Over the years, various lawsuits have been filed against movie makers for the alleged influence that their films had on kids who acted out stunts or acts of violence. They have been entirely rejected, but there may be one more on the way. Eric Tavulares, 18, strangled his 18 year-old childhood girlfriend, Lauren Aljubouri.
According to police reports, Tavulares had watched the film 10 to 20 times previously. They had watched only half of the film when they went to bed: “He stated he does not recall exactly what happened next, but something caused him to switch mentally and he rolled over on Lauren Aljubouri and he began strangling her.”
Natural Born Killers, a 1994 film directed by Oliver Stone and depicting a bizarre crime spree, has been the focus of prior lawsuits in Louisiana and Oklahoma and other states.
For the full story, click here.
Incredible, and some still say we’re far removed from “monkey see, monkey do.
I hope they sue the producers, the actors, & everybody connected with this movie for $100 million.
Maybe then Obamawood, oops, I mean Hollywood, will wake up.
dundar:
I told you before that really is an interesting idea. I don’t know if anyone would “wake up” but it would probably reduce the level of gratuitous violence much like product liability litigation has reduced safety risks to the public. I am sure you remember the Corvair and Dalkon Shield. Why not a “Natural Born Killers” case? You really are becoming quite progressive. See the blog has had a good influence on you.
I am shocked that Dundar actually suggested a lawsuit! I am not a big fan of the idea that TV or a movie can “cause” some one to kill another human being. That being said, this teenager had to already be showing signs of his stupidity or his inclination to kill another human being. I wonder if there is any evidence of him doing harm to animals prior to this murder.
Suing the movie makers is not viable, because no ones going to step on free speech that way.
We need a better approach, and I’m not sure what it will entail, but we need to find one.
Because the fact is, movies are becoming more grisly, violent and downright sinister in their offerings, and if we do not find a way to, as a nation, raise the level of humanity in our story telling, we’re going to find our young people, more and more, turning to violent solutions to their problems, or even just idiotic acts of wanton murder, to mimic what they saw on the screen.
The facts are, that already know that we are influenced by what we see on tv and the movies, even if we are unwilling to admit it to ourselves.
There is no shortage of studies done, proving the relationship to violent reaction following viewing violence on television or the silver screen. We KNOW this. We’ve known it for decades. Theres more than ample data to demonstrate it. Violence breeds violence, and watching images of violence, played out in graphic detail, over and over, literally “burns” the lessons of that violence, into our brains.
Its not some “mystical” relationship to some elusive higher thought processes, as some like to pretend so as to more easily dismiss the relationship.
It’s much more simple than that. Simple bio-chemical reactions in the brain. Its how we learn.
By the time the average grade schooler has reached Junior High school, he has witnesed more than 8000 murders, played out before his eyes on television.
EIGHT THOUSAND MURDERS.
And that doesn’t include the random acts of violence portrayed that do not culiminate with the death of the victim.
So to see, this level of violence, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and ov….
…and to not conclude that it will have no impact on the behavior of the viewer, is to just kid ourselves.
Bartlebee,
I’m not sure our entertainment is getting more violent. We’re not going to see gladiator fights, where real people died. Public executions are also off the table in most of the world. Let us not forget about how gory most of the original versions of Fairy tales were. Have you ever sat through Rigoletto? I think the problem may be that kid’s are getting a larger quantity of exposer to the entertainment.
A bit off topic, I always liked Zappa’s take on the music’s influence on people:
There are more love songs than anything else. If songs could make you do something we’d all love one another.
Gyges
1, July 23, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I’m not sure our entertainment is getting more violent. We’re not going to see gladiator fights, where real people died
Well since I’m talking about television and the movies, and I’m fairly confident that Rome didn’t have television yet… then its kind of a moot point.
Less of course you factor in that Star Trek episode where they were on that planet where they had the gladiators.
Course I do see your point. That is, that ancient man was more brutal than us.
Thats kind of a given.
MY point however, is that modern man, is rapidly returning to his ancient roots.
And yes, we do have gladiator fights on television.
Its called “EXTREME FIGHTING”, and “ULTIMATE FIGHTING”, where people do get seriously injured, not to mention boxing, kickboxing, XFL football, etc, and death can occur, and this stuffs on MY television, every night.
You must not get cable.
In fact, now we have “WAR TV”.
From the comfort of your armchair, watch as our holy christian crusaders root out and slaughter the dark skinned infidels in the sands of the middle east.
Action figures sold seperately.
Bartlebee,
My point wasn’t ancient humans were more or less violent (they might have been, but their entertainment wasn’t). My point was that humans being humans we’ll tend to be entertained by the same things. However I think that the level of exposer has increased to almost a constant roar.
I watch a lot of movies. I would say the “History of Violence” has just about the same number of deaths in it as “Nosferatu” There is a discrepancy in how vividly the violence is shown, but I think that’s more of an issue as to style than anything else. But how often did children watch movies in 1929 Verses 2006? You could go across the board and most forms of entertainment you can think of the same idea would hold true. It’s not the quality, it’s the quantity.
I think that you’re suffering from a variation of The Good Old Days Syndrome. You don’t remember entertainment as being this violent before because we tend to filter out all the background noise from our memory. Unless you’re different then most people I know, you don’t really remember or know about a large percentage of the entertainment of what ever period you think it was less violent in.
Gyges
1, July 23, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Bartlebee,
My point wasn’t ancient humans were more or less violent (they might have been, but their entertainment wasn’t
——
It would have been clearer if you hadn’t already said this;
——
Gyges
1, July 23, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I’m not sure our entertainment is getting more violent. We’re not going to see gladiator fights, where real people died
Also if your assertation weren’t based apparently on “quantity”, rather than acknowledging the actual “quality”.
The absurd notion that I “remember” television differently, given that I don’t NEED to “REMEMBER IT”, as I can “WATCH IT” anytime I want, is just that. Absurd.
Movies used to be and look far less graphic and realistic than they do now, particualrly with regards to violence. Gunsmoke was probably the most violent show we had growing up, and even in gunsmoke, you don’t see any blood.
Just a bang.
A puff a smoke.
And a guy grabs his chest.
So if you want to indicate that people see MORE of it, like you said, then thats fine.
But don’t forget to include the QUALITY along with the QUANTITY.
Because what I see today on “CSI Crime” and “Law and Order” and about a billion shows like that, ain’t even CLOSE to what television was like in 1969 USA.
And if you think it was, then clearly you were not around in 1969.
Or were in diapers.
Its called syndication.
Trust me, when Efram Zimbalist Junior pulled his gun and fired, it was like watching a cheesy police training video.
It was NOTHING like watching Arnold chop the arm off of a terrorist before shoving him into a wood chipper.
And we NEVER would have seen sh$t like that in 1966 or 68, America.
So I’m sorry, but your premise is untenable.
Television has become MUCH MORE violent than it EVER was when I was a young man, and if you were old enough, you’d know that too.
You know what movie was considered “RATED X” in 1966 USA?
You’ll never guess.
“The Blue Max”.
See, told you you’d never guess.
Thats right, the Blue Max, with George Peppard and Ursala Andress was considered due to a very little bit of sex by todays standards, and some violence that showed bright red halloween looking fake blood, to be too “hard core” for an “R” rating.
So they gave it an “X”.
I had to wait for several years to see that one.
Those of us who were old enough to remember, who were there, know what television was like.
Kids today think they know, but they don’t.
Movies, television. It was all tame. Very, very tame.
Now, its anything goes.
The bloodier, the more grusomely realistic, the better.
Bartlebee
How does me saying that entertainment isn’t more violent equate to me saying entertainment is less violent? My hound doesn’t have more feet then my neighbor’s cat. Does it follow that he has less feet? It turns out that words have exact meanings and the meaning of “not more” isn’t less.
The gladiator example was because it was the form of entertainment from that general era I thought most people would be familiar with. If you want different examples: how about Oedipus Rex, Antigone, or The Golden Ass…
You might win an argument about T.V. getting more violent. But my position is about entertainment in general. That’s why I used word entertainment (there’s that stupid exact meaning thing again) and gave examples of things that weren’t T.V. Entertainment includes sports, games, music, books, movies, plays, dances, social gatherings, etc. That’s a lot of stuff that’s not T.V.
Do you remember all the plays, games, sports from 1955-1968? Do you have memory of every single time you got together with your buddies? What was going on in the jazz community? What pieces were written by classical composers? Country music? Folk? Blues? Did you go and see So would you say that you “don’t really remember or know about a large percentage of the entertainment?”
Interestingly, I believe it was in the 50’s that Congress held hearings on Comic Books, claiming they would make children violent in the same way we speak of video games today. I am going to have to hunt for this info but it might have been on “On the Media”. What struck me is the fears were phrased almost exactly the same that time as now.
This society has violence as one of its bedrocks. If you want to be subversive in this culture, being more violent isn’t it. Delight, wonder and playfulness are very subversive. Guess which things a lot of religions/secular entertainment don’t encourage!
That should be “Did you go and see any of the plays of Le Théâtre de l’Absurde?”
Jill,
I knew I should have waited for you to say something.
Gyges:
I likewise find Bartlebee “logically challenged.” See my discussion with him last night about “citizen” versus “civilian” oversight of the police. With every post of his (and there are many disjointed ones to choose from), I get a sense that Humpty Dumpty had it right for this guy:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. “It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less.”
Mespo,
You’ll notice I didn’t bring up his knowledge of the Beat Poets I assumed from his stream of consciousness style of writing that he’s studied them in depth.
(Curse us young kids not knowing about the 50s and 60s).
Not true Gyges. I was thinking about what you wrote on science. A truly scientific mind is full of curiosity, wonder and playfulness as well as the other qualities you mentioned yesterday.
Jill
Gyges
1, July 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm
You might win an argument about T.V. getting more violent. But my position is about entertainment in general. That’s why I used word entertainment (there’s that stupid exact meaning thing again)
Yea, that uhh… stupid “exact meaning thing”… huh?
And since it was you responding to “my” comments on an increase in violence on television and the movies, your trying to change the meaning to “entertainment” did not comply with that “stupid exact thing”.
My comments have been, and always were clearly articulated as being about TELEVISION, and the MOVIES.
So trying to change my argument, to your argument might make you feel better, but doesn’t change anything I said, or diminish it.
mespo727272
1, July 24, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Gyges:
I likewise find Bartlebee “logically challenged.” See my discussion with him last night about “citizen” versus “civilian” oversight of the police.
Yes, do.
See how Mespo, who is apparently some sort of attorney, feels that “Civilian Oversight” would be performed by the “STATE and LOCAL GOVERNMENT”.
Instead of oh…..say…..”civilian” groups like NACOLE.
boggles the mind.
But I’m sure you’re a ..er…uhm…. “dedicated” attorney messpo.
Best reading impaired ambulance chaser in all the land.
Bartablee,
I wasn’t trying to change your argument.I wasn’t even trying to diminish it, I even conceded that you’d probably win the argument you’re trying to have. I was trying to change the subject. I don’t really care if T.V. is more violent or not. I was trying to start a discussion about the over stimulation of American Society that goes on.
Read my first and second posts on the subject. You’ll find the first (relatively short) one to be a comment about how I think the problem isn’t an increase in violence, that it’s an increase in time spent being entertained by violence. My second post begins with a similar idea and the main body gives an specific example to try and back up the statement. The aside in the second post was just an observation that I had made about people (including myself), and applied to you.
If you say, “I think that French fries are getting saltier” and I respond “I don’t think that food is getting saltier, I think we’re just eating more salty foods.” I’m not arguing that French fries aren’t having more salt put on them, I’m trying to expanding the discussion. I may not want to talk about just French fries because I don’t eat very many and it’s a limited subject, but I may think that a much more interesting topic would be our changing eating patterns.
All that being said, since you don’t really want to talk about anything other then T.V…. and I don’t really care about the subject, let’s both just stop talking.
Gyges,
I’m interested in a broader discussion also, so if you want to have that, I’m open. I will understand if you do not.
Jill
Gyges
1, July 25, 2008 at 10:19 am
Bartablee,
I was trying to change the subject.
Really?
Well then next time, why not “say” you’re trying to change the subject, instead of merging “your subject”, with “my subject”?
Additionally, since “the subject” of “THIS” thread, is about a killer mimicing something he saw in a movie, why pray tell, would you be “trying to change the subject”?
I know why.
Gyges
1, July 25, 2008 at 10:19 am
All that being said, since you don’t really want to talk about anything other then T.V…. and I don’t really care about the subject, let’s both just stop talking
I got a better idea.
If you “don’t really care about the subject”, then how about not coming into threads ABOUT the subject, and telling other people to shut up about the subject?
How bout we give that a try, slick?
Meanwhile, I’ll feel free to post ON THE TOPIC of the thread, and you can feel free to not START talking to me, LIKE YOU DID, if you don’t like what I’m talking about.
Particularly if you’re going to weasel my words into your words, creating a straw argument, and then lie about doing that.
And since I am sure you’ll want to come back, ignore the actual facts, and start bloviating on what a terrible person I am, and how utterly immature I am for pointing out your obvious creation of a straw argument, allow me to indulge you.
—-
BARTLEBEE’S BLOG-PUPPET THEATRE PRESENTS…
ANATOMY OF A STRAWMAN
What does a straw argument look like?
Observe.
Bartlebee posts “on topic”, about the dangers of repetitive violence in movies and television.
Which the thread article, is about.
Then, Gyges, comes in, and “responds directly” to Bartlebee, thus.
—
Gyges
1, July 23, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Bartlebee,
I’m not sure our entertainment is getting more violent.
—
Bartlebee, proceeds to respond to Gyges response to him, assuming no devious misdirection is being employed, but merely Gyges substituting the word “Entertainment” as a general descriptor of the topic he is “responding” to Bartlebee on, that is, television and movies.
After all, no one would have a problem describing television or the movies as “entertainment”.
Then, Gyges, seeing a strong argument that he is having difficulties refuting, thus now “authorizes” his strawman, to do battle.
—
Gyges
1, July 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm
You might win an argument about T.V. getting more violent. But my position is about entertainment in general.
—
Thus we see Gyges has now “ratified” his straw argument, declaring that his comments were NOT contesting Bartlebee’s comments about Television and Movies influencing crime, (which the thread is about), but instead, was making a completely different argument.
Kind of a “thats what you were talking about, and the thread was talking about, but not what I was talking about”.
Unfortunately however, as we can see from the above comments, Gyges FIRST comment, to Bartlebee, was not introduced as “I’m not going to discuss Television or Movies like the thread is about, but instead I am going to expand entertainment to whatever I want it to mean in the context of your statements“.
It was visibly the creation of a “strawman” position.
He “responds” to my comments, or at least “acts” like he’s responding.
But really, he’s laid the seed for a straw argument, by pretending the words he’s using, and HIS implied meaning, were also Bartlebees.
Here;
The Anatomy drilled down;
A. First blogger comments on topic
B. Second blogger responds to first bloggers comments, but changing one word subtly and acting as if he’s responding to precisely what the first blogger was commenting on. Which of course he plans on declaring he wasn’t, should his position begin to founder.
C. First blogger responds, assuming no deception is being employed, and continues to debate his original position.
D. Second blogger suddenly declares “I’m talking about something else!”, and proceeds to mock the first blogger, as dull witted for not realizing he was talking about something else, even though his response is worded to appear as if he’s responding directly (which he was) to the topic raised by the first blogger (and also happens to be the topic of the thread).
—
And there you have it. The Anatomy of a Strawman argument.
If Gyges, did not intend on launching a straw argument, but instead as he stated, meant to start a “whole new topic”, then he would not have “RESPONDED” to Bartlebee’s comments by declaring;
—
Bartlebee,
I’m not sure our entertainment is getting more violent.
—
…pretending now that Bartlebee was speaking about some sort of broad spectrum of general entertainment. Which he was not.
Thus we see, the anatomy of a strawman.
Straw man
—
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.
To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent
—
Wikipedia
Examples of Straw man Arguments (From Wikipedia)
Hypothetical Marijuana debate.
—
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on marijuana.
Person B: No. Any society with unrestricted access to drugs loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
—
The proposal was to relax laws on marijuana.
Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend: “unrestricted access to drugs”
WIKIPEDIA
BARTLEBEE
1, July 23, 2008 at 2:13 pm
The facts are, that already know that we are influenced by what we see on tv and the movies,
Gyges
1, July 23, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Bartlebee,
I’m not sure our entertainment is getting more violent.
EXAMPLE NUMBER 2, FROM WIKIPEDIA
A beach debate.
—
Person A: Nude bathing is healthy and nude beaches should be permitted here.
Person B: No. That kind of free sex threatens the morality of society.
—
Person B has misrepresented person A’s position as a call for sexual promiscuity.
WIKIPEDIA
BARTLEBEE SAID;
The facts are, that already know that we are influenced by what we see on tv and the movies
GYGES THEN REPLIES;
Bartlebee,
I’m not sure our entertainment is getting more violent
Thus we see, Gyges, misrepresented Bartlebees position on TV and MOVIES to the harder to defend general umbrella of “ENTERTAINMENT”.
And that my friends, is a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, in its purest form, as we see from Wikipedia.
The defense rests.
New Example of Straw Man argument for Wikipedia;
—
Violence on Television Debate;
Person A:we are influenced by what we see on tv and the movies.
Person B:I’m not sure our entertainment is getting more violent
Bart,
I know I said I’d shut up, but the flesh is weak.
I hope you’ll allow me a quick aside. The topic of this post was a movie, just a movie. You keep talking about T.V. I was going to ignore this, but you kept go on and on (and on and on and on) about how I can’t possibly be right because I’m trying to include some new subject matter in the discussion.
Now to the main point. You are right, if I was trying to argue with you about T.V. I’d have set up a straw man argument. The problem is I’m not arguing with you about T.V. For whatever reason you refuse to acknowledge that I’ve made a point of saying repeatedly (this will be the third time) that you probably would have won the T.V. argument. Well I started off by saying “might.” I’ve never had someone so intent on proving me wrong for agreeing with them.
Jill,
I think rather then blaming just the violence, or sex, or whatever it is you’re against in modern entertainment we should also look at the consumption level. Popular music\folk music (the musicological folk music, not Woody) has always been about sex, drugs, rock and roll, and violence. The proportions change a little depending on the culture surrounding it, but they’re all there.
Let’s say I’m a teenager, and my brain chemistry is a little off, my parents ignore me, and I’ve got a pretty good collection of about 20 CDS. Of those 5 or 6 are probably lame gifts from relatives, so we’ve got 15 CDs. Since I like really dark stuff with violent images that’s potentially 15 hours of different people telling me it’s o.k. to be violent. And the free time and to listen to them all. That’s a big change from having to work the fields all day and catching a song at the tavern about a highwayman once or twice a week. There’s some problems with the scenario, but you get the point. I’m choosing music as an example, because it’s been around for the longest, but you can apply the same idea to T.V. by substituting folk tales in its place.
Do I think that’s the only issue? Not by a long shot. It might be a movie that acts as a catalyst for someone to go out and kill their girlfriend, but there’s a lot of things that could be a catalyst.
Gyges,
I agree with you on count A and count B. I got a kick out of your teenage music acquisition!
Jill