work as my films that im researching are all Ritchies work.

I searched Guy Ritchie glamourising crime into google and found a newspaper article about Lord Attenbrough commenting on Ritchies work (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1371292/lord-attenborough-hits-out-at-films-glamourising-violence.html). Attenbrough is slating Ritchies work saying he has "Succumbed to the pornography of violence." Many of Lord Attenbroughs comments where backed up by the chief of metropolitan police. Both arguing that violence is effecting people especially that of the younger generation. It was here i started to question the reasons it would be influencing them as it could not possibly just the viewing of the text its self. I got an idea that it may be something to do with the actors playing the characters or the role certain characters play in the film, something along them lines. The main reason for this was the character in "Snatch" Mickey the one punch machine gun. The gypsy bare knuckle boxing champion. The main reason i began to think of this was because the first time i watched the scene in which Mickey knocks out the big brut Gorgeous George i was wowed. So my next point of interest was "Is the way organised crime is portrayed in these films influencing people to commit them?"

After evaluating the Attenbrough source, i began to investigate my next hypothesis. I found an article in (Media Magazine named "Cencorship. How strict should it be?" Author:Stephen Hill Published:04/08 Accessed:25/11/08). It was hear I gained some views from specialists in the media industry that would change my investigation. It was at this point, reading this article that my focus of influence moved from the text to the person viewing it. The writer of the article stated " 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" I had never thought about this. He is basically saying that it is not the director trying to portray this behaviour as ok, but asking the viewer to see what they think. This links into the information picked up from the lecture on passive and active audience. Both would take in different things from watching these scenes. The passive audience are likely to just sit and absorb the violence not taking any real interest in what is happening where as the active audience will question what they are seeing, is this right? etc. The average joe would think that most of these scenes where terrible etc. This statement linked in with a statement talking about how the Director can never have full controlon how the audience will perceive their work. Later on in the article there is a small section on how violence is portrayed and wether this has an effect. The fact that crime and violence are "highly stylised" and in some cases surrounded may have an effect on how people are perceiving it. This is what i decided to look into next. The example they used in the article was the scene from a Tarantino (whos often critisised for glamourising crime and violence with comedy) production pulp fiction where a man gets his head blown off in the back of a car and at the time it seems funny due to how the scene is directed etc. I found this very interesting as many of Ritchies films are often like this. This is why i went on to research a new idea. "Is violence that is surrounded by humor easier to watch?" I planned to do this through primary research in which I would get a focus group to watch 2 different scenes containing strong violence. The first without any humor elements and the second with elements of humor, I would then the group to fill out a questionnaire on which the thought was stronger.

Before I done this I tried to come up with some ideas on why the scenes seem funny. This is due to the fact that many of the scenes are made funny not by the directors ideas but how the actor portrays his or her character. It was here that I began to look into a common factor of Ritchies gangster films, the "lovable rogue". Straight away i found articles concerning the matter (www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/reviews.php?film_id=14630 RocknRolla Author:Val Kermode Accessed:02/12/08). With these criminals being quick witted, and handsome most of the time sporting humorous nick names they are very appealing especially to the younger generation. Especially with actors such as Brad Pitt playing the roles. However the director cleverly involves scenes of great despair for these characters which even though they are fighting, theiving, conn artists makes you sympathise with them. Everyone of Ritchies Gangster films has one, Snatch: Micky, Lock Stock: Soap, Bacon, Tom, RocknRolla: OneTwo, Mumbles etc. After doing some textual analysis I realised that it is not only the character and story line that makes the audience empathise with the rogues but the camera work and cinematics too. For example on RocknRolla when OneTwo is being chased by the Russian war criminals its all in slow motion and emphasising his distress.

I also looked into the Catharsis theory at the same time as this (www.bookrags.com/research/catharsis-theory-and-media-effects-eci-01 Catharsis theory and media effects Accessed:10/12/08) as an interesting point was raised by a teacher in my college. After looking into this further i discovered and concluded that the Catharsis theory in terms of Media is false. It is a highly plausible in other areas such as sport etc, but I do not agree that watching violent media acts as a release for negative, aggressive feelings. Which will benefit the conclusion of my hypothesis.

FORGET CATHARSIS!

Firstly i would like to remind everyone that the word Catharsis originated from the Greek word Katharsis...

When reviewing an article on www.bookrags.com some interesting points were raised on the theory of Catharsis. 

The Catharsis theory indicates that the viewing of violence helps a person channel their own aggression and get rid of negative thoughts etc. This would suggest that if a person is feeling aggressive or angry then they can play a violent computer game or watch a violent film to get rid of this feeling. 

However the majority of points raised in the article are against the idea of this as am I. The idea of Catharsis is opposed by the ideas of the Culmination theory. This would say that the more violence you see the more aggressive you become. In the article some say "I think its a kind of purifying experience to see violence" however some go against "It is time to put a bullet, once and for all through the heart of the catharsis hypothesis. the belief that observing violence gets rid of hostilities has virtually never been supported by research" which the stats do prove.

The writer of the article very cleverly links the culmination theory to smoking to oppose the Catharsis hypothesis. Stating "Not everyone who smokes getst lung cancer, and not everyone who gets lung cancer is a smoker. But even the tabacco industry agrees that smoking causes lung cancer. Smoking is not the only factor that causes lung cancer but it is an important factor. Similarly not everone who watches violent media becomes aggressive, and not everyone who is aggressive watches violent media. Watching violent media is not the only factor that causes aggression, but it is an important factor" which i agree with. Again comparing violent media effects to smoking the article reads "Like a first cigarette the first violent movie can make a person nauseous. Later however, one craves more and more. The effects of smoking and viewing violence are both cumulative.

The catharsis theory is highly plausible but it is false. The statistics show that this does not decrease aggression. This leads me on step further to answering my hypothesis.

Hypothesis (1st Draft)

Due to many people arguing that certain media texts such as films that include violence and crime are influencing people to commit crimes and violence there has been much debate about the glamourisation of crime in film. I have looked at one directors work in particular Guy Ritchie with his block buster films such as Snatch, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrells and Rock n Rolla. 

Lord Attenborough who is an influential figure in the British film industry, argues that "Violence on screen is mych worse than sex. It makes us lose the capacity to be shocked or moved. I dont want to be guilty of this and if that means i make films that some people find boring then so be it." This was backed up by the Cheif of Metrapolitan Police saying "Violence in films is influencing young people." This statement would back up the hypodermic syringe theory, however this theory is almost obsolete as it is from the 60's and is seen as a very primitive way to look at things as we know that people are not as simple as that. The Chief also said, "the people commiting these crimes are viscous, nasty thugs not glamourised films stars and if youd seen the concequences of violence like i have then you would not glamourise it." however not everyone has seen what he has so they would in no way share the same argument. The opposite to this view would be "if you had gained as much success as me from glamourising violence and crime in films then you might think twice censoring the violence.

I believe that the Cheif is being so black and white about the situation that he would even look into any other oppinion on the argument. Although a more update theory the culmination theory would suggest that it is a bad idea as extended viewing of this type of text desentisises people to it and eventually begins to influence the viewer.

However the case of the 16 year old boy beating a tramp to death would back this up due to the fact that the boy blamed the scene from "A Clockwork Orange" for his actions. It may not be as simple as that however, the Jamie Bulger case seemed as simple as that as the media blamed their actions on the film "Chucky" but when they looked into it more the boys had a really disturbing childhood which was likely to have had more of an effect on their actions than the film.

This would backup Stephen Hills article in Media Magazine titled "Censorship how strict should it be?" where he states "Graphic depictions of brutal crimes invite audiences to question their own humanity" he aso goes onto say that the Directors of these films are not celebrating these crimes but simply asking the viewer to "question their own response". This was again backed up in a University lecture i attended by Krista Van Raal who talked about how different audiences perceive what they are seeing in different ways. These audiences theories are passive and active. Most of the critisism directed at this type of film suggest that audiences are all passive and just sit soaking up what they are seeing like a sponge and not questioning what is right or wrong. However i know that this is not true as many people, or most people are Active viewers.

This type of viewer will question and contemplate what they are seeing. This is then broken down into 3 subcategories for what the audience takes from the film. They can take the dominant message which is what the Director wants them to think. The oppositional message which is the opposite or the negotiated where they think i see what the Director is saying but i disagree or vice versa.  And i think that the majority of viewers are likely to think "I can understand why the Director is glamourising this crime and violence to sell his films but i still think that it is wrong."

This links in with Stephen Hills article again when he says "On the other hand no director ever has full control over how the representation of violence will be received by the audience" so although the director will have a preferred message different audiences will take different points from the film. 

The way the text is perceived also links in with how the text is portrayed. In Guy Ritchies films a common characteristic that surrounds constant crime and violence is comedy. Some may argue that violence surrounded by humor has a softened impact on the viewer. This is a way in which the director can appeal to many different audience for one film. A perfect example of this is in Ritchies film "Lock Stock" when Vinnie Jones is beating someone up when his phone rings and he answers with a subtle, commical "Bonjour". This instantly lightens the mood to a scene that should be shocking and gruesome. 

From my point of view i see this from the dominant view. I am seeing that the director intends me to to find the scenes funny even though someone is being put through serious pain. However I, in no way intend to go beat anyone up.

Another argument i have came across is on how the characters are portrayed and that this effects the viewer more than the violence itself. Ritchies films are full of what the media call "Lovable Rogues" with names like "One Two" and "Turkish". I think that it is the characters that appeal to the audience more than the violence and crime, my argument is backed up on a website called www.eyeforfilm.co.uk when a review on his latest film "Rock n Rolla" which states, "Ritchie seems to have realised what his public really want, so why not give us more? More fast paced, fast edited action set in a London full of lovable rouges with names like, mumbles, one two and tank." I think the bes example of this is Brad Pitts character in Snatch, Micky "the one punch machine gun" O'Neil. The pikey bare nuckle boxing champion. Due to the actor playing this role what would normally be an gruesome, ugly gypsy is turned into a rougishly handsome, toned bodied hard man with a charming Irish accent. I think many people would love to have "the one punch machine gun" on the end of there name. This is my view again that the characters in the films are more appealing than the cirme or violence.

The Lovable Rouge ;) ...

When i have been researching for crime being glamourised in film and articles on this matter, a point that has been raised is on the topic of...

THE LOVABLE ROUGE!

This is the concept of how again criminals are portrayed in film to make the audience somehow admire them or think they are cool. I know from my own point of view that this is case in many films as im sure like me, there are many people whod love to have the "the one punch machine gun" stuck on the end of their name to impress the lads...or lasses!

On www.eyeforfilm.co.uk the review on Richies lagtest film states what Richies fans love, 

"Ritchie seems to have realised what his public really want, so why not give us more? More fast paced, fast edited action set in a London full of lovable rogue gangsters with names like Mumbles, One Two and Tank, a plot full of scams and double crossing and a sexy, chain smoking accountant."

Which is true, but does this mean that glamourised crime is appealing to the general public as a means of influence or just as a means of pleasurable viewing. In one way you could argue that glamourising crime is wrong and that it will influence people who watch it, but you could also argue that a normal person would not be influenced to commit crime and that they are just watching because they want to watch a good film.

Anyway back to the lovable rouge...

Guy Ritchie films always have one,

Lock Stock: 

Jason Flemyngs - Tom

Dexter Fletcher - Soap

Nick Moran- Eddie

Jason Statham - Bacon

Snatch: Mickey "The One Punch Machine Gun" O'Neil

Rock n Rolla: The Wild Bunch

Gerard Butler - One Two

Idris Elba - Mumbles

Tom Hardy - Handsome Bob

Toby Keddell - Jonny "Rockstar" Quid

These characters throughout the films are always finding themselves in tricky, danegrous situations that realistically they should not be able to get out of with out getting seriously hurt or maybe killed. But this threat is erased or hidden may be a better word by the humor surrounding it again going back to desensitisation through humor. This is what makes these rogues so lovable. 

Ritchie chooses his actors carefully, most of these "Lovable Rogues" will not be the ugliest men youv ever seen a perfect example of this being Brad Pitt in Snatch. The fine tuned pikey bare knuckle boxing KO machine is instantly admired with his chipper irish accent and scruffily handsome looks. Does this distract some viewers, especially female viewers away from the story and whats going on and just focusing on his greased up six pack?... maybe!

Other examples of these handsome rogues are Gerard Butler and Jason Statham.

Also another thing that makes these rogues likeable is there misfortune.

Even though these people are scavangers, low lives and thieves that would more often than not be frowned upon, the things that happend to them in these films makes the viewer sympathise with them.

A great example of this is Micky in Snatch (Brad Pitt)

This guy is a thieveing, fighting conn artist. Through hospitalising the Turkishes (Jason Statham) boxer he gets dragged into fighting for Turkish in an underground boxing match. The match is rigged for Micky to go down in the 4th round. Now Micky could just knock the guy out first punch but due to the high stakes and people involved and the fact that hes doing the fight to get a new caravan for his mum means he has to let the guy smash his face in for 3 and a bit rounds. In the end his pride takes over and he KO's the guy.

In return the gangsters involved set his mums caravan on fire... with her in it.

A highly emotional scene created with a bit of slow motion and a well played fake cry from Brad Pitt instantly makes you sympathise. The audience now wants him to have his revenge.

So does this mean that the events in the film influence the audience in the way that they now think that he should have his revenge by killing the gangsters? 

Which in respect is totally wrong, however in the context of the film does not seem quite the same. Which it isnt and this is the main point of crime films.

The material in them is fictional! And most viewers understand this and would never dream of thinking like this outside the context of the film. So when films are getting slated from the media for influencing people to commit crime this is not necessarily  true. Most people would leave that viewing or finish watching the film thinking either that was good or that was bad not ok im going to go out and try rob 7,000,000 of an unknown person.

This puts me more toward the side that is against these articles saying that films are glamourising crime and in turn influencing people. Yes they maybe glamourising crime but i do not think that a normal person would be directly influenced by this. They maybe slightly influenced but then they could be influenced by something they seen in Eastenders the same night however no ones pointing the finger at Phil Mitchell for glamourising crime are they?