do you feel watching violent films fuels aggression or releases aggression?

Answer 1

I think some of it depends on the person watching. The big thing *I've* noticed is that if a person *knows* going in to the thing, at least roughly, what to expect, the effects of the violence *can* be less intense. For example, when you see a "kung fu flick", you have in your mind a pretty solid idea not just of the violence level you can expect, but of the kinds of things that you're likely to see. It isn't likely that you'd see, for example, a "Saw movie" caliber of dismemberment in a "kung-fu flick", it just doesn't work. It's too big a violation of expectations on the part of the film-maker, and the audience.

So...if you know what you're getting into, and are familiar with the *kind* and intensity of violence you are watching, that means you are more likely to be in a comfort zone and able to *release* pent-up aggression versus oh, making things worse, and fueling it.

The other thing though, is that for any of this to have meaning, the person doing the watching has to, *has to* be able to tell fantasy from reality here. This I think is one of the *big* problems with the whole entire Violence In Media debate, such as it is.

It is not just that our entertainments, our movies, video games, and literature are violent. It is that they *depict* a violence that is largely unrealistically sterile and clean and devoid of consequences. They show violence in a way that utterly neglects the *fact* that doing grave bodily harm to a human being has lasting *if not permanent* results, and that those results are ugly and disturbing even when the victim survives.

One small example from my own life. My father was, among other things, a licensed gunsmith for the better part of a decade. He was also more than a bit of a violent psycho too, but that matters a bit less here. The point is....he taught me and showed me more about ballistics and about the way guns and bullets behave in action than what most folks pick up casually in the media.

In particular, he showed me both in photographs and live in person what an entry wound and an exit wound look like. To elaborate: When a living thing is shot with a .45 caliber bullet, non-hollow point, just regular ammo, it leaves an entry wound slightly smaller than an adult *fist*. This is where the flesh is torn apart from the bullet entering the body.

The exit wound an unimpeded .45 caliber bullet leaves, *if* it doesn't hit bones, can range anywhere from 8 to 14 inches in diameter depending on the density of the tissue ruined. Muscle tends to tear less than say, internal organs of the digestive system.

Simply put: This is *not* what you see in a Rambo flick when a bad guy gets shot, is it? You see a red mark, maybe multiple red marks, and then the baddie drops. Which is totally false to the point of fraud and lying when it comes to the issue of entry and exit wounds. A certain video game series, _The House of the Dead_, features more realistic bullet damage, yes, even to zombies, than what you would see in your average Rambo-type of film.

And yes, it's possible to survive being shot, ok? Modern medicine is that good. Rapper Fifty Cent was shot nine times they say....but what they don't say is that he was in and out of the hospital, for surgery and rehab, for over a year, so people could *put him back together*.

That is the thing about violence in movies and other media, I think, that *fuels* aggression. It just *never* comes close to being realistic or to dealing with real consequences at all. A lot of violent movies and many video games simplify and streamline and censor and outright *trick* people into thinking that violence is something *clean* and *easy.* The line between fantasy and reality gets blurred when you play first-person shooters all day and get to see the bad guy you *just blew up* with a bazooka *re-spawn* and reappear in game play, *over and over again*.

After a while, your mentality gets rewired into thinking that "yeah, it'll be a Rambo flick" when the truth is, in a school shooting, most people die from *one* bullet, and that more end up tearing a body *apart* physically.

This is one reason why censorship will *never ever* replace real parental guidance. Just censoring things out that you don't like ends up creating a *deficit* of information that a curious mind will fill on its own. So do you fill it with facts or with lies? And how can you be sure when nobody *gives you* a straight answer?

But yeah...that's just my ten cents, sorry to go on so. Hope this helps.

Answer 2

If a person is prone to violent behaviour, it can be triggered by violent images. This is not always the case because a non-violent person can watch it and understand the violence in context, or even feel disturbed by it. Also violence appeals to males more than females, I guess it has something to do with vestigial 'warrior' elements in our collective unconscious. I don't think it releases aggression. Agression releases adrenalin, so there can't be much release for passive audience members...taking a jog, screaming or any other physical activity - active acts - actually "releases" agression.

Answer 3

I think it only fuels aggression. That's why people like to listen to that kind of music and watch those types of movies when they are in crappy mood. Not very uplifting right? Sometime a little fuel is a good thing though.



Be here soon.

Answer 4

yes i get pumped to play any sport really after watchin a movie like The Longest Yard

Answer 5

Not for me....those kinds of films make me feel stressful and anxious.

Answer 6

releases but i guess it depends on the person