The portrayal of violence in cinema has sparked discussions over whether it should be subject to government control. While some argue that depicting violence in movies and TV shows is acceptable, I strongly believe that the making of such content should be closely regulated.
Those in favor of violence in films claim that since films are fictional and the audience is aware of that fact, no harm can result. They contend that violent films are unlikely to influence individuals because the violence is often exaggerated and clearly understood as unrelated to real life. Furthermore, supporters of violence portrayal in various media forms argue that it enhances the audience’s viewing experience by adding excitement. Violence is commonly utilized as a narrative device to propel the storyline to its climax or to emphasize the heroic qualities of characters by depicting their strength and courage through violence against antagonists.
On the other hand, I maintain that the presentation of violence on television and in movies should be restricted due to its profound and intricate societal implications. There have been instances where violent or criminal behavior depicted in movies has been emulated in reality: the film ‘Taxi Driver’ inspiring an actual shooting in 1981 was a shocking event at the time, prompting public concerns about the potential influence of cinematic violence on moviegoers. Additionally, prolonged exposure to violence in various forms of media and entertainment may downplay the gravity and negative implications of violent actions. Movies often glamorize violence, portraying the killing of villains in action films, for instance, as thrilling and cool, with little ethical scrutiny. This can contribute to the normalization of violence in society, diminishing the impact and seriousness of violent behaviors and potentially desensitizing young individuals to the pain and suffering of others.
In conclusion, I advocate for regulations that would compel filmmakers to avoid glorifying or trivializing violence.