Violence in Pop Culture

Did Pac-Man’s never-ending hunger cause American obesity?Most people would say no. However, the fact remains that Americans have been growing fatter, with a sharp increase from 1980 to 2000, according to the Weight-Control Information Network (WIN).  And now I would like to ask you naysayers, what game was brought to the United States in October 1980? Pac-Man! Why if that isn’t a smoking gun I don’t know what is.Now to digress from my admittedly conspiratorial mind set, yes, I’m admitting that Pac-Man did not cause American obesity. Instead, I would like to focus on a more relevant issue, namely, how much does violence in the entertainment forms of media influence us in negative ways? Does violence in video games, movies and television shows have uncontrollable effects on the way we think and our resulting actions? Does it contribute to such tragedies as the Aurora Massacre? And if so, should we then censor the media more than we do now?To answer the former question, violence in the stated mediums exists because it attracts viewers; it is simple supply and demand. People like seeing violence — sex may sell but violence makes it rain. It’s not a revolutionary concept, just ask the Romans. It’s in our nature to be enthralled by violence, like scratching a scab, we enjoy the stimulus violence provides.So watching things like a good old-fashioned New Jersey housewife bitch-slap or a Texas chainsaw massacre is perfectly understandable even though it may seem slightly vulgar.It’s reasonable to think that viewing such things would make one more violent as a person, but the possible correlation is not as simple as it seems. Instead, these forms of entertainment provide a release of violent impulses. Think of it this way: you’re at your place of work and find out that Johnson, the bane of your existence, just got a promotion and is now your boss. It’s reasonable to assume that you would be in a less than jovial temperament. So you turn to a virtual stress ball and watch Godzilla terrorize the Japanese, imagining at every moment Johnson is one of those poor screaming citizens. Godzilla is not making you more violent, instead, the giant green (slightly adorable) lizard is serving as an emotional vent, releasing all that hatred you have toward Johnson.Some would argue, though, that the issue isn’t violence itself but instead the realistic portrayal of it.  But to them I say just because something is physically realistic does not mean it is more emotionally significant.Perhaps the truest example of this is Bambi. It’s no secret that the death of Bambi’s mother is not only one of the greatest motivations for animal rights but also one of the saddest moments in American cinema. So, why is it that most of us (all of us who have a heart) end up feeling sadness at the death of the mother of an animated deer, yet are completely numb when we watch the hundreds of human deaths on television and in movies?It is because a visually realistic look does not always translate into a stronger mental reaction.Others might also say that the issue is that many times the media puts theatrical violence on a pedestal and romanticizes it. By having characters with such dark psychological undertones like The Joker or action scenes with unrealistic results, the viewer might interpret a false relationship between violence on screen and violence in real life.The first problem is easily solved, since villains often end up getting their comeuppance and are usually clearly painted as “bad guys.” So basically, it is not the filmmaker’s intent for them to be idolized by psychopaths.  Also, it’s hypocrisy to say that a film villain like The Joker inspires someone to kill when in reality many non-chastised mediums, like literature, can just as easily inspire such relationships. For example, Satan had been idolized and worshiped by thousands of murders and criminals long before Thomas Edison could say “film projector.”The false relationship problem, though, is harder to defend. The reason romanticized violence is included is obvious: the audience isn’t interested in watching a post-fight James Bond get a sponge bath from a less-than comely 47-year-old nurse named Ruth, while drinking shaken, not stirred Pepto-Bismol. So yes, this depiction might make fighting seem less dangerous to perceptive minds (but that’s why movies, television and video games have maturity ratings).  And also children aren’t idiots — they will eventually realize the punching each other hurts, and the smarter ones might even stop.Yet there are still those who would argue that if you censor violence in the media people will be less violent. Well to them I make one last desperate plea as a testimony to my conviction on this issue. Look at the classic story of  “Dr. Jekyll” and “Mr. Hyde.” Just because you hide away all “vices” and suppress urges does not rid one of a feeling. Instead, by not allowing one to express that feeling, or in this case, give into that impulse, you allow it to grow and fester like an unbandaged wound. By trying to scorch all violent vices you simply make the urge for violence stronger. And say that one day we bring about a Victorian era of censorship, a time in which propriety governs all; don’t we end up with Jack the Ripper?