Beauty and ugliness

Amen.

I don't like violence.

The advertising industry in this country spends billions of dollars every year on the proposition that what we see does influence our behavior. This isn't some goody-goody church or other beneficent organization saying that, it's advertisers, and they're backing that up with real money. I'm not arguing with that kind of evidence. I believe them. What we see influences our behavior.
So what the Times says about movie violence? You betcha.

Mirror neurons anyone? For those who aren't compelled by morals, common sense, or capitalism, perhaps science will do. Frontal lobe, mirror neurons bring an interesting light to the "violence on tv doesn't affect us" issue.

Mike White is a god but he's wrong about this. Every reputable study ever done shows that violent video games and movies do not increase violent behavior, and the murder rate in civilized countries is lower than at any time in history.

mari, Every reputable study ever done shows that violent video games and movies do not increase violent behavior, and the murder rate in civilized countries is lower than at any time in history. mari, sounds to me like whistling past the graveyard. If movies don't influence people, why does Hollywood fall all over itself when Brokeback Mountain, American Beauty, or Crash projects the images they want America to imbibe? Violence isn't as contagious as erotism or coarse language--a suburban white boy's adoption of the language and manner of a Crip or a Blood after watching a movie like Colors will fade. However, what sticks is the permission that that cinematic experience has given to violence as a way of life. Combined with other such permissions and not counteracted by equally strong prohibitions--well, a rock rolls the way it's dropped.
Or as Neil Postman put it in Amusing Ourselves to Death, one pollutant won't kill a single fish in the fish pond, but a steady stream of pollutants will poison the water entirely and kill of all of the fish. Hollywood's offerings have cultural impact, for good or for ill, and Hollywood betrays knowledge of this at every point. Hollywoods movers and shakers are hypocritical in that they pretend not to know this when it adversely impacts their agendae/revenues. If movies have no such affect, why the 2004 circus over Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ?