Violence is a constant reoccurring theme on our tv screens, whether it be two grown men having a bar fight in an action movie or a heavy crate falling on top of an animated character in a family film. We are surrounded by these sort of images within our every day lives, but does that necessarily mean that we are influenced by them? Violence within movies is a huge theme with there even being an entire genre dedicated to it (i.e. Action). Therefore, does this mean that the producers and creators of these violent films are directly responsible for the violence we see and are exposed to in real life? The hypodermic needle model suggests that indeed we are hugely influenced collectively as an audience by what we see and receive through the media subconsciously. It is thought that information from the media is directly injected into the brains of the passive audience and can alter a person's behavior or response to things in their everyday lives. The theory suggests that we as an audience all receive the media in exactly the same way.
Positive and Negative Effects
The hypodermic needle theory suggests that as an audience we can be made to accept things through medium such as film that we may otherwise not have chosen to accept. For example, by viewing a film such as 'Natural Born Killers' which holds a lot of violence and seems to show it in an acceptable and almost glamorous light, with the main characters of the film being shown to get away with their crimes, we as the audience will digest and in some ways be made to accept this violence as normal. It is from here that the violence within a person could stem from. The idea that the hypodermic needle theory could influence the audience in a positive way is an idea which is often overshadowed by the seemingly more obvious negative effects. For example, the theory suggests that if by the end of 'Natural Born Killers' the criminals had been reprimanded and punished for their crimes then viewers would have seen this and been influenced not to behave in such a manner as it was clearly wrong and would lead to similar punishment. However, the fact that the criminals inevitably get away with their unlawful behaviour sends the message out to the audience that their crimes were acceptable, and it is this idea that would be wrongly received and consumed instead.
Copycat Crimes
There have been several cases which seem to support the idea of the hypodermic needle theory where criminals have blamed or referred to movies as their motives to commit crimes. For example, the killing spree in Colorado described as 'The Joker Massacre' saw the death of 12 people in a cinema theatre during the screening of the third instalment in the Batman franchise. The convicted murderer, James Holmes, was said to have burst into the screening room masquerading as Batman's nemesis the Joker before open firing. Until the incident, Holmes' criminal record consisted of nothing worse than a speeding ticket. This, coupled with his choice of attire at the scene, makes you wonder whether the level of violence in the batman movies could've influenced the gunman's behaviour. The James Bulger case could be used as another possible example of how the media can influence the behaviour of people. The young murderers of the boy splashed blue paint on his body, in imitation of the film Child's Play 3. It does seem that to some extent, films could have had a large part to play in the actions of these criminals. On the other hand, it could be argued that the media was not directly to blame and could perhaps have just had a negative affect on the already mentally unstable.
On Screen violence different to Real Life violence
The idea of violence seen in movies being to blame for the violence shown in real life has been slated by many, one example being film director Quentin Tarantino. Tarantino has faced a lot of criticism in the past for the extreme level of violence in a lot of his movies but he stands firm with his opinion that there is no link between on screen violence and the violence seen in the real world. He claims that he has no problem with violence in movies but does not condone it in real life, stating that in movies "violence is cool". It is interesting that the director makes such a clear distinction between movie violence and real life violence as surely one could argue that violence is violence no matter where or how it is portrayed? However, Tarantino really seems to believe that the idea behind the hypodermic needle model is not true and that his movies are not responsible for any violence that people choose to display after viewing them.
The diagram shows the number of deaths shown in 8 of Tarantino's movies and the different ways in which the deaths come about. The extreme level of violence is unmistakeable.
The work of the BBFC
The BBFC have been running for a long time now and dedicate their time to classifying films and determining what material is or isn't suitable for viewing in the UK. However, the BBFC over the years have struggled with deciding on exactly what kind of content is unsuitable for audience consumption. Films such as 'Island of Lost Souls' which in the past has gone from being banned, to X-rated to now being rated as PG, have gone under scrutiny; it is wondered why such a huge change in certification has been made. There are scenes to do with vivisection, animal experimentation and animal hybrids which when first submitted in 1933 seemed to have been unheard of. But it seems that over the years we as an audience have become more accepting of the things which we consider to be appropriate for ourselves and our children to view. Whilst the BBFC do not base their classifications on the hypodermic needle theory and the idea that what they allow to be viewed can influence audience behaviour, they do consider the response the audience may have to certain material. For example, movies which hold scenes of child abuse and sadomasochistic sex scenes, the BBFC are still very vigilant and aware of when it comes to certifying based on public consultation and academic research.
Flaws of the Theory
One of the greatest flaws in the hypodermic needle theory is the assumption that all consumers will interpret information in the same way. Not all members of the audience are wired to think and react in the same way and therefore it is not realistic to assume that they will be influenced by the media in the same way. For example, someone working in the medical profession would react differently when watching 'Casualty' as someone who does not. A doctor's real life experience would kick in and they would no longer be such passive members of the audience as those members who have not experienced such things in real life. In the same way as a naturally violent person would not interpret scenes of blood and violence in the same way as the average person would. Not everybody who has watched 'Natural Born Killers' would then come away with the idea to embark on a similar killing spree. If people really were totally passive to the things they viewed on their TV screens then anyone who had seen the movie would become irrevocably violent, which is obviously not the case.
References:
