Violence in film is a problem, I guarantee it

Two years ago, I was flying back to Toronto on Air Canada, ready to watch Kill Bill Vol. 1. This movie, like many Quentin Tarantino films, has hit cult-classic status, so I felt that I should incorporate it into my film repertoire. About ten minutes into the film, I had already witnessed a knife-fight scene, a wedding massacre, and been told straight out that Uma Thurman’s character was repeatedly raped in a hospital (while in a coma from the wedding massacre). Okay, can we really let that information sink in for a minute? I had to pause the movie, because I physically could not digest any more of what I was seeing. How was this film a classic? And not just a classic, but revered by so many critics? Were people truly desensitised to this gratuitous physical and sexual violence? Ever since seeing the first few scenes of Kill Bill, I have had to re-evaluate our culture’s relationship to violence and the ways that media depict acts of horror—making violence not only digestible but also enjoyable.

There have been countless psychological studies researching the correlation between media violence and the effects it has on human behaviour. However, I am not here to try and persuade readers that if you watch a Tarantino film you will become a vicious murderer. There is no proven scientific research to show a causal relationship between consumption of violent media and real-life acts of crime. However, there have been multiple studies which prove consumers can be desensitised to graphic violence or violent images.

According to the Psychiatric Times, the average American citizen watches five hours of video every day, and nearly two thirds of TV shows aired contain physical violence. Because of the constant bombardment of violence in all forms of media—from the Internet, to news, to television—consumers have become emotionally detached from the events they are witnessing. Some cases have shown that children who actively engage with violent video games are more likely to display aggressive behaviour. There have also been cognitive studies which show a dampening in neurological emotional response to violence in media.

CBC News stated in an article from 2013 that the rate of gun violence sequences in film increased four times from 1950-2010. Specifically, gun violence sequences increased in films rated PG-13, surpassing the violence depicted in R-rated movies. This indicates a specific targeting of a younger demographic; many films make violence appear attractive or exciting, which in large part appeals to young adults and teenagers. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rates films in order to inform parents and guardians about the content in films, cautioning what is appropriate for children to see. However, the rating system is extremely subjective and, as Kate Bedingfield, the spokesperson for the MPAA, stated, “Societal standards change over time and the rating system is built to change with them.”

What, then, are the current societal standards? Statistics have shown that violence in films has increased dramatically since 1950. A cause for this could be globalization, which has allowed for interconnection, making access to world events instantly attainable. We now know when a violent act occurs thousands of miles away. We can see a horrific conflict or crime on our media platforms, minutes after the occurrence: this is our reality.
The content in film must progress with the times we live in. Unfortunately, the media tends to sensationalize violence, and films often do the same.

Now, I know film is entertainment. Cinema does not need to make a political or social statement—many films do not. However, I firmly believe that the director does have some responsibility in the content they wish to display to the world. Millions of people watch movies every year, and a large portion see their world reflected on screen. Violence and sex are acceptable in film if they have a specific artistic purpose. Gratuitous sex and violence is where I draw the line, yet many directors and filmmakers cross this line.

The violence in Kill Bill, and many of Tarantino’s films, is definitely gratuitous. By now, most people accept this in his features; violence is his muse. When Reservoir Dogs hit screens in 1992 it was revelatory, and the subsequent Tarantino films made gratuitous violence mainstream, entertaining the masses. What concerns me is the idea that people could watch Kill Bill without stopping to think about what was occurring on screen, and even dismiss it by saying, “It’s make-believe, so it’s alright!”

Tarantino has frequently voiced his annoyance with the idea that his films could cause real-life acts of violence, and I agree with him. However, he is accountable for the content he is producing, and when millions of people watch a woman be repeatedly assaulted while unconscious and not even blink an eye, it’s a cause for concern. It shows a society desensitized to acts of violence, which are constantly exploited by the media. The next time you’re watching a film with excessive violence, at least take a moment and ask yourself, “Is this necessary?” You’ll surprise yourself with how often you respond in the negative.