Growing up amidst the all encompassing world of modern societal media, it is no surprise that a lifetime of movies depicting everyday life has begun to effect how many of us view our own lives. Sometimes the influences of movies have effects we aren’t even aware of, but are simply embedded in our minds and accepted as fact. I will describe some of these interesting facts below, and illustrate some examples of cinematic misinformation.
1. Movie makers tend to “create” rather than reflect the values of society
A prime example of a created society includes almost every “college” movie ever made, in which frat houses are portrayed as the holy grail of dangerously epic drinking and partying – an example of this being Animal House. The sheer amount of beer, boobs, and debauchery happening in this film can make the average college student wonder how in the world he or she is missing this experience.
Why I call bullshit:
In the context of the movie itself, perhaps all can be forgiven. After all, the film is supposed to take place in 1962 – an era known for excessive substance use and sticking it to the man. But the lure of Animal House is too overwhelming to get bogged down in technical chronological details, which is why it will end up letting you down. Why is this, exactly?
Well, for starters, many college fraternities these days have dry house policies – meaning no alcohol on the premises, which significantly dampens the allure of sleaze-tastic toga parties. And what Animal House forgets to mention is that fraternities are required to do a certain amount of philanthropic and charity-based community service. Also required from fraternities are cumulative GPAs that have to stay above a certain line. To top it all off, you also have to pay membership fees to be a part of all that fun.
So in real life, modern fraternities are often much more civilized than what Animal House portrays, and they would be shut down long before John Belushi could accumulate seven years of college down the drain. In my opinion, if you’re intent on actually living the life when you do get to college, your best bet is to steer clear of fraternities.
2. The “What-Is-Beautiful-Is-Good-Effect”
This effect is classically represented and embedded into societal norms through the influence of Disney movies. Disney movies are often responsible for filling little girls’ heads with the idea that their Prince Charming is just waiting to sweep them off their feet, while telling boys that the ideal woman is always beautiful, kind, brave, and intelligent – in addition to being a princess, no less. The “What-Is-Beautiful-Is-Good” effect demonstrates that attractive people are frequently ascribed positive qualities simply by virtues of their looks.
Why I call bullshit:
There was a study conducted by a social scientist named Doris Bassini. She wanted to ascertain whether the WIBIG effect manifests itself with animated Disney characters, and to what degree this influences children’s perception of people. The researches analyzed 163 human and human-like characters in 21 Disney movies along these variables: physical attractiveness, aggressiveness, friendliness, moral virtue, intelligence, the character’s outcome at the end of the movie, romantic involvement, and socioeconomic status.
The results were as we may expect. Attractiveness and beauty were negatively correlated, whereas attractiveness was positively correlated with friendliness, moral virtue, intelligence, character outcome, romantic involvement, and socioeconomic status. In other words, when it comes to Disney characters, the WIBIG effect is highly operative. Physically attractive characters represent the positive traits among humanity, and are disassociated from the negative ones.
This is a cause for concern in my eyes. While I would never recommend children shouldn’t watch Disney movies – because Disney movies are awesome – I worry that the WIBIG effect is a leading factor in poor character judgement and misplacement of values in modern society. It contributes to something called the “halo effect” – the cognitive bias where one particular trait influences or extends the other qualities of a person. This can explain why attractive people are more likely to be hired or promoted within their career, or why someone who is physically unattractive is more likely to be ascribed unfair negative traits. This association has become ingrained in many minds, perhaps making physical attractiveness far more relevant than it needs to be.
3. Violence, rape, murder, sex, and verbal offense contribute to violence and indecent acts in society
I used to hate hearing soccer moms lament their children’s desire to play violent video games or watch R-rated movies. Humans can ascertain the difference between fiction and reality, I said – action, slasher, and war movies are simply recreating real life violence, not condoning it. After all, I watched violent movies when I was young and I didn’t have the urge to roundhouse kick the person who cut me in line for coffee this morning. Movie portrayal of violence can’t really corrupt children’s minds to a dangerous extent.
Why I (now) call bullshit:
Films are, in reality, a popular form of entertainment as well as a powerful method of educating, or indoctrinating, the people who watch them.
In 2007, a study was conducted by cybercollege.com which followed 329 research subjects over a period of 15 years. They found that those who were exposed to violent movies and television shows as children were much more likely to later be convicted of crime. Girls who watched more than the average amount of violence tended to throw things at their husbands, and boys who grew up watching violent TV shows were more likely to be violent with their wives.
Although this does not establish a simple, direct, cause-and-effect relationship between media violence and violence within society, some conclusions can be drawn from the data. Studies show, consistently, that people who watch a lot of movie and TV violence not only behave more aggressively, but are more prone to hold attitudes that favor violence and aggression as a way of solving problems.
As much as we may not want to believe it, studies also show that media violence does in fact have a desensitizing effect on viewers. As a result, rising levels of violence become more acceptable over time – because it takes more and more graphic violence to shock, and therefore hold, an audience. Most of us don’t blink an eye when violence appears in movies, because we are so conditioned to its prevalence that it doesn’t seem out of the ordinary anymore.
The proper response to this, I believe, is not to eliminate violent media from children’s or our own lives. Many violent films have such redeeming value that it would be a disservice not to watch them at some point. Examples include any movie directed by Quentin Tarantino, and impactful war movies such as Letters From Iwo Jima, Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, or Apocalypse Now. To reduce the harmful effects of these movies, I think it is necessary for parents to stress and emphasize the defining line between fiction and reality to their kids.
In Conclusion:
It is imperative that we, as rational human beings, know how to make a distinction between what is clearly supposed to be an art form, and real life. Movies often portray distorted, disillusioned, and exaggerated aspects of life. These movies should be appreciated for the artistic merit they bring, but should not be blurred with the starkly different truths that exist the in the real world.
I just saw in interview with Vince Gilligan where he admits that Breaking Bad has not only helped invent new words to describe Meth, but the show has actually resulted in opening up new markets for this drug. In this chicken vs. egg debate, I would argue that media may reflect society, but many directors and producers end up influencing society (intentional or not).
I like that you chose Disney to represent the what is beautiful is good idea. I found this image to be strikingly hilarious.
I would say the most controversial and definitely debate worthy topic is indeed the effect violence has on a younger demographic. I agree with you about how it should be handled. While I’ve personally seen a number of violent things on screen at a young, I imagine I’m a part of large group of people [but possibly not large enough] who can indeed draw the line between reality and fiction. That being said, it doesn’t change the fact I’ve been desensitized like you mentioned and that I am more accepting of violence. Which means in order to continue to shock and awe its audience, the industry will push the boundary of violence for more graphic and jaw dropping ultra violence for the sole purpose of sales. Soon enough, movies like A Clockwork Orange will be considered vanilla if this is kept up. And how long until the only means of shock and awe blends so close with reality that parents have difficulty drawing the lines for their children?
I agree completely, although I hope A Clockwork Orange is never considered vanilla. The “singin’ in the rain” scene is still one of the most horrifying ones I’ve ever experienced.
In regards to that image, I also laughed out loud, and would like to respond with this:
I would argue that movies do indeed reflect the values of our society rather than create them. If not the values of society then the inner human. People fantasize about hard partying or prince charming. I think the id of our psyche subconsciously drives media content. Take the gladiators of Rome. Thousands rally and cheer for bloodshed and slaughter. Human nature does not walk a straight line. I do agree however that many people struggle to differentiate what movies portray and what is real. Some people have the capacity to process what others do not. It is a tough call because do you deprive some of Quentin Tarantino insanity from some in order to protect others?
Maybe I’m just cynical, but I really do believe that modern media influences society more than society influences modern media. I think that American media in particular has set a standard for society that is very different from reality, and it is less likely to be regarded as an art form, and more likely to be interpreted as a societal norm which is virtually unachievable. I do agree though, human nature definitely does not walk a straight line. I think we should all just watch Pulp Fiction and call it a day, while keeping in mind that it’s not necessarily an accurate depiction of reality.
Don’t you find it interesting that you crave something like Pulp Fiction? How could that be the media’s fault if people like us desire such an utterly brutal movie? I think that says more about what we as humans want out of our entertainment rather what modern media is feeding us.
Are we referring to ‘media’ as the Hollywood industry as a whole. I’m referring it to as the Hollywood industry that’s responsible for what’s released in the mainstream that reaches primary society [us].
As for whether the industry influences society or society influences the industry, I’m feeling a chicken and the egg scenario. I would imagine at first about that society influences the industry more seeing as the industry and media chooses its topics and what it wants to convey based on conception of public opinion and what society enjoys. This leads to society choosing what they’re willing to spend money on based on what the industry and media chooses to publish.
However, this results in a never ending loop that yields things like Paranormal Activity 4 and the Saw franchise. We want more blood or to be more scared, so the industry obeys. Until it get stale.
I believe the industry and media can be more influential when it comes to creativity and innovation of new trending movie ideas and themes. For example, Batman Begins redefined the superhero genre with a completely original and revamp of all traditional superhero movies. This has created a myriad of revamped darker superhero movies like Iron Man, Amazing Spider Man, the rest of the Marvel movies, simply because of the money created from this genre set. So while society creates the direction the industry often goes in, it takes the industry to set the trend in the first place with a canvasing of ideas and themes that may or may not click with audiences.