subscribe to this page
Carr then moves from the present to Bonnie and Clyde’s era, the birth of the counterculture in the 60s. Carr reminds us of the civil turmoil and transformation America as whole was undergoing. Vietnam, the civil rights movement and police brutality all excited the public’s mistrust of the state and authority as a whole. The American film industry was also undergoing a transformation of its own at the time with the demise of the studio system and the production code and the rise of influential foreign films from movements such as the French New Wave.
The 60s saw the birth of the counterculture, young adults who considered themselves on the margins of society. Many of the most influential voices of the time, such as Allan Ginsberg, were arrested for protesting the government. The government, in turn, reacted by “spying” on hundreds of thousands of citizens in an attempt to crack down on civil unrest and dissatisfaction with their government. This attempt, however, only served to solidify the defining aspect of the counterculture: their hatred of authority and control.
Carr uses these historical examples of 60s culture to place Bonnie and Clyde as the most influential film to date, and as a turning point in American cinema and consumerism. The film reflected the feelings and idealizations of the counterculture through its glorification of two criminals fight against authority and societal norms. The film was immensely popular, but received heavy criticism from film critics and public opinion groups, eventually leading to its withdrawal from theatres within the U.S. This, just like the government’s attempt to control dissent through spying, only served to bring the film to further prominence as a cult icon of sorts. The film, however, did more than just reflect the turmoil of the times and gave birth to the consumerization of the counterculture. The film helped present the counterculture, mostly young adults and teenagers, as the target audience for a new genre of film tailored directly to their desires. Bonnie and Clyde allowed the marginal, outcasts of society (as they saw themselves) to achieve consumerist prominence in America.
The essay states, “violence is the key to the rule of power” (708) and shows how mostly men and white characters use violence to capture their dominance. The research in the essay shows that heavy television viewing results in a fear of violence along with a misjudgment of the amount of violence around us. The essay concludes by saying that violence has become the easiest way for television creators to create drama due to censorship laws.
Although this essay has nothing to do with Bonnie and Clyde, the study on the consequences of violence through 1960s television is important in understanding the films plentiful use of violence. There was no doubt that violence was prominent in the 1960s with images of the Vietnam War and civil rights movements dominating the screens of the American people. Bonnie and Clyde took advantage of the American obsession with visual violence, but did so in a way that justified and glamorized violence. Although the effects that the essay claims appear from watching excessive television, Bonnie and Clyde appealed to an audience that was already overwhelmed with violence, and was eager to welcome the camp portrayal of murder and death. And the essay’s assertion that power arises from violence, Bonnie and Clyde is the supreme example because of the overwhelming pop culture influence that the original pair and film had on the cinema as a whole as well as the public’s expectations of violence and censorship.
Is TV violence all that bad for kids? The Age (Melbourne, Australia), March 5, 2005 Saturday, INSIGHT; Opinion; Pg. 9, 816 words, HUGH MACKAY LexisNexis Academic 9 Apr. 2008
This article is a response to a report from The Weekend Australian that asserts a child’s witnessing of violence in media will result in higher levels of aggression. Writer Hugh Mackay refers to a 1960’s American child-psychology experiment which consisted of observing the different ways children would play with a particular object after they watched different videos, ones that either showed children playing peacefully with that toy or children punching and kicking it. The findings were that those who watched a violent video would treat the toy violently, and those who watched the peaceful video would treat the toy peacefully. Mackay makes sure to point out that although the children would emulate the behavior, it has been concluded that the effects are only short-term, and that all long-term personalities remain virtually unchanged. Furthermore, he declares that the search for variables which might shed light on a child’s increased or decreased susceptibility toward emulating violence in the media result only in negligible data that cannot give any indication of why a particular child would be acting more or less violent than any other one. Mackay’s overall point is that although these experiments may show children in the act of emulating violence on television, all large-scale national crime statistics show that the introduction of television into the societies of decades past resulted in severe drops in crime, and that the age-group which watches the least amount of television today commits the highest amount of violent crime. In short, what a child views in movies or videogames has far less positive or negative impact on his personality than the benefits of extensive human interaction, or the dangers of lazy, television-filled inactivity.
This article is worth factoring into the discussion of Natural Born Killer’s potential effect on inspiring three young couples to committing separate violent murders in Europe and America, all after their viewing (and in one case, repeated viewing) of the 1994 film. Although accusations were made that the filmmakers and producers were responsible, hardly evidence has been found to support them. Mackay also says that at the time of his writing the article in 2005, the violent crime rate in America had been in steady decline for the last 10 years – which would mean the trend began in 1995, one year after Natural Born Killers was released. If violence in the media could truly influence people to emulate the brutality on screen, Natural Born Killers would surely qualify for those results, considering the rare intensity of bloodshed that is present throughout the whole movie. And considering it grossed 11 million dollars in the first weekend, and over 50 million dollars to date, enough people have seen the movie that we can say if there was a slight rise in a person’s aggressive tendencies after watching the movie, no matter how slight, the accumulation across the country would certainly be noticeable.
The relevance of this article has to do with the controversy surrounding Natural Born Killers, over what impacts a film of such incredible violence (coupled with its themes of glorifying such acts) can – and has – and will – have on the societies of its viewers. Boyle draws on three specific cases of murderous love-duos that occured after the films release. Edmonson-Darras, Rey-Maupin, and Herbert-Paindavoine were all young couples tried for committing horrendous murders as pairs, and all three couples admitted to having been influenced by Natural Born Killers, further adding to the intense question of how acts of brutality we see in the media are linked to real-world violence.
“What’s Natural about Killing? Gender, Copycat Violence and Natural Born Killers” By: Boyle, Karen. Journal of Gender Studies, Nov2001, Vol. 10 Issue 3, p311-321, 11p; DOI: 10.1080/09589230120086511; EBESCO, 9 Apr. 2008
Karen Boyle argues that Natural Born Killers leaves a dangerous impression on society, which places male violence as something more natural than female violence, and perhaps even something to be expected, while female violence is somehow a reversal of a girl’s original nature, to be drawn from or manipulated upon that female’s innately more submissive personality. She compares Mickey, the male half of the murderous love-duo, to Mallory, the female half, and concludes that the different treatment given to the characters has a drastic on the viewer, even if the viewer doesn’t realize. She points to Mickey’s depiction as an emblem of pure, glorified brutality, a hero for fellow convicts, a star on primetime television. Mickey’s calm exterior and understated personal background leaves the viewer with the understanding he’s been a man of sheer violence his whole life; and that for man, violence is somehow hereditary, and that for man, violence is ultimately nothing more or less than normal.
Boyle contrasts Natural Born Killer’s depiction of Mickey with that of Mallory: as a sex-object, a young girl who carries out violence on others only as revenge for the abuse she received from her father during her upbringing, and is brought “into” this world by its original inhabitant, the male, citing the image of Mickey riding to her house on horseback, after having escaped from jail, to rescue her and take her away – but not before showing her how to kill her parents in cold blood. She also points to interviews given by director Oliver Stone and actor Woody Harrelson, in which the two men emphasis Harrelson’s own family history, specifically his father’s murderous past, which she says is proof of the intentional perpetuation of the film’s prejudiced ideas, (or at least a complete admission of having those sentiments themselves, even if they didn’t recognize it).
The article furthermore proposes that other critics’ lack of commentary on this aspect of the film is an indication of just how easily its viewers are willing to accept it as true, and therefore the contrasting depictions of Mickey and Mallory are consequently that much more dangerous. Boyle argues that to paint the female-murderer as a more intriguing, fragile, or more special specimen than the male-murderer can only cast confusion and blindness on society’s ability to sentence its criminals with adequately balanced judgment, and these imposed attitudes will hamper the cause of studying the true motives behind the mass-murderer, which shouldn’t be thought of as automatically in every male psyche, or inherently lacking and foreign to the female psyche, but rather an equally potential outcome for any human mind.
Marita Sturken History and Theory, Vol. 36, No. 4, Theme Issue 36: Producing the Past: Making Histories Inside and Outside the Academy (Dec., 1997), pp. 64-79
In this article, Marita Sturken discusses Oliver Stone’s popularity and bad name as a filmmaker, but defends Oliver Stone against his critics who lividly denounce the director’s credibility as an American cinematic historian, and maker of the legitimate docudrama. Stone’s 1986 Platoon was greeted with total acclaim. Sturken attributes this to the fact that Stone personally served in Vietnam, and therefore the public perceived his portrayal of his experiences as not only credible but deserved. Sturken implies that the American public felt better about themselves after seeing his movie because of his cinematic storytelling skills, which were so convincing that the viewers felt they themselves were present in the war, and somehow vindicated from any guilt of being lucky enough to stay out of it. However, Stone’s 1991 JFK, along with his1995 Nixon, garnered unbelievable amounts of anger and resentment, first for their unpatriotic messages, and secondly for what was, by many, perceived as a total distortion of truthful American history.
The article discusses the relationship between memory vs. history, and how the camera can affect both sides of the equation. The camera is a mechanism of recording truth, and yet at the same time it is a way of expressing one’s own perception of truth before passing it on. In this way, one’s memory of history can become history itself. Sturken believes Stone has earned the privilege of narrating the truth of 20th Century America for its future generations in any way he wants, calling him the country’s “cultural messenger,” one which his people deserve, because of the incredible aestheticism of his films, his artistic audacity and determination to voice his own opinions. This article should be considered when thinking about Natural Born Killers for many reasons. Firstly, Natural Born Killers is a piece about violence, and it should be remembered that the director was himself engulfed in an environment of devastating war, where horrific images (real ones) were around him at all times. That vastly important part of the director’s identity should not be forgotten.
Secondly, Sturken points out that Stone considers himself both a “cinematic-historian” and “just a storyteller.” The fact that Stone can see himself in such different ways at the same time sheds light on how he can create a very direct commentary about violence in the media without having to state specific opinions, or provide worthy morals to his story, or suggest solutions to society’s problems, or cite direct scientific or sociological sources to backup whatever he’s saying. The article focuses on Stone’s ability to manipulate images in order to retell things his own way. About JFK, Oliver Stone said, “I defend what I’m doing as something between entertainment and fact.” Natural Born Killers is just that, a cinematic masterpiece between commentary and entertainment. But, also, the subject of the commentary is that as well: the viewer finds himself focused on American primetime news, the sensationalized accounts written for the blood-thirsty news-watcher that lie somewhere between entertainment and fact.
Timothy P. Rouse “Natural Born Killers” Teaching Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 4, (Oct., 1995), pp. 433-434 American Sociological Association Jstor 9 Apr. 2008
Timothy Rouse’s sociologically oriented review is a neat, swift map of all the great themes waiting to be found, analyzed and discussed in Natural Born Killers. He quickly places the film into the category of the postmodern, quoting Todd Gitlin’s definition of it as “a constellation of styles and tones,” but doesn’t dwell on the issue in order to carry on with his review. He doesn’t bog down his reader with lengthy personal musings or painstaking passages in search of the most perfect way to express himself, instead he explains the scope of the themes he witnessed by merely mentioning the their variety, such as Jimmy Olsen from Superman comics and the American media’s complete disregard for Native American societal conditions, and suggests what parts of the film should be compared to what examples from other areas of academics, for us to contemplate, and moves on: the economic aspect of the film, he says, should be compared to that of the Wizard of Oz, wherein the studio makes sure the driving theme of the genre is the driving theme of its profits: for the Wizard of Oz, fairytales; for Natural Born Killers, brutal action. Half of this short review is Rouse’s own narration of a few scenes from the movie, where he ties together the violent elements of Mickey’s character with the seductiveness of Mallory’s image, and then demonstrates with simplicity the backdrop of the drooling media goon and frenetic prison ward, all the while continually giving credit to Oliver Stone’s filmmaking techniques by picking out a detail of a shot, or a moment of composition, and openly relating what that single trait meant to him as an appreciative viewer.
Rouse is extremely open-minded in his appraisal, acknowledging the need for disclaimers from teachers before showing Natural Born Killers to classes but also immediately looking past the surface of what, for some, may appear to be mindless violence, unnecessary sex and tasteless gore that negatively affects the viewer. The review ends with a list of questions which provide topics of discussion for other classes and seminars almost by the line, all of which breakdown the elements of the film into clear issues with cues for the discussion’s beginning, such as the physical attractiveness of our cinema’s violent heroes, the American media’s blurry distinction between news and entertainment, the effect that uncertainty brings on crime levels and criminal mentalities, the media’s impact on culture and the role of gender in violent media.
Jones, Gerard. "Violent Media is Good for Kids." Mother Jones 29 June 2000 04 Apr 2008.
This article, unlike most, supports violent media for consumption by youth. The author recounts his youth when he was a quiet, lonely, and reclusive child who was broken out of his shell when he encountered comics about The Incredible Hulk. Reading about the Hulk gave him a fantasy self to support his self-confidence and allow him to do things he could otherwise not do. He later tested this concept on his son who was afraid to climb a tree with his friends by reading him Tarzan comics. For his son, the violent Tarzan comics created an imaginary alter ego to help him overcome personal hurdles. It is noted that all people want to experience fear, greed, power-hunger, and rage but cannot, so experiencing them vicariously through others, is a solution for them. Violent media is also useful to young people by helping them improve their self-knowledge and potential through heroic, combative storytelling. Pretending to have superpowers helps them to overcome a sense of powerlessness. Using this violence as tool is very important to overcome life’s challenges. The author does not deny that many video games may have inspired forms of violence in some kids, but argues that for every one that it hurt, it helped hundreds. The author finally warns that if parents are to shield their children from violent media then they will inevitably be shielding them also from power and selfhood.
This relates to the thesis by discussing how violent media affects the youth. He feels strongly that media such as The Warriors is a vital asset to youth as a method of emotional support. Most people need some sort of system to give them confidence in activities they would otherwise be uncomfortable partaking in. So in the case of The Warriors, the film would be very useful as a means of physical confidence and strength.
Croft, Martin, and Nathalie Kilby. "Mortal Kombat Viral Is Tool For Bullying, Claims Charity." Marketing Week 16 Nov 2006: 3.
This article explains how an anti-bullying charity group is complaining about a video game campaign for Mortal Kombat. In this campaign people are directed to a website where they can upload images of their friends to be superimposed on the fighting video game characters. These superimposed Mortal Kombat characters are then sent to that person in the form of a “Death Diss” whereby the character is brutally murdered. The charity Bullying Online worries that real life bullies will upload images of their enemies to this site and it will only cause issues between the two parties in question. It states that the site has already seen examples of people using this viral marketing tool as a malicious way to insult somebody. A complaint about this advertisement campaign was made to the Advertising Standards Authority, the leading groups in controlling advertising. It is unknown if this campaign will cause the dreaded actions Bullying Online is worrying about.
This article relates to the thesis because violent media is being used in a manner that could potentially cause a movement to action by the receiving end of this viral marketing campaign. There are great worries by Bullying Online that such an advertising campaign might enrage somebody so much that they might react very violently against the opposing person. Just as The Warriors caused a few kids to act violently due to the violent media being viewed, there is a concern that this viral marketing campaign could cause the same response.
Keegan, Paul. "Computer Games like Quake and Doom probably won't turn your son into a killer. But what is happening to kids raised on the most violent, interactive mass-media entertainment ever devised?." Mother Jones Nov 1999 04 Apr 2008 .
This article revolves around a visit to E3, an annual gaming tradeshow. Its focus is to discuss the different genres of video games, but in particular the violent ones. It then attempts to analyze why these violent games become so popular. Throughout, there is always a hesitant tone as the Columbine shootings had occurred only three weeks prior to this conference. There is discussion of the ESRB rating system and how it is hardly enforced by parents or rental stores. The article proceeds to look at Myst, an extremely popular game that involves no violence whatsoever. Its appeal was solely through beautifully rendered images and fog that the character walks through on its mysterious journey. It is however noted that something seemed to be missing from this experience. That is where real-time 3D comes into play. It is a new generation of cutting edge computer games that render the scenery on the fly, completely immersing the player in the gameplay. This type of play has an appeal due to the adrenaline rush and excitement it causes that more static, slow paced games like Myst cannot match. These types of games undoubtedly engage the player deeply into their digital surroundings. It suggests that playing violent video games for extended periods of time numbs the player to the violence and they create a level of tolerance for violence.
This article relates to the topic by examining super violent video games, real-time 3D games in particular and their effect on players. It is pretty evident that despite their incredible ability to immerse the player in the gameplay, the ones playing are able to keep the game and real life separate. The only times when this is untrue when other circumstances are involved, in the case of Columbine, mental instability in two kids who happened to enjoy these types of games were some other circumstances. Like viewers of The Warriors, most will not become overwhelmed by the violence and will respond absolutely normally. Those who act out in response to the film are doing so because they have issues and not solely because of the violence being seen.
Duncum, Paul. "Attractions to Violence and the Limits of Education." The Journal of Aesthetic Education 40.4(2006): 21-38.
This article attempts to examine violence in the media and educate youth on how to act in the real world so violence is not used as a solution to their problems. It cites the following forms of media as sources of violence: television, film, video, and computer games. There are also four different types of violence that can be seen in the media: comic, transgressive, retaliatory, and gratuitous. The author wonders why, from a psychological standpoint, people are attracted to violence. A couple of possible reasons are given such as: exploitation of the worst in human nature or a product of an increasingly degenerate society or maybe just a fashion statement or possibly just finding pure pleasure in the art of violence.
Comic violence is defined pretty clearly by example with any Tarantino film. His film clearly spoofs and parodies other super violent films. Additionally, professional wrestling fits into this category. Transgressive violence is any violence having to do with heroism through violence. It includes superheroes beating super-villains and enjoying the retribution being seen. This category surprisingly also includes a game such as Grand Theft Auto, where you embrace the villain and want to succeed as the villain. Retaliatory violence always has to do with retribution. When you feel bad for a character, you want them to get their revenge. Finally, gratuitous violence is when there is an overwhelming amount of violence that is unlimited in every sense of the word. It is all about grandeur and gore. Startin in the 1960s, media became more and more violent. Now, the line between good and evil gets blurred and the level of gore and shock has increased dramatically in media.
This article relates to the thesis by explaining the different types of violence seen in the media. It points out that gratuitous violence would be the most likely candidate to cause real world violence because the media appeals most to that type of person; however, it is unlikely to cause such actions because the people who would really go on rampages do not get the level of excitement from the film, because they would rather have the real life thrill. This article also explains how people are more aggressive prior to viewing the media than after, further supporting the idea that violent media does not cause violence.