Violence and sex in the media: Where do we draw the line?

WARNING: May include images disturbing to some audiences.

            In contemporary times, violence and sex has made its way into the media in vast abundance. For an adult, it may seem as though sexy and violent themes in movies and television is simply entertaining, but the repetition of these sexy and violent themes is having a negative impact on children. It is fair to say that media should not be censored, but are we letting our children be negatively impacted by violence and sex in the media?

            During the times of early film, sex and violence was not allowed on the screen because of the Hollywood production code. Sex and violence were simply implied and graphic detail and images were omitted from the screen. In recent times, we have allowed much more sex and violence in the media and on screen in explicit detail. Child psychologist Dr. Debra Kowalski, explains, "With children having so much exposure to the media, the messages that come across are very important and they shape how a child sees the world and what a child sees as important. A lot of the messages related to violence and sexuality can negatively impact a child." There are also current studies being conducted by Michael Suman, coordinator of The Center for Communications Policy at the University of California at Los Angeles. He has done a three year analysis of the effects of violence and sex in the media, on children. He has concluded that Violence depicted repetitiously in the media has three types of negative effects on children. It increases violence because children see people behave violently, and children often imitate what they are seeing on a regular basis. It desensitizes children because they see heinous things in the media, and they become used to passively accepting offensive and crazy behaviors. And the last idea is that it causes children to become fearful because they get the false notion that violence is always happening, and danger is always in inch away. The overabundance of violence and sex is misleading to children, and they start to believe that it is overabundant in the real world as well.

            In the movie Hostel II (2005) three American students who are on a trip, are lured into a European hostel, where they are sold to the highest bidder who's fondest wish is to kill them slowly, in any way they like. The movie depicts violence, sex, sadism, and torture in graphic and bloody detail. This movie is rated R, and a child who is under 17 can see this movie as long as a parent or guardian permits. A problem here is that parents no longer have as much control over what their child is doing, or watching on television. Recently, I saw the movie Hostel was available on On Demand. On Demand is a program for people who have Comcast, and basically, you can watch the content on demand by simply clicking an OK button. If a child wanted to see this movie without their parent or guardian, it would be very easy for them to do so. On television, there is a program called “The First 48”, and it airs on A&E. This show is a real life account of gruesome murders, and details about the violent and vicious acts are elaborate, and disturbing images are inevitable. This show has a disclaimer at the beginning of the episode, warning of the material, but anyone can view this channel and this show. On MTV, there is an extremely popular show entitled “The Jersey Shore”. On this show a group of roommates typically drink a large amount of alcohol, go out to a club, and “smoosh” attractive people they meet along the way. In this show, sex is a common theme, and it seems as though the roommates are usually involved with new sexual encounters every night. MTV is available for anyone who has cable, including children. Sometimes, parents may not be able to monitor what their children watch on TV because they may be at work while their child is at home, or the child may have their own personal TV.

            The uprising of sex and violence in the media is a danger to our children because children are still forming their concept of reality. As children see an overrepresentation of sex and violence, it becomes commonplace in their schema of reality. So where do we draw the line? I don’t think the media should censor itself; instead we should police the little ones, and maybe try our best to change some of our own personal media patterns at home.          

Beresin, E. V.. "The Impact of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions." American academy of child & adolescent psychiatry. American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry., 2010. Web. 20 Feb 2012. http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/developmentor/the_impact_of_media_violence_on_children_and_adolescents_opportunities_for_clinical_interventions.

Fragmented Quotes, . "TV and Film Violence." www.cybercollege.com. Cyber College, 2011. Web. 20 Feb 2012. http://www.cybercollege.com/violence.htm.

"Key Facts: TV Violence." . The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003. Web. 20 Feb 2012. <http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Key-Facts-TV-Violence.pdf>.

HPC vs Contemporary rating system

            The enforcement of the Hollywood production code was an unfair way to censor movies and movie makers. In some ways, the Hollywood production code was an obstruction of the first amendment rights of movie makers. The Motion Picture Production Code was the set of industry moral censorship guidelines that governed the production of the majority of  motion pictures released by major studios in the United States from 1930 to 1968. The Production Code explained what was acceptable and what was unacceptable to put in movies. The Contemporary rating system is much fairer that the Hollywood production code because it gives the viewer a chance to make the decision for themselves, and it allows movie makers to exercise their first amendment rights.

            In 1934 the HPC was officially enforced, and in the code contained unfair rules that censored filmmakers, and obstructed their first amendment rights. Some rules of the HPC were even violations of our civil rights. For example, one rule of the HPC is that motion pictures can’t depict relationships between people of different races or between people of the same sex. I think it is fair to say that these rules discriminated against people of different races, and homosexuals. Films were only allowed to show heterosexual same race couples, and the exclusion of these people sent the message to the American movie viewers that these relationships don’t really exist, and if they do, then they are somehow wrong or unacceptable. Homosexual imagery was rarely acknowledged in early American cinema, but when it was acknowledged, homosexuals and gender benders were suggested as being villainous, murderous and psychotic. In fact, in classical Hollywood horror films, the villain is usually most frightening because they are non white, non straight, and non male dominant. For example, the movie Dracula (1931) depicted vampires who preyed on men and women, and their attacks are usually in the form of seduction or rape. Homosexuality was also suggested to be a sickness in early film and media. For example, in the play “Tea and Sympathy” the male character struggles with repressed homosexual feelings. The play concludes with the heterosexual myth that a great woman can fix a gay man with her charms.

            The contemporary rating system is not flawless, but it is fairer because it allows the filmmaker to express his opinions and beliefs, even if it may be different from the norms of society. Consider the movie Jungle Fever (1991). The movie depicts a black man who has a sexual love affair with an Italian woman. Although each family disagrees with the interracial relationship, true love could not keep the two lovers away from each other. Under the HPC, this movie would not have been allowed, but in today’s society, the movie received a rating of R, which means that “Under 17 Requires Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian. These films may contain mild or implied sex scenes, prolonged nudity, strong violence often with blood and gore, strong horror scenes and explicit/illegal/prolonged drug use. A movie rated R for profanity often has more severe or frequent swearing than the PG-13 rating would permit. An R-rated movie may have more blood, gore, drug use, nudity, or graphic sexuality than a PG-13 movie would permit. Some R-rated films have an "unrated" DVD release with scenes of violence, sexual material, or profanity that have been edited from the original cut.” The contemporary rating system does not ban movies, but it warns the viewers of the reasons why a specific film has been rated in a specific way, and it gives the movie goer the chance to decide for themself. The filmmakers still have the right to express their views and opinions in the contemporary rating system without their movies being banned, even if they are radical, extreme, and offensive. The first amendment should protect our rights to freedom of speech, even if it is different from the social normality.

 "The Big Screen Cinema Guide." Mpaa ratings information. MPAA, 1995. Web. 19 Feb 2012. http://www.bigscreen.com/MPAA_RatingsInfo.php.

Hayes, David P.. "The Motion Picture Production Code." The Motion Picture Production Code. N.p., 2009. Web. 19 Feb 2012. <http://productioncode.dhwritings.com/multipleframes_productioncode.php>.

           

The red scare in Hollywood 1950, and American Muslims post 9/11

The red scare in Hollywood 1950, and American Muslims post 9/11

In the time of the cold war, there was an immense fear of communism in the United States. There was political and military tension between the western world, and the communist world. Each side possessed nuclear power, and everyone was held in suspension waiting for a war to erupt, although it never did. During this time, there was a witch hunt in the United States, and more specifically in the entertainment industry. Hollywood directors, screenwriters, and actors were accused of being communist and infiltrating propaganda into their films, and were blacklisted from working in Hollywood. This seems to parallel the experiences of the American Muslims after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. After the attacks, there was an unjustified fear of American Muslims and people of Middle Eastern ethnicities in general. The government even created new laws enabling them to tap phones, and spy on suspects, without direct evidence or proof or wrongdoing, without search warrants. In doing so, the government illegally persecuted innocent suspects, just as the Hollywood ten were illegally jailed.

The Hollywood ten is a specific example of how the government illegally jailed innocent people because of fear and speculation of communism rising in America. Artists were blacklisted from work because of their alleged membership in the American Communist Party, involvement in liberal or humanitarian political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and refusal to assist investigations into Communist Party activities, and some were blacklisted because their names were mentioned by those on trial. Suspected communists working in the film industry were forced to appear before the House of un American Activities Committee to testify about Communism and if they were associated with it. While some answered the questions and some gave names implicating others as being involved in Communism, ten refused to give evidence or specify their political affiliations. Citing their First Amendment rights, their defense failed and the Hollywood Ten were convicted and ordered to serve 1-year in prison, although it has never been illegal to be a communist.

 American Muslims and others of Middle Eastern Ethnicity in post 9/11 were subjected to the same treatments because of fear and speculation of terrorism. The emergence of hate crimes directed towards people of Middle Eastern decent was absolutely unbelievable. Fear and speculation even gave rise to the Patriot Act, which has been widely criticized as being unconstitutional, just like the HUAC hearings in 1950. The Patriot act gives the government powers to get phone, banking and other records by the power of a national security letter, which does not require a court warrant. In the national security letter, the FBI says in writing that the information is relevant to an ongoing terrorism or national security investigation, yet the government doesn’t need to show any proof or basis for their illegal search and seizure. Because of the nature of the patriot act, it unfairly targets minorities, and people of Middle Eastern decent. Following September 11th, many Arabs, South Asians and Muslims along with Americans of Arab decent reported being questioned by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. There were also reports of the FBI conducting surveillance on mosques and Islamic centers. Reasons for this increase in surveillance varied from protecting America from future attacks, to ensuring the safety of Muslims from becoming victims of hate crime, it seems as though these minorities are being unfairly targeted.

There are many examples of the government doing illegal things. The Hollywood Ten and people of Middle Eastern decent have been targeted because of fears from the government, and fears from the people.

Art is poisonous

Art is Poisonous

Andres Serrano's "Pieta II"

            Artists struggle with their artwork being censored, and artists even modify their final piece of work to be deemed acceptable by certain committees. Artists are censored for many different reasons like promoting un-American acts, using vulgar words, or sexual deviancy. There have been many accusations against art and media for creating adverse effects on society, and this holds some truth. For example, musicians like Marylin Manson have been accused of inspiring horrible acts of violence with their violent and sadistic lyrics, like the Columbine high school shooting. Although the people who carried out this violence listened to Marylin Manson and possibly found inspiration from his lyrics, the media is not to blame for heinous acts in society. Art and media should not be censored or blamed for acts of consumers.

            In 1993, an artist Andres Serrano created a piece of art that shows a plastic figurine of Michelangelo's statue of the Madonna and Jesus submerged in cow's urine and blood. Students from the University of Alabama and county officials wanted the return of the photograph, which had been purchased by the university arts department, because they considered the work offensive and blasphemous. Before exhibiting the work, gallery officials were receiving letters of protest from students and government officials. The University President Charles McCallum said that although he found the photograph offensive, he supported, "free and open discussion of such matters as the nature of art, freedom of speech, and the role of religious beliefs in the academic environment. The students and officials attempted to have this piece of art censored because they were offended by the blasphemous act. It would have been unfair to censor this artwork because in doing so, the artists’ rights would have been violated. There are no limitations, or details in small print in regards to freedom of speech, and so art should never be censored.

            Let’s consider another example. If the art has violent undertones and suggested violent acts, should we blame the artists for the acts of the consumer, and thus censor their art? In 1984, a young American shot himself in the head while listening to the song “Suicide Solution” written by Ozzy Osbourne, and performed by Black Sabbath. Ozzy claimed his song was about slowly killing himself with alcohol, and dedicated the song to his late friend. The parents of this teen then sued Ozzy, claiming that his song contained subliminal messages telling listeners to get a gun and shoot, and the pounding rhythm and tones encouraged self destructive behavior. The young teen was already suffering with depression and emotional instability. Art can be interpreted and taken differently depending on the consumer, and the artist should not be blamed for the individual differences, or previous mental conditions of the consumer. The courts dismissed the case, since the first amendment was an absolute bar to the lawsuit.

            Music has taken a great amount of heat for creating adverse effects on society. Major music stations on TV like MTV and BET are being accused of subjecting their young audiences to profanities, and sexually explicit content in their music videos. These videos may include vulgar, profane and sexually explicit lyrics, with soft core porn to go along with the lyrics. Women leave little to the imagination, dancing and catering to men with loads of cash and nice cars in some of these videos. The critics of the major stations like MTV and BET are claiming that these videos are influencing young boys to treat women with disrespect, and young women are being taught to objectify themselves, and tolerate the disrespect. Music videos should not be censored from MTV or BET because these videos are art and expression, and not reality. If the viewer doesn’t understand this, then their parents and guardians should not be letting them view this material. These channels are directed at young viewers, but ultimately the parents should be deciding if their child is mature enough to separate entertainment from reality.

            The television show “Jackass” on MTV gives a disclaimer at the beginning of their television show, warning viewers that the stunts on the show are stunts performed by professionals and could result in serious injury if done by a viewer, and that the show is for entertainment purposes. Although rap music videos don’t have this disclaimer at the beginning of their videos, I think the youth will understand the divide between entertainment and real life if they have people to teach them this before they begin watching adult material.

Watch and make your judgment!

WARNING! Explicit lyrics

Suicide Solution performed by Black Sabbath

WARNING! Explicit rap video

Rack City by Tyga