Where Fantasy Ends

Prompted by a juvenile crime bill passed by the Senate last month aimed at toning down film and television violence, industry executives met with Motion Picture Assn. of America President Jack Valenti. The movie studio representatives, in an effort to lessen youth violence, addressed the impact of media violence on children. While legislators in Washington are looking for ways to regulate the industry, accusing it of targeting children, Valenti contends that Hollywood is simply an easy target, the scapegoat for society’s problems. MAURA E. MONTELLANO spoke with film students from the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television.

ALDO EMILIANO VELASCO

28, West Los Angeles; director of “Crabgrass Manifesto”

It’s not just violence that I’m opposed to in films today. It’s the casual treatment of it that I take offense to. We live in a very violent society, so to ignore this aspect of our culture would be irresponsible. But violence in Hollywood has been taken to such an extreme, it’s become a kind of pornography. If the definition of pornography is something that’s exploitative, gratuitous and titillating, then most violence in current Hollywood films has become just that.

There are two kinds of violence I find disturbing and morally reprehensible in movies today. The first is the kind where the victims getting blown away are not treated like human beings, but instead are the faceless “enemy” or nameless individuals or stupid nobodies. In these kinds of movies, a lot of work is put into dehumanizing these victims so it’s not a big deal when they bite the dust.

The other kind is of the “righteous anger” variety. This is the idea that the main character is absolutely justified in his anger, that he needs to go on a killing spree to take revenge, and everything he does in vengence is considered morally acceptable. I can’t help but think that this has a negative impact on the audience, both on a personal level and on a broader, political level. Righteous anger is part of our culture; this idea of grabbing a gun and taking matters into your own hands is what the kids at Columbine did, but it’s also what President Clinton invokes whenever he sees fit to bomb Iraq or Serbia.

Media are not completely to blame for violence in our society. But it would be a mistake to claim that the media have no effect on people.

Some violence is great storytelling. But we need to take a stand against violence that encourages its audience to get swept up in a bloodthirsty fervor, to thoughtlessly cheer on gratuitous killing.

NATHAN J. ADOLFSON

27, Culver City; director of “Passing Through”

We all draw from our environment, especially young filmmakers. I grew up in a small town in Minnesota. I had a wholesome childhood and upbringing. Because we had a farm, I have seen some pretty graphic, gruesome things like cows being slaughtered or chickens being beheaded. But I always knew there was a reason and purpose behind it. We have guns in our home, but they are for hunting or collector’s items. We grew up with guns and we never equated hunting with violence. We were taught to use them responsibly.

Violence is justified in films if there is a reason for it. Just to have a blanket statement that there is too much violence in the media is an oversimplification. Each situation is unique in itself and should be looked at and judged individually.

Society is fascinated by violence. It’s just a historic fact. Old westerns, which have always been popular, were just as violent as the films today. A lot of people are trying to use the media as a scapegoat because they don’t have the answers. It is disturbing to people because suddenly the violence is going on in the suburbs, the heartland of America, so people are finally opening their eyes.

Teenagers are the industry’s meal ticket. You don’t need violence to get their attention but when you compare the first 15 minutes of a love story to the opening sequence of a big budget film, with shooting and killing and crime, the big budget film will win. The people who see these films over and over are the young audience.

The idea that teens are influenced by what they see on television and at the movies is overstated. There is a response and an effect but the industry is not responsible for the violence that results from it. The industry realizes how powerful its films and the images are. But it can’t control everything. And not everything is a negative influence. When the movie “Top Gun” came out, the sunglass company couldn’t keep Ray-Ban sunglasses in stock.