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.
No comments:
Post a Comment