Whether or not violent elements in movies should be adjusted by the authorities has become a topic of debate in society. This essay aims to reveal both views and state my support for the former assumption.
On the one hand, there are some arguments in favor of not imposing restrictions on aggression in films. Firstly, these factors might bridge the gap between realism and aesthetics, provoking viewers’ emotions and perceptions. Documentaries of inhuman war, for example, are forced to incorporate violence from historical events to chronicle the past dependably. As a result, a lack of ferocity in films can lead to ineffectiveness in delivering meaningful messages. Another subsequent justification is that violent factors even play a crucial role in educating individuals about assault. Specifically, the higher the levels of ferocious footage are the more consciousness people can foster from the detrimental consequences of these depictions on communities.
Despite those aforementioned arguments, from my personal perspective, attack scenes should be controlled. The first reason is that the adequate limitation of violence in films is able to protect youngsters from haunting experiences after watching this content. According to a study conducted by USC University in 2016, the anxiety rate of children below 18 increased to more than 20% after watching a violent movie for 1 hour. Secondly, the governmental censorship of aggressive genres also assures the safety threshold of community moral values. As a result, this approach might prevent people from psychological impacts, such as overreacting and mimicking antisocial intentions and behaviors in the movies.
In conclusion, although many people think that permitting producers to add aggression without worrying about its intensity has several merits, including a practical vision of situations and greater capabilities in disseminating lessons, I am still convinced that these elements must be restricted by authorities.