Violence has become a factor of economy in media. Filmed torturing and murdering offer the cinemas and TV stations profitable programme division, which can even boast with expensive Hollywood productions and festival prizes. The general public is startled at the mass availability of lurid scenes of violence. There are two opposing standpoints in this debate. The suppliers and advocates of such films argue that these films are only a reflection and exposure of already existing social developments and also that the reality of crime scenes and battlegrounds surpass any cinematic fiction. In contrast, concerned and critical people find that such films put its, predominantly adolescent, viewers under a spell of sensationalist depictions of cruelty and contribute to the overall brutalisation of society.
The principal right of freedom in media is the only thing the producers have to hold against the public appeal for actions of boycott and tightened laws of prohibition.
film chamber
Orson Welles, March 1, 1937
English: A crime scene. .However, there is more involved in this. It is not about personal liking or disliking of such films but about moral standards. If one was to destroy life and human dignity on screen, they owe us a justification for doing so. Most of the time this (justification) is integrated into the storyline and at other times there are other channels, such as the text of the film advertisement, interviews with the producer or directors etc., available. Yet it is still not a guarantee. For example, the film "Natural Born Killers" presents the controversial issue of born murderers, already in the title. In addition, the film seems to be trying to criticise the cruelty of American media and of American audience. In spite of this, the film appears to emaciate into a frenzy of destruction, which gives the viewer hardly a chance to contemplate the issue. The film...