<doc.id=1065.a3>
<title> Justifiable vs Entertainment Violence </title>
Violence on television and in movies is an issue that never ceases to be debated. Some claim that it leads to a more violent society, and that many viewers are unable to see the unrealistic aspects of most television violence. And yes, there are cases in which television violence is unnecessary and too spectacular. On the other hand, people have always been interested in violence. The people who are fond of watching violent action movies today would probably be found in the masses watching a public execution had they lived a couple of centuries ago. And sometimes, violence is very essential to a movie. Would, for example, the message of a film like Saving Private Ryan have shone through as clearly as it does, had it not been allowed to show pure violence without embellishing? I think the concept television violence needs to be analyzed a bit further, and that a distinction has to be made between violence that serves a purpose, and violence for entertainment. 
When I was in upper secondary school a girl in my class made an oral presentation about film history. She also showed us short parts of some films, one of which was a true story about the life of an Indian woman. The part she showed us contained a quite brutal rape. Our teacher went furious and demanded she turn off the TV right away. The teacher was of the opinion that it is never justified to show such violence on TV, whether it be based on a true story or not. The class, however, was unanimous it its arguments. This was the way it had happened in reality, and therefore the rape should be showed in all its horror. We argued that this was not a movie you watched for fun. It had a purpose, and that was to raise opinion against the look upon women of these rapists. The discussion went on for quite a while, but we never managed to get the teacher to see our point - that there are different kinds of television violence. I still think she was very wrong, and I think her disability to make a distinction between entertainment violence, and violence that serves a purpose resembles that of the V chip discussed above. 
To me, entertainment violence - found in for instance Terminator 2 - is hardly upsetting any longer. Almost every action or horror movie contains excessive violence, and this only makes me feel fed up with the film. There is too much blood, to many shootings, and in reality, none of the heroes would still be alive. It is often claimed that this excess of violence leads to blunting of the viewer. People do not realize that the kicks used in a movie might kill in real life, and this would then be the reason for the increasing amount of violence used in the streets. And yes, society is a lot more violent today than it was when my parents were young. And of course I cannot totally reject television violence as one of the reasons. All I can do is speak for myself, and then I am positive that violence on television has not influenced my notion of the amount of violence the human body can take. Being a martial art practiser myself, I know that just a few kicks and punches of semi-contact to the head is enough to make you see green little stars. And if an automatic gun is fired continuously for thirty seconds, there is a good scope that at least someone will be killed. Thus, I cannot say that television violence has made me blunted on reality. Rather, it has made me blunted on movies that show this kind of violence. Their excessiveness is unjustified and takes them too far from reality, which makes the viewer indifferent to what happens to the characters.
However, I do think there are cases when television violence is justified, and even desirable. As I mentioned above, violence may be needed in order to show what reality actually can look like, and to raise opposition to something. Consequently, I do not think that for instance Saving Private Ryan is an example of excessive violence. This movie is not just another orgy of gun fighting; it gives an account of the horror and meaningless destruction of an authentic war. However, I do not think that a film has to be based on a true story in order to contain justifiable violence. It may just as well be fiction all through. Neither is it always the amount of violence that distinguishes between justifiable and entertainment violence. I would say that it is the link between violence and reality that is the most important. In order for the violence of a certain movie to be justifiable, it should let the casualties respond to the amount of force used. If this were applied, less violence would inevitably have to be used. There would not be much point in a movie where most characters died during the first ten minutes, would there?
So, my conclusion is then that before criticizing the violence of a certain movie, you should ask yourself why the producer chose to put in the violence in the first place, what purpose it serves, and lastly what connection to reality the film has. The debate about violence in the media is a sound and necessary one, but let us restrict it to issues where it is relevant. To ban rape scenes in autobiographies would be to protect ourselves more than what is desirable.
</doc>