LETTER TO THE TERMINATOR
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
United States of America
3 March 2006
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
As I previously introduced myself in a letter to you on the Stanley “Tookie” Williams execution, which to date remains unanswered, I will not do so this time but delve straight into the subject of this letter.
Mr. Schwarzenegger, have you ever had a chance to delve deeper into the domestic circumstances, childhood and behavior of every murderer for whom you decline to grant clemency, or is it simply a case of “he/she killed and deserve to die”? Have you ever thought that adverse factors during these times in a person’s life could possibly have contributed to them killing? Have you ever thought that external stimuli could also have contributed to them killing, in such a way that they were virtually “set up” to kill? That they could possibly have been “conditioned” to kill?
Sir, these need to be answered. The reasons will become apparent later on.
Did you know that we all are born with a resistance to killing our own kind?
However, as time goes on, the concept of “killing” someone manifests itself in our psyche through various stimuli. How, Governor Schwarzenegger?
Well, for starters, the media. Is a light going on for you? I’m sure there is, especially if you had to backtrack a few years when you, Governor, wielded the mighty sword of Conan the Barbarian or the multitude of weapons of the Commando and please don’t forget the Terminator!
Yeah, loads and loads of bodies, blood, gore and music, music, music!! Fun, wasn’t it? Or was it?
You see, Governor, the media has an extreme influence on children and adults alike. By means of the violence being portrayed in movies such as yours, children fantasize being Conan chopping people with a sword or the Commando spraying bullet after bullet into living human beings.
And then the video games follow, aptly having the same name as your movies…
But, this is only for starters…
Now, during the showing of these movies, whether on TV or in the cinema, there comes a commercial break and out pops a famous clown and the kid’s favorite foodstuffs are advertised. We know which clown I’m talking about, don’t we?
Now, the kid starts associating his favorite food with your movie. So, next when he visits the big M, he thinks back, either consciously or unconsciously, to your movie. He sees your rage, he feels your anger and he tastes the action in these movies, every time he sees the big M. The power of association kicks in…subliminal association manifests its purpose…
This lingers in him and he goes home. Meanwhile his Dad, who is also a big Arnie fan and also fantasizes about being this strong, macho man, especially if he cannot see his feet anymore, due to an adverse beer-gut, starts mimicking your actions in these movies. After all, you are a role model now, aren’t you? That’s what movies are all about.
He struts around, what’s left of his chest pushed out, slapping everyone around, kicking everyone that tends to disagree with him, in short, he is committing domestic violence (as the legal terms reads). Or is he? Not always. He could also just be trying to bolster a flagging ego by playing a fantasy life, based on your character in Commando, for instance.
He, in this instance, adds to his kid’s “conditioning” by confirming what the kid sees in the movies. The kid now learns to accept this as reality and the God-given resistance to killing starts crumbling. After all, it is OK to kill, the Terminator does it and he is “just like my Dad”. The kid then kills one day and is sentenced to death. His clemency fails and he is executed.
Governor, I know I am picking on you at this stage. I know I should actually be picking on each and every actor, storyteller, author or video game manufacturer that depicts violence. The only reason I am picking on you is because you are a Governor of a very large State and you have the power to do something about this!
You see, this is not the only way kids are conditioned to kill. There is still military training, where soldiers get “broken down” before they are trained to become killers. And when they do come out of war and kill someone in civilian life, they are tried and executed.
Governor, these and many other instances in life, are CONDITIONING people to kill. It is the starting point. Killing is seen to be glamorous with a hype that only the movies or video games can give! Movies depict violence, murder, rape, gangsterism and much more. And the kids love it…and the actor smiles all the way to the bank…
I want to end this letter (it will be the first of many, believe me!) by asking you a few questions:
1. Do you agree that your movies are having and did have an adverse effect on children and that it could possibly be conditioning them to follow your example to, one day, kill someone?
2. What are you doing, now that you are Governor, to safeguard children against the violence your movies have and are glamorizing?
3. Will you accept personal responsibility for this if, one day, it is proven that one of your movies conditioned someone to kill?
Governor, I ask one favor. Please do not patronize me by saying that “parents must take responsibility and not allow their kids to see age-restricted movies”. You and I know that this is nonsense. Moviemakers are very well aware what they are doing. They know that if kids can get to see these movies, they will rake in the money. That is why they advertise it so well. The advertisements have NO age restrictions and once the kid sees the advertisement, he/she will move heaven and earth to see the movie!! After all, the Terminator is famous and kids can’t be watched for 24 hours now, can they?
I do trust that you will, at least, acknowledge receipt of my letter this time, other than the automated receipt I received last time.
Doc T
PS: Don’t you think, if we prove that this could be the cause in a real case one day, that the actor and moviemakers can then rather be considered for execution? Nah, let’s rather just abolish the death penalty!
posted by Doc T @ 7:58 AM
38 Comments:
I honestly do not think you can put the blame on to Arni and Hollywood. There has always been murder, from Caveman onwards, just that as we get more civilised we are more shocked by it. Even today in England the front page of the tabloids are going on about a boy being abducted and murdered. To put that blame onto Hollywood and video games is one big cop out.
We must each accept our own responsibly for ourselves and our loved ones, yes the TV and Films glamorise death and destruction, but I honestly do not think they condition people as you have tried to put in your letter, yes Kids will play at war, I did, my dad did, his dad lost his legs in the First World War. I don't kill or go around blowing up buildings. To blame Hollywood is far too easy. Blame is on the person and their nurture, nature and morals, not a mythical character on film.
Hi EB,
Thanks for the post. I differ from you. Arnie and Hollywood are but two of the groups to blame and BIG TIME!
One cannot explain away the following research:
Sixty percent of men on TV are involved in violence; 11 percent are killers. Unlike actual rates, in the media the majority of homicide victims are women (Gerbner 1994). In a Canadian town in which TV was first introduced in 1973, a 160 percent increase in aggression, hitting, shoving, and biting was documented in first and second-grade students after exposure, with no change in behavior in children in two control communities (Centerwall 1992). Fifteen years after the introduction of TV, homicides, rapes, and assaults doubled in the United States (American Medical Association). Twenty percent of suburban high schoolers endorse shooting someone "who has stolen something from you" (Toch and Silver 1993). In the United States, approximately two million teenagers carry knives, guns, clubs, or razors. As many as 135,000 take them to school (America by the Numbers). Americans spend over $100 million on toy guns every year (What Counts: The Complete Harper's Index 1991).
Do you want to tell me Arnie, Hollywood and TV don't have to carry ANY blame for "conditioning"?
Yeah, there was murder from Cain's era but Arnie, Hollywood, TV, games and others are causing PART of the INCREASE! No cop out, my Friend, reality in action.
Hi EB,
Some more stats for you:
On June 10th, 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a definitive study on the impact of TV violence. In nations, regions, or cities where television appears there is an immediate explosion of violence on the playground, and within 15 years there is a doubling of the murder rate. Why 15 years? That's how long it takes for a brutalized toddler to reach the “prime crime” years. That's how long it takes before you begin to reap what you sow when you traumatize and desensitize children. (Centerwall, 1992).
The JAMA concluded that, “the introduction of television in the 1950’s caused a subsequent doubling of the homicide rate, i.e., long-term childhood exposure to television is a causal factor behind approximately one half of the homicides committed in the United States, or approximately 10,000 homicides annually.” The study went on to state that “...if, hypothetically, television technology had never been developed, there would today be 10,000 fewer homicides each year in the United states, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults” (Centerwall, 1992).
Today the data linking violence in the media to violence in society is superior to that linking cancer and tobacco. The American Psychological Association (APA), the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the Surgeon General, and the Attorney General have all made definitive statements about this. When a paper on this was presented to the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) annual convention in May, 2000 (Grossman, 2000), the statement was made that: “The data is irrefutable. We have reached the point where we need to treat those who try to deny it, like we would treat Holocaust deniers."
The problem with Stats is, they can be made to say what you want, Doc. I know if I looked I could find stats to say if people ate more Donuts that speeding would drop!! It's all about the people who are paying for the surveys.
Do you like Roast Beetle?
If you where starving and I offered you some roast meat would you eat it?
Did you love your brother?
Do you and your brother fight?
Do you and your play Arni Games after watching Terminator?
Do you kill each other?
Or
Do you hate your brother?
Do you want hit hard to make him cry?
Do you want to kill your brother?
It's who sets the questions, and who pays for the survey. I take all surveys with a pinch of salt.
I go by what I know and the research I do myself, I look at my friends and their families and my families. My Brother was a boxer, did very well won a few bouts internationally, he loves Rambo and that sort of movie, he isn't violent, he doesn't hit his kids, or his wife, he doesn't go out and fight in pubs. I don't watch violent movies as I don't like violence, but I enjoy horror films, I don't go to run down building looking for headless horsemen!!! I go to Church.
Give people credit for knowing the difference between fact and fiction, reality and unreality, yes there will be the odd nutter who believe everything they see, but they are very few and far between Doc.
Doc if I take you point to its conclusion:-
Everyone in the 1920’s who saw Laurel and Hardy would poke each other in the eye and saw their car in half, who watched a Buster Keaton movie would fall of trains and run behind and catch them, saw Charlie Chaplin and have the Keystone Cops chase them everywhere.
In the 1940’s would have a horse and a 6 shooter and kill everyone because they where Jesse James or John Wayne.
In the 1950’s would fly a plane and blow up the Nazis………………
Do you see where I am coming from Doc? The movies have always had violence and blood and guts, Soldier Blue from the 1970’s was one of the most violent movies of that and subsequent decades, I have seen it and my Father has, I don’t feel the need to cut a woman’s breast off and use it as tobacco pouch? In fact it was watching movies and documentaries like that that I became and advocate for the oppressed.
A third argument is:-
Every day people are killed and maimed by speeding drivers or drunk drivers, do we blame the man on the production line at Ford (That would be the Arnold Schwarzenegger character he is only on a production line after all) or the salesman at the dealership (the distributor) who sold the car are perhaps the CEO of Ford (the Studio)? No you can’t can you? It is down to each individual, when you get into your car, you make certain choices, do you follow the Highway Code and drive to the law or do you speed. You stop off for some refreshments, do you have a Coke or a fruit juice or a Beer? Now everyday you will advertisements for a Cool refreshing beer, how nice would that be? So do we now blame the advertising agency, the brewery, the pub or landlord? None of them you blame the person who consumes the beer and drives!!!
Well I am sorry, but just because someone watch’s a film that doesn’t turn them into a violent murderer, in the same way that watching a cookery programme doesn’t make you obese or watching a pop concert doesn’t make you musician.
English Blogger Hi ! I'm back from the mountains for a day. Your comments do surprise me a bit!! I mean, do you not at least think that violent films are attractive to already potentially violent people who could be "convinced" that violence is a normal way of life because they are fed with a constant t.v. or film diet of this ? Not everyone who sees a violent film is going to be violent but I think there are potentially violent people who cannot separate fantasy from reality so easily, who could be pushed over the edge by watching screen violence. And have not some crimes been copy-catted from films? I do think that the govenor of Texas does not spare DP inmates to live upto his "terminator" screen image. Perhaps it is he who cannot separate fantasy from reality....?
In every walk of life there will be a minority who cannot separate fact from fiction, we cannot live our lives being cosseted from these people. To say that studio's are to blame is like saying Ford are to blame for car accidents.
Arnold Schwarzenegger or the "Governor of California" is not living in his movie persona; he is a supposed intelligent man who takes council from legal aids when making any state desision. Now as you know I totally disagree with the DP in any form and think that the decision they came too is wrong, but sometimes you need to think who is living in the fantasy world, those who think people live in movies or those who cannot accept Mr Arnold Schwarzenegger is a real person who makes bad decisions. One thing I am also against back door censorship, from the first movies by Charles Lumiere they have depicted war and blood. Man has always killed man, to say one influences the other overtly is just not an opinion I will never agree with. What happened before Film, so before 1890's....Oh yes, Jack the Ripper, Sweeny Todd, Ned Kelly, Dick Turpin and all the Highway Men, come on now, we have had mass murders and random killers and all out violence since way before TV and Film, to now blame them is a big cop out. Society is the blame, parenting, nature and nurture. Film if anything is tiny in the blame the portion it isn't even worth thinking about.
To say Joe Doe watches Platoon and the goes and kills? What crap, he was pre-disposed to that action well before watching the film. To lay blame on Hollywood's door is such a cop out it really is. Why didn't anyone see that person in distress? Why didn't anyone talk to them? Why did he get sold a gun with a severe mental illness? It's their faults not Hollywood. Hollywood may make the movie, we are the real life, lets look after that and have our escapes from reality in good movies, and if consenting adults wish to watch pathetic violent movies that is their right in a free world.
Hi EB,
The stats do not come from surveys, they come from REAL crime figures. REAL cases. If you look at research into the past spate of school killings, you will gather from it that the kids ALL admitted adverse exposure to media/TV/movies, etc. and that they were mimicking the actors. I have the EXACT cases and interviews for you if you are interested.
I understand what you say re you and your family and the 40s, 50s, etc. However, it is not limited to what you observe from your family. We are talking about a whole world out there, where subliminal advertising, conditioning and learned behavior play a HUGE role.
How do you think they train special forces soldiers? By conditioning them to kill, EB. I was there. They show only violent movies, they dump all the bodies in a cage directly next to the mess hall, etc. You are required to scream violent slogans. We all copied Arnie, by the way. You are required to laugh and applaud when they "summarily" execute someone. Even the Chinese army uses these tactics.
Are you familiar with the Pavlovian research on General Conditioning? Are you familiar with mid-brain research on this issue? If not, let me know and I will be more than happy to forward you oodles of research, NOT surveys.
And my letter to Arnie specifically? Because he is an actor trying to be a Governor and he HAS to start looking into what his acting caused.
Hi John! Nice to see you on here! Hope you enjoyed the mountains!
I agree with your post.
EB, Holywood knows what attracts people to their movies. They pay psychologists HUGE sums of money to do their research.
And it is REAL that violence, portrayed as glamorous, has an influence on children and it will set the tone, if coupled with actions such as domestic violence, abuse,etc.
I invited you to view the research.
And no profanities or getting personal on my blog, please. This is not a slinging match blog, it is for clean debates.
Of course Hollywood knows what attracts punters Doc, but too say watching a movie makes you a killer is far from realistic.
Doc I have been in the armed forces and have seen things 1st hand, I am not a killer either!!! I have neber taken a life and have no intent on doing so. I have watched movies and now work in media. I will defend the right to do so.
I was using my family as I only talk about things I know I could use my stats from collage but they are now out of date. I have the argument of TV and violence for far too long it was the A Team and Heman when I was younger and Happy Days as a bad infulence. I am sure there where a lot of programmes before then I remember The Exocist when I was a child being blamed for a suicide!!!! At the end of the day it down to indeviduals they pull the trigger not the actor.
Hi EB,
I did not say the movies MAKES one a killer but the exposure to violence, in a glamoured setting, like movies, CONTRIBUTES to some not having to think twice about killing. So do violent video games. The recent school killings confirmed this.
Sure, the choice is up to the individual but there is a definite influence from violent movies. etc. These type of movies contribute to the conditioning factor.
Japan, for instance, refuses to mention a teen suicide victim's name during news broadcasts, as teenagers were starting to commit suicide in order to "get themselves seen on TV". Suicide notes left by teenagers confirmed this. One even read: "I am a nobody but soon I will be famous. Just watch the TV news".
You see, EB, the media is powerful and some are using it to full advantage. It doesn't make ALL the media outlets bad but some like to "dig into the dirt" and it is having an adverse influence, especially amongst teens. So are the movies if seen over and over and over. It conditions teens and youngsters and they follow its tenets.
Doc
Say I enjoy watching boxing (I don't I hate it) and I visit a pub and someone winds me up and I thump them. Someone could say its because I like boxing, they could find a link, boxer hit people and I hit him.
If I watch TV and hit someone they say oh he saw that on "such and such TV show" no I hit him because that is my nature he wound me up and I thumped him.
Maybe it is just me Doc, but I think people are always looking for a blame factor in everything, and the box in the corner is just an easy target.
I work in the media and have worked in advertising for a long time; I know the influence TV and Radio can have that has paid for some very things in my life over the years, and to say people are susceptible than they are is a great injustice to mankind. To say if I was on a TV that you watched and my programme was Neo-Nazi would you become a fascist? If I had one eye and tattoo's, would you poke an eye out and get tattoo's? I give you more credit than that Doc in fact I give mankind more credit, maybe I am wrong...
And no profanities or getting personal on my blog, please. This is not a slinging match blog, it is for clean debates
P.S. read all of my blog entries I have never got personal or got into a slanging/slinging match, I have always tried to use reason and debate. I have been abused and sworn at; I have used a person's vernacular in reply, to make a point in way they may just understand.
Hi EB,
Nothing personal on the profanities issue, I just don't like swearwords. That's just me and I feel I can ask that it doesn't appear on my blog. Now that's behind us.
I will use the "Neo-Nazi" example you refer to. Very good example to make my point.
During the Hitler era, mass-hysteria swept the people off their feet! The beat of the drum, the shouting, the adoration, etc, caused millions to enter a war behind Hitler and die indiscriminately. Dr. Goebbels, the propoganda Minister, made use of this in movie theatres and showed these movies over and over, in order to incite the masses. So also the newspaper, the Volkischer Beobachter, which spread lies, propoganda and caused readers to believe that which was being reinforced daily...the almost deity of Hitler.
The media is the most powerful tool in the hands of men today. If you look at the beheadings of people in Iraq, it just took the beheading of Berg and your own Ken Bigley and all of a sudden groups sprung up that started abducting foreigners and beheading them. It is because they SAW what influence it had, WHEN IT WAS SHOWN ON TV, and they copied it.
Yes, EB, people in the US are becoming Neo-Nazis because they are subjected to indoctrination and shown violent movies and given propaganda. That's the aim of propoganda; to incite and condition.
And YES, after Vin Diesel's movie XXX came out, the tatoo artists showed a remarkable upswing in the call for this type of tatoo. Check your own local tatoo parlours and see if I am right?
I look forward to debate this some more and to get your views. Thank you for that.
Maybe I’m being cynical of the power of TV and Film over other things, but each of these could be the result of peer pressure. My friend has a Tattoo so I will, my friend wears jeans with a rip so will I. All my friends have joined such and such a party, so will I. Film and TV may have a tiny part in things but not the big factor you are saying. You really are not giving people credit for freewill and thought.
Say I watch film “???” and in it is big film star with a BMW XXX which I like the look of, it doesn’t mean I run out and buy it, If the actor shoots someone I wont do that either. If I watch a TV programme and see something I don’t rush out and do it, I also know right from wrong, which is where I feel your argument falls down. It isn’t Hollywood or any other film or TV studio’s job to teach morals that is the job of home and parents or guardians and society. If society shouted more and more about the lack of morals and manners, gave a little more authority to teachers and policemen to set punishment, then maybe we would live in a nicer and caring world.
To lay blame on a Film and TV industry is blaming something so far to the left of target you are on another rifle range in my opinion. I would look to Education, home life, community life, discipline, morals, respect, love, employment, drugs, healthcare……… then way way way way way down the list TV and Films.
The other night I watched a fantastic romp of a film called the Mask of Zorro, it had fighting, killing, blowing up and humour. Now I really enjoyed that film with my wife at home on DVD.
After the film I was in no way inspired to grab a sword or a bomb or even punch my wife?
The reason, it was a film; I know that, my wife knows that. I know right from wrong and reality from unreality. I was taught these by my parents, school and my way of life dealing with real people on a day to day occurrence since I was born.
Now one in a few hundred million may not know that difference, but you cannot run a World of 6 and half billion people just because one idiot says he shot his wife because he saw it on TV or played a video game. As I said in an earlier post looking too upbringing, schooling and peer pressure would be first port of call. Then healthcare, welfare, environment and social security, then maybe, drugs, alcohol, pollution, diet then I might look into entertainment.
That is what TV and Films are entertainment and they do just that, they entertain, they are not social commentaries they are escapisms. Big hard film star shoots his way out of an argument, chances are in real life he is a big wimp who likes nothing more than a vegetarian pasta and an early night with another man…so what? Films are films, I know Arni does stupid things in films and kills thousands with a gun that never runs out of bullets, I don’t watch them myself, but in a free country I would fight for everybody’s right to be able to watch it. Hollywood entertains; Parents/ guardians and teachers instil knowledge and morals, you cannot blame one for not doing the job of the other.
I remember as a child going to see The Love Bug, about Herby the Beetle car and asking on the way home could our car do things like that? My Dad saying, No that was a film and make believe, cars cannot come to life and do things on their own. Now I was about 6 or 7 and I still remember that a good 30+ years later I know things happen in film that are not real. Who’s job was it to tell me it wasn’t real, Hollywood or my Parents? The same people who taught me it was wrong to steel, tell lies and bully people, the same people who taught me everyone is equal, man, woman, black, red yellow or white short or tall. That you should help rather than hinder and try to be nice and try and say 3 good things about someone before you say one bad thing.
Hi EB!
So right. It all starts "at home". If you look at the background of the average criminal (murderer, whatever), they usually come out of dysfunctional childhoods. In this, YOU were taught correctly by your parents, they might not have been. They were abused, physically, sexually, mentally and then exposed to severe domestic violence, which conditioned them for years later on. In this, the anger, shame, rage and helplessness as children, were repressed and they try and find an outlet and it usually ends up in crime.
This is helped along by them seeking to escape, as you quite rightly say, and they mimick and eventually become the movie character, who CONTROLS and has POWER. By having POWER over others, they can hide the hurts and angers of the past and learn to act it out, similar than the movie character and it results in death. Why do you think a movie has an age restriction? Because they know kids can be influenced and conditioned by it, given the right "breeding ground" from a dysfunctional background. But, parents, especially those from a dysfunctional setup, don't care and let their kids watch the movies and they become conditioned. I say, as we say to the death penalty re the "innocents" being executed; if a violent movie can condition, at the risk of a child one day becoming a murderer, don't make it at all (in the case of the death penalty, abolish the death penalty...same concept)
There are numerous examples quoted i.e. the school shootings, the gangster-related murders, which is copied from games, movies, etc.
I challenged you to view the research.
We have age restriction on movies not just for that reason we also have because something’s are not suitable to be seen by minors, Sex, bad langue, violence, not that it influences, sometimes it isn't right to show things to children, full stop. You don’t have sex in front of kids do you?
So because 1 or 2 dysfunctional families may become affected by a movie, that, they will get on the black market anyway, they should all be banned? Hollywood should no longer make them? Or we restrict viewing to those who get a doctor’s certificate to say they are suitable? Or we put age restrictions on them and let people use discretion?
I have never seen a snuff movie, (if you don’t know what one is, do a Google search) I have no intention of ever watching one, but you will find these idiots will have watched them, yet these are banned and illegal, so what's the option there? Most will have watched Porn, usually they are addicted to it, that is so freely available on the Internet via peer to peer and websites, what can you do about that?
Lobbying Hollywood to stop movies with a bit of reality or violence is not going to do a thing really is it? Blaming Hollywood will achive nothing and is barking up the wrong tree.
EB, where are you getting the "lobbying" idea from? Where are you getting the "stop Hollywood" from? Read the letter again and then read it again...
It is a plea to the Terminator to acknowledge these FACTS and then think twice before declining clemency to a death row prisoner that might have been conditioned in this way, by digging further into such person's background, not just the superficial glancing of the evidence he gets his leagal eagles to do! It is a plea to the Terminator to accept his part and grant clemency, because his movies had an adverse influence! It is all to stop the Terminator terminating in California!!! Don't dwell off the essence, Boyo!!!
If the Terminator says to English Blogger: "I will grant clemency if you run around the block naked", would you do it? I will ask him: "How many times?", if it will save a life!!!
Come on, EB, it is not an attack on the media and movies (or you being a media person!!), it is a FACT that can be used to get the Terminator (and others) to take ALL facts into account before declining clemency!
I again repeat...I challenged you to view the research.
Hi Doct and English Blogger, flying visit only I-m afraid. What do you think of the idea of consistent violent film production reflecting an already over violent culture, that in turn serves to reinforce cultural and in turn more film violence. In other words,I argue there is an inter play between violent film and cultural and criminal violence. violent and sadistic films are a mirror of an already violent culture and such film tends to maintain and reinforce aggression levels that promote violence. Bottom line, I cannot see the death penalty in the States disappearing unless they downscale their violent ways elsewhere. Gun control could be a start !! and dare I venture, use intelligence instead of almost obligatory sadistic violence in their film work. There is also an escalation process of film brutalityPeople get bored of tomato sauce so the film makers start using real cows blood and on and on. My wife has the general impression of the American film industry that Americans ban sex and promote violence. Conditioning and reinforcement of film all plays a part in my view.
Hi Doc, Lobbying is writing to a politician to change or accept something. You are asking him to change his work or accept that he is part of the problem. Which I truly do not believe he is. His films are rated and he is only the actor. If a film is rated 15 or 18 and a parent/guardian lets a 12 year old watch who is to blame?
As I said earlier, the Governor of California, even though I am totally against the decision he came too, didn't make it on his own. He had a team lawyers and legal aids to help. There was no new evidence to support clemency. The Governor cannot just say don't carry out the death penalty once it is in place, there has to be a valid reason in law.
Just because someone maybe saw one of his films isn't a valid reason.
Doc I have viewed the research, nothing their changes my view. Peer pressure, home life, community life, schooling, discipline and love. That is where I would look first.
Answer this Doc, who is there to teach morals and respect, and who is in place to entertain? which is doing their job?
John.
Once a long time ago, films where basic. My job was basic tape and music. Today I have a studio that I couldn't even dream about 10 years ago!!!
Things move on, things evolve, cars ran on petrol and chugged along at 50mph and you cranked them to start.
Yes things are more realistic in films the FX units are amazing. One of the problems is 24 hour rolling news. You cannot have News showing Baghdad blowing up one scene then going to a film and thinking it looks nothing like that?
At the end of the day, you chose to watch a film, you are brought up. You cannot blame media for not doing a parents and societies job.
Hello English Blogger. Yes I understand your point of view regarding choice of viewing, but let's face it, there would not be a multi billion whatsits advertising industry, very scientifically controlled, if film or any visual image could not influence people's behaviour. You might argue there is a big difference between changing buying behaviour and criminal behaviour, but the principle is the same.
And, to take advertising, there are standards of restriction that do not seem to be in (sadistic violent) filmmaking. Take now banned cigarrette adverts. Why were those elegant and amusing adverts prohibited from our view?? Because cigarrettes kill people?? (and cost the NHS??!?) Banning is a powerful and political act. If film does not persuade people to act in a dangerous way, why have these "films" been banned?? And if violence is glorified on emotive films then it is likely to have a crime precursive effect on those who would be predisposed to criminal acts anyway. Such films will fire up those people (not necessarily in a minority)likely, for other e.g. home / cultural / childhood reasons to follow the violent way. "De sensitising" means something here. Quite a few people are more likely to believe that violence is a normal way to communicate if they are fed a constant diet of it. Film violence has escalated out of proportion. I believe it reflects an increasing tolerance of civic violence.
I take your point about the reality of constant news but there again some critics say, we see less news and more violent "entertainment" in news these days. Less analysis and more blood because blood is more of a commercial product or commodity than serious analysis. And one feeds the other in "realism." And, I firmly believe that the gruesome machines developed to kill people when a simple bullet would do the job, are apart from distancing the executioner from the killing act are a bizarre form of popular entertainment for the violent masses that like that sort of thing. The electric chair ! It's like something out of Dr. Who. Killing is turned into a ritual, like bull fighting which I also hate. Show me a method of execution that is not a ritual. The stuff of "snuff movies" you referred to earlier. My argument might look a bit ragged but I am trying to draw a link between film promoted violence,violent film,violent culture and the fully media published images of death penalty machines and use. Public executions used to be in the middle ages The event of the day. Bring the kids. Great fun. Good show. Unfortunately that is what the DP is today, too, like violent news, violent films and real life? I don't know if we are alone, but my wife and I do not like these films and turn the tv off if there is no alternative. Violence in films is SO prevalent that we have given up going to the cinema at all. Turn to films for kids out of sheer desperation? Ha !! These days they are just as bad !! The violence escalation in films is reaching the point where these films are violently obscene, there is no control like in influential advertising, and they promote the idea that it is fun to kill. That is a very dangerous form of conditioning, a point doct brought out earlier.
John
You and I have freewill, and choice of thought, do we not?
I watch a commercial and it says buy brand B “it does this and that” I way up the pros and cons and don’t buy brand B I am happy with brand C.
I sit and watch a film (my wife and I don’t watch violent films, neither of us like that sort of thing, we enjoy thrillers) I see the film, my brain does not get washed into thinking, wow I must go and beat someone up, shoot them, rob a bank. I have freewill and freedom of thought. I know the difference between right and wrong, I know to harm anyone is wrong. Now what you are saying is by watching a film people are being brainwashed into thinking violence is right, again I am sorry I do not agree. Society is more acceptable of violence, and I would put that down to many factors, starting with WW11 and Vietnam then lack of home life, Peer pressure, community life, schooling, discipline and care …read my posts to Doc, John, I would look much closer to home before knocking on Hollywood’s door. At the end of the day we choose to watch TV or films do we not? Again that is freedom of thought, no one makes you watch Rambo or Terminator do they?
I would lobby for better social care and schooling, Community outreach and healthcare. They will do a much better job of teaching right and wrong, and help people with social problems and get people off drugs and away from crime and violence. That is my opinion anyway.
Hello English Blogger. I totally agree with you about improving social education, family life etc. Without doubt, family background plays an enormous developmental role in people's behaviour afterwards. Now you and we might not be swayed by advertising, but there are an enormous number of "keep up with the jones" people who are persuaded, influenced and convinced,; particularly younger people. Look at the MSN American "news" news and compare the offerings with a BBC page. On MSN, there is a domestic or domestic crime killing every second or third entry. On the BBC there is a wide offering of subjects not related to killing people. Now how can this disparity be interpreted? You could argue that in America, the country is so violent that it is normal for killing to dominate their news content, where as in the UK the reverse is true; that violence is not prevalent in the UK and nor is the world seen through BBC eyes. OR you could argue that so many Americans like violence and killing, that their news presentations feed the American demand. If this is true, why do so many Americans love killing? Why do their "entertainment" film producers saturate their products with a gun in every film? Worse, in most American films, "The Gun," as a power symbol, is introduced early in each film to "reassure" the American viewer that the film will be violent and therefore will satisfy their bloodlust. The Gun appears early on, drawn out of a bag, lying on the ground, in someone's pocket, whatever. The Gun is not a genre, it appears in every American film I have ever seen. I never see American films to the end now. As soon as I see "The Gun", I turn off the tv. Personally speaking, American films bore me to tears. They do influence me... to switch off the tv and I am not alone. Spanish TV companies are now reporting that Spanish people are sick of American films. Note sick of American films, not sick of some American films because all American films are violent. The point is, this "telebasura" (which translates as "rubbish") may not influence you or I to be violent, but there are those, who like in the better controlled advertising industry can be influenced by such material. The Americans love violence or why is their news dominated by it !! Violent films "educate" that violence is normal. They "reinforce" this. They "teach" that there is short term advantage to be gained by committing violent crime. You mentioned "choice" of viewing. But with American films there is not any choice. There is "The Gun" or nothing !! To test this point, how NON-violence i.e. where there is no violence in any form, American films, other than NASA scientific films which I enjoy immensly, but these are not specifically entertainment, can you suggest so that my wife and I can watch them !!!!! I'll bet that even working in the media industry you will be hard pressed to list any other than Disney's snow white !!
Go on !! How many non violent, non educational American film titles in the entertainment industry can you name. This is not just a point-making question, I would genuinely like to see intelligent American entainment films where there is no gun being flashed about. If such a film exists !!
There are plenty of comedy films, such as The Man with two Brains, Roxanne, Dirty Scoundrels, or thought provoking films like "One Flew over a cuckoo's nest", driving miss Daisey, Forrest Gump, Look for any Rick Morranis film as he wont star in a film that his children cannot watch, so Ghostbusters too Honey I shrunk the Kids. Onwards.
The film I watched the other Saturday The mask of Zorro, very funny and a well produced western, with some violence but not grotesque.
A little bit of a sweeping statement to say all Americans love violence….all Spaniards are drunkard arse grabbing waiters……see what I mean?
Hello English Blogger Thanks for your short list !! Rick Morranis's films I don't know, so I'll try to find one. I don't think I meant ALL Americans are violent,I think I said above, that "so many Americans like violence" and if so many do not, then why is there so much American violence on film and in their news?? Demand creates supply !! Funny you should suggest that all Spaniards are drunkards - we have a problem at the moment of (illegal) street drinking parties that are going to be run by students as a protest tonight against the new laws against such drinking. Tonight promises to be a night of drunken nuisance to residents in every major city through out Spain so I really do "see what you mean" Hahaha!! I'm glad to see that there are 12 or so American films that are not violent !! I won't tire you by asking you for some more non violent films to see the week after next, but I hope you take the point that the great majority of non educational American films, or certainly the ones that go on tv are full of gratuitous violence. Advertising standards authorities tone down adverts, in part, to protect the manipulatable, but apart from giving films numbers, there is little or no control over what is put out for general release in cinemas. I cannot believe that is a healthy situation when visual conditioning is real.
Sorry John, but if you want that sort of control over what you can and cannot watch, pop over to China or old Russia. It is called a totalitarian state. The Gov say what you can watch and what you can read, China even bans websites from search engines.
I live in the free west, and with that means I have freedom to choose what I watch and read and even say. That also means if I don't choose to watch a film I don’t have too.
Each Country has its own censor and this helps people to decide if a certain film is ok to see. I would not want to live in a country that said a film can't be watched because it might send one idiot over the top.
America should look at nature and nurture; they have a constitution that says each free person can own a gun!!! Maybe looking into that would be better than looking to make believe land.
Hello English Blogger. I hate to be trite but if we follow your total freedom theme to its logical and free conclusion, why have driving licences? Let everyone drive and drink as they please !! On the left or the right !! Why not do away with advertising standards controls?? Show all you like !! See what I mean? !!
No I don't? bit of daft thing to say really John.
We have laws and rules, but we also have freedom of expression. I can protest freely, I watch sort free TV, at commentators can object to the Governments here, I can sing a protest song in the open, I can openly Worship God. I cannot do that in China, the Government dictate what you can do, and when you do it, down to the fact couples are only allowed to conceive one child.
I can drink drive here, I stand a very good chance of being caught and going to prison, if I was idiot enough to do it, but it will be against the law. It isn't against the law to watch a movie.
No, but as I said before advertising standards exist to prevent damage to the vulnerable and laws exist to prevent damage so my ironic comment is not daft at all. Control exercised over certain advertising exists for a reason. All the "free" will things you mentioned do not do cause damge, but certain films can do a lot of damage - and doct's point was that certain films can do damage. A continuous diet of violence ?? Choice?? With the exception of the 12 or so films you mentioned the media is splattered all over the place with good solid violence, much of it sadistic. Of course it can damage people. It's a form of propaganda in favour of "The Gun," You do not seem to have addressed the point at all, that if films can never damage people, then why is advertising in the U.K. at least, so closely controlled? By contrast, violent "Entertainment" films do not seem to be under any kind of control at all. The saturation of the film market with violence (and you are definitely the first person I have ever talked to, who does not agree that this saturation of screen violence, firstly exists, and secondly, risks damaging particularly younger people), makes "choice" difficult. If you truly believe that film cannot damage, then you are unlikely to believe in the effect of propaganda and you are likely to also believe that advertising never influences anyone, so it does not need advertising standard controls, which in fact are quite strict. Butter cannot be spread on both sides of the bread !! American saturation of screen violence reinforces, I suspect, the powerful and stinking rich gun lobby in the U.S. If this subtle form of propaganda, that there is an armed criminal lurking in every shadow and every ready to shoot someone, seeps into minds, young and old, hour after hour, day in day out, they are more likely to go out and buy another gun to "protect" themselves. The gun industry is a powerful mafia in the U.S. and nothing feeds that industry better than fear spread through a million killing films. At the very least, The Gun in every film (except of course,the 12 exceptions you were able to find !!) at the very least feeds the fear. The fantasy becomes "reality" because of the saturation and level of sadistic violence. It is the saturation and permanency of the violence that causes the damage, not an individual film exposure. Think of British war propaganda films even after the war. They all had the same format and tone. Necessary, no doubt and they were largely well written, but these films influenced a large section of the population. And saturation of violence, not only influences people but does damage in the process in the way I have described.
America and the US have U unclassified as in most Disney films, PG parental guidance, 12, 15, 18 and 21 Now if a film says 15 I know it isn't going to be a bad film, if it says 18 it can be if its a 21 then it will have explicit sex and violence.
Now I am an adult with a brain, I know if a film is to my liking or not, as you do.
The gun laws in America need changing not the film industry; they have a constitution that says any free man can have a gun.
Advertising is completely different to film, we have a completely different set of codes of practise, http://www.racc.co.uk/racc/raccindex.html if you want to read them, I know them inside out.
I will never accept films brainwash in the way you are stating. I watch films I watch TV I do not rush out and copy or do things they say.
My friends and family don't, we watch tv we watch films, I have worked in advertisng for a long time now if I found a way to do what you say I would be a multi billionare, because I would have sussed out how to change peoples minds in 30 seconds.
No, I did not talk about mind changing in 30 seconds, did I. I pointed out that if you saturate people with violence it is propaganda. I have seen a report, although I confess that now I cannot find it,and unfortunately do not have time to research, by British sociologists, who found in 2001 that saturation of telly violence does damage particularly young people, and has been identified in triggering youth violence. You (and your friends) might not be influenced but science and statistics extend beyond one person's response. You also cannot separate the priciple of advertising control. Film influences. The particulars of one industry are not my focus in this. It is the principle that if advertising visuals can influence people and propaganda films influence people, then it would be illogical to suggest that other types of (emotive) visual presentations do not influence !! If you believe, as you appear to do, that continuous violence has no effect on people, fine, but you are in the minority and science will not support your view. Giving classification numbers to films these days is only a guide. Young people can see what they want now. In the old days before violence saturated television, parents were able to control which films children went to see at cinemas. With the advent of new technology now, such control has disappeared. And some films are known to give young people nightmares and traumatise them. But with adults such a continuem simply indoctrinates a sense of insecurity that there is a violent criminal lurking in every doorway.
In that sense, fantasy becomes reality. I totally agree with doct. Film makers do have a certain responsibility to vary their content. If you want to watch violence, great, but I don't like it - I've seen too much of the real thing and it is disgusting. To see violence plastered all over the screen every time I switch on the box, just bores me, personally, but I also feel it cannot promote a more peaceful world. Quite the reverse.
John
I do not watch violent films in fact I hate them, but if film makers wish to make that sort of film, I will stand by their right to do so.
Parents must take a stand in families, that is their job, if my father said I wasn't to do something I didn’t' do it. That is what missing, parental control is; don't blame Hollywood or the film makers. In the same way you can blame car makers for speeding drivers, or chocolate manufactures for fat people.
I also find it amazing that you have violent programmes on your TV very time you turn on your TV John?
I have sky, I don’t have the movie package as I buy the DVD's I want to watch or hire them. I turn on my TV and I watch some really good TV, it is called discernment...I watch Discovery, the History channel, Nat Geo, BBC 1 2 3 4 ITV 1 2 3 4 sky 1 2 3 UK gold, and a number of other channels, I have very good viewing and I would say 99% of the we turn on there is something good to watch. Can I suggest a TV guide and planning ahead?
English blogger Spain is different. We have 5 channels and they are all the same. We tried to instal satelite in the mountains, but it does not work where we are. The mountains get in the way of the signal to dish. I now use the dish as part of an improvised light reflector for the balcony. Cable ??? Now you would be joking, wouldn't you. I cannot even get an internet connection put in there let alone cable tv.!! I can only send these messages to you from our house in madrid. I could read the telly guides to know what we are missing,... hahaha !! but thanks anyway !! Spanish tv is basically a vehicle for all the violent american films I hate so much. Millions of Spanish viewers complain, but american killing appears to be cheap for the stations. BBC films are often excellent which is why the Spanish channels never buy them. They are too expensive. Read the telly guides here? Yeah, Murder on this and killing on that no thanks !! That or cotilla programmes voyeuristically secretly filming people having private lives and not to forget Gran Hermano - Big Brother oooo how Endomol have squeezed and wrung the sponge on that one. Good if you want to fall asleep. So, be amazed no more !! If you were here you would no doubt do the same as me. Use the box as a plant support. If you don't like violent american films you would learn to live without Spanish tv very quickly !! I don't miss the box at all now. Conversation is much more fun !!
On the point of responsibility, I have often taken a swipe at american gun laws and lack of supervision but I also maintain that saturation of in particular,american, (because their violence seems to be the most sadistic) violent films do not promote social peaceful living... I'm sure doct would like to comment on this ?? Doct, where are you ??? !!
As one who has spent my life defending in criminal cases, I can honestly say that I have never had a client who claimed or even hinted that his / her motivation for a crime, violent or not, was related to any movie or TV show. I did have one client (now on Death Row) who had such a strong death wish that he had spent hours watching a "The Executioner's Song," a movie that recited Gary Gilmore's path. Few of my clients needed vicarious violence to add to the real violence they were raised with - in the streets and often in their homes. Most had abusive or neglectful parenting, violent siblings, friends, neighborhoods where shots fired in the night were a fact of life, the occasional dead body found in an alley, weapons readily available to children, gangs, drugs, alcohol all part of the mine field of their lives. I enjoy your posts nonetheless, Doc T, and appreciate your comments to mine on Borenstein's Law.
Post a Comment
<< Home