Does movie violence really desensitize you?

Karl Hungus

You know, with some of the more gruesome films that have come out as of late, there's a lot of debate on other message boards, especially American ones, about the issue of desensitization to violence.

What do you think?

For me, I just don't buy it. I've seen some seriously violent and graphic films in my time, a lot of extreme gore movies, but whenever I see anything happening on medical shows or the like, it's just a whole different experience, and the real stuff does make my physically queasy. No matter how 'Realistic' it can be depicted in film, it just does not have the same effect what so ever. I think for the most part, people have good sense to know fantasy from reality, and the only thing that fantasy violence can desensitize you to is more fantasy violence, while the sense of what's real remains seperate to that and is unaffected.

Another example I can give is that there was a fight outside a pub I was in quite recently, and there was a fellow who got quite a bash and there was blood pouring from his head. I was quite shocked by it, disturbed even. But if I had seen that on film, I probably wouldn't have blinked.

Thoughts?

Wacker

I remember years ago on the politics board, people were debating whether it was ethical to watch the Nick Berg decapitation video. One guy suggested that he'd seen way worse in films, so why would it matter? This ludicrous post was pounced upon by everyone, as virtually everyone has the sense to differentiate reality from fantasy.

All movie violence desensitizes people to is more movie violence. Real violence is completely seperate.

faceman

I agree, and i think you have answered your question in your post. Unlike the first half of the 20th century (in fact you could argue upto the 70's), there was a sense of awe at movies and the "how do they did it". (lets not forget one of cinema's earliest film which saw people fleeing the theatre as they thought the train was going to come through th screen!)

violence is available a plenty over a wide variety of mediums and the "how we did it" aspect is often accompanied on the dvd!

I remember watching one of the Faces of Death movies some years ago and the viewers with me, some being avid horror film fans, did find the film slightly more disturbing given that they knew what was on screen was (apparantely) real. (although we have since learnt the truth! Damn you dr. gross!!!)

Karl Hungus

Ah, there's some nasty videos online. I remember going to a LAN once where some people were showing the "Kittygore" vids, which depicted real live cats being killed, and it was awful. I'd be happy if I never see something like that again.

Tzetze

I was wondering recently... How many simulated deaths/murders/other-violent-actions will a child see on-screen before he/she sees a birth?

It's acceptable to let kids witness the (simulated) destruction of life, but they have to be an adult before they can be exposed to any baby-making.

A chilling thought. Won't someone please think of the childer?

Karl Hungus

faceman wrote: »

I agree, and i think you have answered your question in your post.

Well, I don't think it's a case of me asking a question with any definitive answer, but asking what other people's take on it is.

Jesus Wept

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Ah, there's some nasty videos online. I remember going to a LAN once where some people were showing the "Kittygore" vids, which depicted real live cats being killed, and it was awful. I'd be happy if I never see something like that again.

ugh, I stumbled across a video like that before, asian woman, stiletto, worst sh1t I've ever seen online.

With that said, I never watched any decapitation videos, fúck that.

The Don

I agree. Voilence in real life is alot different than on screen. When its on screen you're at home/cinema and you know its not real, that whoever this happened to is ok in real life.

Whatever its like in films its a whole lot different in real life, it effects you more because you know its real. Most people realise this but there are a few psychos who don't give a sh1t about anyone else.

Back in the 50's people were afraid that comic books were causing anti-social behaviour in adolescents and setup the comic book association where anyone who wanted a comic publiched had to get approval from them. Then people blamed TV and Films and now its video games.

humanji

I's say that movie violence can desensitize you to a point. But not to enough of a point where you become some sort of sociopath. The problem comes when very impressionable people (I'd put good money on a large amount of them being American) watch these films and shows. For example, when Jackass first came out, there were loads of injuries and some deaths caused by people reinacting or thinking up their own Jackass stunts. So basically, the problem is that too many stupid people are allowed to watch tv and movies.

I was browsing on another forum board yesterday and I came across a report from the early 80s about the accidental death of Vic Morrow and 2 children on the set of The Twilight Zone: The Movie. I will admit that I was quite apprehensive before watching and considered not bothering. If it had been a clip of children getting killed by a helicopter in a film, then I would have had no problem watching it. In fact, chances are if it was full of explosions and slow motion I'd have loved it.

People always seem to use film as an excuse for violence. It's not. I have seen what are considered to be some of the most violent and disgusting films ever made, and none of them has ever really affected me because I can differentate between reality and fantasy.

A question I've long pondered is, what happened to crazy? These days there's always an excuse. It's not his fault he dropped bricks from an over pass killing two people, he just played too much tetris.

Dudess

I agree. It's only the real-life stuff that I couldn't watch - e.g. Men Behind The Sun or even more mainstream fodder like Schindler's List, The Killing Fields, even Song for a Raggy Boy (set in an industrial school where the boys are shockingly brutalised).

But as for the desensitisation question: 30 years ago, A Clockwork Orange, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Straw Dogs, The Exorcist etc horrified people, but they don't even make me flinch today.
Twenty years before that, Dracula arrived on screens. My dad said people were fainting, being sick, running out of the cinema etc! Today it's a relic of camp, kitsch, pantomime goth silliness!
Doesn't the above illustrate how we have become desensitised in terms of our capacity to handle screen violence?

By the way, I'm certainly not arguing that densensitisation then causes the individual to become violent.

Gillie

Real violence still disturbs me so no movie violence does not desensitize me.

calsatron

Intrestingly enough I'd argue that the points above prove that you all have been desensitised to violence to a fair degree.

The points your all making are that if the line is drawn between real and not real then you have no problem watching.

Imagine a scenario where an act of extreme violence is carried out on another human being. In the first instance the effect is achieved with special effects and you enjoy the experience. In the second instance the event is carried out "for real" and you find it repulsive and cannot watch.

If you genuinely found acts of extreme violence disturbing then you should have the same reaction to both scenarios. The fact you only have the reaction in situations where the violence is "real" shows that its not the violence that effects you but the moral implications of the violence.

Now imagine an amoral individual exposed to the same situation...

Creature

Wacker wrote: »

All movie violence desensitizes people to is more movie violence. Real violence is completely seperate.

My feelings exactly.

I have no problem seeing a crowd of zombies completely cannibalise a screaming captain Rhodes but when I see a bit of blood in real life I can't help but get a bit queasy .

johnny_ultimate

I agree with most: I imagine 99.9% of people are able to differentiate between reality and fiction, which is a fact the media constantly seem to ignore in these matters.

If I'm watching a film, I know it is a piece of fiction. It can still shock me (as many of the more realistic portrayls of violence have done) but most of the time I know the violence simply exists in the fictional world.

When I come across blood in real life though, I am certainly far more shocked than I was by the galleons of blood some of the more excessively violent films splatter on the screen these days. Ive been lucky not to come across much violence in my life, but if I saw a man getting his head bust in, I do not think I'd be desensitized. There's a big difference between the safety of a cinema screen / television and harsh reality.

Art_Wolf

I find myself wondering if I heard a gun shot would I look around to see the 'shoot out' instead of worrying about the small metal shards flying about. While I do fully agree in terms of blood etc I do think violence spans more than just that.

Karl Hungus

calsatron wrote: »

If you genuinely found acts of extreme violence disturbing then you should have the same reaction to both scenarios. The fact you only have the reaction in situations where the violence is "real" shows that its not the violence that effects you but the moral implications of the violence.

That's a very interesting theory Calsatron, but I would disagree.

If it was purely a case of moral implications, then why would I be nauseous over medical shows on the discovery channel? It just wouldn't make sense, because the real gore is not presented in any morally questionable way, whereas a film depicting someone cutting another person wouldn't have the same effect.

Art_Wolf wrote: »

I find myself wondering if I heard a gun shot would I look around to see the 'shoot out' instead of worrying about the small metal shards flying about. While I do fully agree in terms of blood etc I do think violence spans more than just that.

Well, violence does indeed encompass more than just blood and gore, but for the sake of this discussion I'd say that I am on about violence in a blood and gore sense.

A film like Heat for example doesn't come under the same moralistic scrutiny as the likes of Hostel would.

Galvasean

Violence on screen only desensitizes me to violence on screen.
Real life violence and barbarism still affect me as much as they ever did.

missingtime

I've seen some of the videos on orgrish - decapitations etc and they are very intense.
Then I saw that clip of some animal being skinned alive and i felt sick/like crying or something. Fúcking awful stuff.

I can watch Hostel and see a guy get his tendons sliced and grap mine in a reflex action.
Passion of the Christ was just mean!

I'm no more desensitized now.

I generally don't watch these Gorno/Slasher films, mostly cos their rubbish and I pretty much don't like them.
I dont think i'm going to be desensitized by these films any time soon it's just a matter of not liking them.

Necronomicon

I think when it comes to movies, a deciding factor in whether you're gonna be disturbed or not is the overall atmosphere of the movie rather than the visible violence.

For example, seeing Halloween as a young'un. Not a lot of on-screen violence, but the movie as a whole is just chilling, eerie, and personally scared the crap out of me. Compare that with Hostel, which is a pretty light-hearted movie. That might sound daft, but there is quite a lot of humor in it. The violence is almost like cartoon violence.

Karl Hungus wrote:

For me, I just don't buy it. I've seen some seriously violent and graphic films in my time, a lot of extreme gore movies, but whenever I see anything happening on medical shows or the like, it's just a whole different experience, and the real stuff does make my physically queasy. No matter how 'Realistic' it can be depicted in film, it just does not have the same effect what so ever. I think for the most part, people have good sense to know fantasy from reality, and the only thing that fantasy violence can desensitize you to is more fantasy violence, while the sense of what's real remains seperate to that and is unaffected.

Ditto for me, surgery in a movie might not make me blink but switch on the discover channel and I'll be wincing. Also, the 'kitty-killing' thing that you described, I saw something along similar lines, made me feel sick. But how often do we see animals killed in movies? Switchblade Romance, The Hills Have Eyes - it's really not the same.

djkeogh

I agree with nearly everyone here. I like the rest of you have seen my share of Uber Gory nasty flicks. I've even spent time in the past seeking out some of the more controversial films from around the world. When it comes to movie violence etc I think I'm fairly desensitised to it. Having said that when it's portrayed in realistic fashion as in Schindlers list etc it still does horrify. I often find myself wincing at stuff as well.

Now when it comes to actual violence in real life or on the internet I can't watch it. Watching Louis Theroux there a few weeks ago on the plastic Surgery I changed channels when they were showing the surgery scenes cause I could not handle them.

Someone recently sent me a montage of police footage where the criminals were killed on camera. As soon as I realised what I was watching I turned it off and felt disturbed by it. Images like that stay in your head and I can't understand people wanting to watch other people be killed. Even animal slaughter turns my stomach and I'll always remember when they showed a cow being slaughtered on the news years ago. It shook me.

I still love a good gory horror film and will watch the most extreme examples. Knowing it's make believe is the line I have.

faceman

Just when someone mentioned the Passion of the Christ there it made me think, when a movie connects with us emotionally, the gore and violence does have an increased impact. Not at the same level that real life does, but an inbetween level.

PotC is a good example, many people who strong religous beliefs were upset watching it. however most modern day horrors lack emotional content so we dont empathise with the characters and couldnt care less if they live or die. In some cases, we cant wait for them to die. (e.g. the jason movies)

I wonder though, do we carry more empathy towards cruelty to animals in films moreso to humans? Any thoughts?

koneko

Anyone that knows me knows that I love horror films, gorey films, violent films and games. I can watch/play those things till the cows come home and love it, but real life brutality/violence? No way, not even those clips of teenagers breaking their legs skateboarding, have to turn those off when they're on TV.