Here at The LAMP, we’re all big proponents of making media a family affair, but the ages of the family members must also be considered. Texas Chainsaw Massacre is not okay for a toddler just because Mommy or Daddy happen to be sitting nearby, and this holds true for Watchmen as well. I’ve read the novel, and went into the movie expecting a certain degree of violence, but I still was unprepared for the level of gore onscreen. There is nothing about Watchmen that is okay for young children; in fact, I would caution anyone under the age of sixteen against seeing it. (I’d even warn adults with a weak stomach.) Not only is the movie extremely graphic, but the story is also famously complex for a “superhero” tale, and I would be surprised if every adult in the theatre could have explained everything that happened during the film. This is not a case of a very violent telling of Goldilocks–neither the visuals nor the narrative are appropriate for young children.

Part of what astounded me is that I cannot comprehend of any parent bringing their young child to see this movie if they had any idea of the movie’s content. Not only does Watchmen carry a well-deserved R rating that should help parents make decisions, it also is based on a book that parents can refer to if they have questions about the story. My conclusion is that the parents of these children didn’t do their research, or lost their sitter at the last moment but were determined to go to the movie anyway. Or, perhaps they simply weren’t thinking.

To be clear, the reason I think young children should be shielded from such violence is not because I imagine they will never see it. I know they can turn on the news or open a paper, and see some horrible things. My concern comes from my doubt, cynical though it may be, that these parents left the theatre and gave their kids a lesson on real violence versus movie/entertainment violence, how special effects are created, the real-world consequences of murder, etc. And–I don’t care how brilliant that parent may be at explaining those things, but even if a conversation like that did happen, I doubt that it will leave an imprint as lasting as the 160 minutes of brutality they just saw played out onscreen.

I seized upon the video game detail.  Whether or not video games are the direct cause of violence is difficult to know, and studies have been done which point both ways on the issue.  In the case of Nicholas Browning, there may have been other elements involved–relatives and friends told the defense psychiatrist that they had seen Nicholas being by parents, and that he and his parents abused alcohol as well.  Friends recall Nicholas venting a great deal of anger about his father, and that he joked about killing his family.  However, I think there is something to Nicholas’ recollection of being in a trance-like state on the night of the killings, and also to the reports that he was playing video games immediately before and after the killings as well as the day following.  Nicholas may have played video games every day of his life, so logging several hours in front of a console (his house had two) might not have been unusual, but that doesn’t weaken the point that the teen may have had an unhealthy relationship with video games.  It can be hard to distinguish between fantasy and reality, especially when video games are used as a retreat–the world you want to live in and the world you actually live in start to blur together.

In themselves, video games are not necessarily a bad thing, but like any other unchecked addiction, too much time spent with them can lead to trouble.  Nicholas Browning certainly represents a worst-case scenario; more often, video game addicts grow alienated from friends and family, or their health suffers from a sedentary obsession.  None of the above is acceptable, and it is just one reason why all of us here at the LAMP feel so strongly about media literacy.  If you’re worried about violence in your community, media literacy might not take away the guns but it can take away a lot of reasons for pulling the trigger.  Violence is glamorized in many aspects of popular culture–as a path to fame, fortune, strength, power, sex and more–and that has to stop.  It will stop when we demand that it stops, and not a minute sooner.

Help us in our mission to make New York City a happier and healthier place.  You can make a difference by sharing this post, or by making a small donation through the link to NYCharities.org at the bottom of your screen.  Thank you in advance for your support.

Isn’t Heath Ledger fascinating as the Joker in The Dark Knight? His make-up, his hair, his rasping voice, his devious plans – all scream ‘psychotic’ , and yet we are strangely drawn to him. If you ask me, and many will agree on this, he is more memorable than the Dark Knight himself. Why do we find a homicidal maniac endearing? Can this morbid attraction have larger consequences?

Movies have, since their birth, given plenty of opportunities for villains to
dazzle. So much so, that Norman Bates of Psycho remains a pop-culture icon to this day. His legacy will be continued by Hannibal Lector of Hannibal, Mr. Brooks of the movie by the same name, Anton Chigurgh of No Country for Old Men and many others who will be manufactured to continue this glorious tradition.

So, why did I root for the Joker? Firstly because I think portraying evil and menace so chillingly is no mean feat. Histrionic skills aside, the Joker was clearly sheer genius. He had a distinctive (and dark) sense of humor, no protective gadgets but a fearless persona nevertheless, he was fantastically clever (though completely evil), with a touch of sarcasm and lots of (bizarre) style. Smart, funny, brave, proud and stylish. What’s not to like? Batman himself was clearly deficient in many of these areas and having a cape, an armored car and an engineered voice didn’t exactly add to his charm.

I admit, I fell for the freak. And I imagine that I would have fallen harder if the Joker had been smarter and darker. But thankfully, I am not a Joker wannabe, and other than being good entertainment, the movie had little effect on me. What could a more innocent (or a more twisted) person learn from such movies? That the bad guys have more fun? That by terrifying people, they can make sure that the spotlight is always on them? That being sufficiently smart and wicked can guarantee them a spot on the early morning and late light news for a week?

That these movies glorify the anti-hero is apparent. But whether this portrayal is healthy or unhealthy is the subject of a long debate and a matter of personal judgment. If the makers of the movie aimed for packed crowds, they certainly got that. If they wanted their movie to be ‘most talked about’, they got that too. But remember, media effects are media effects, whether they are intended or not. We definitely don’t want such movies inspiring people to emulate psychopaths. The key is ‘detached  appreciation’, something that is perhaps easier for adults to understand. In an ideal world, we would watch these movies with the awareness of the neat line that separates  our world from Gotham, a line that separates reality from fantasy. We would be  terrified, intrigued and even impressed by the Joker, fully aware that these emotions  certain to a world and a person that does not, could not and should not exist. And at the end of the movie, we would leave the theatre with entertained minds and popcorn  flavored clothes, and the Joker would take his place with Godzilla, King Kong, Shrek,  Darth Vader, and Voldemort: the good and the bad in a different, non-existent world. This skill of separation and detached appreciation is what we need to pass on to our children if they are to appreciate entertainment happily and safely. Also, if they are to see the Joker for what he really is: a joker.

–Radhika Ramesh

You can check it out right here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4ZBzMOV9Js

My first reaction was to be really angry about it.  And that reaction hasn’t changed after two days.  In this PSA we’re taken from soft porn to almost snuff.  I get the point they’re trying to make, but instead of giving me something serious to consider, it makes me want to strangle the producers.  But I’m a much older woman than those targeted by this PSA.  I guess being much older gives me the breadth and history of seeing images of women where sex and violence (from men) come together, putting women in a completely powerless position (and how much more powerless can you get than dying?).  It’s a sequence that, culturally, we’re used to seeing.  I’m sure that’s why they thought it would make an impact.    I’m trying to imagine a similar type of commercial that might be used if the point being made was that young heterosexual men was the fastest growing segment of the population being infected with HIV.

I can’t imagine the producers would merely switch the roles.  That wouldn’t work because we’re not used to seeing young beautiful women shooting young men after having consensual sex with them.  It would seem bizarre, and that’s what would stick with people, not the message about HIV.  But here, the message will likely stick–for those who aren’t critical about the gender and sex implications– because the imagery makes sense on some sort of ghastly, historically reinforced, culturally-relevant level.  I abhor the history behind these images as much as the images themselves.

Katherine Fry

At first, this conclusion seems backwards.  When you kill another character in a game, you’ve eliminated your opposition, so you should feel a sense of victory, right?  And when you’re killed, it means you’ve lost, and what feels good about losing?  Dr. Ravaja theorizes that this is because even when we operate in a virtual world like a video game, our real-life sense of morality doesn’t entirely switch off.  Although we know intellectually that we didn’t really just kill someone, we feel a little bad about it.  When we die, we’re relieved from the stress of playing.

This was surprising to me because so much past research has suggested that violent video games desensitize a player, blurring the lines between a virtual world of no consequence and a real world where murder holds many, many consequences.  Like Dr. Ravaja, I’m a little relieved at the implication that gamers aren’t completely turned off when their games are turned on.  Given the fact that violent video games aren’t going to disappear, I find the new perspective to be somewhat comforting.