The aptly named “violence debates” have long been centered on cathartic and mimetic effects of violence in film. Whether these debates prove one idea or another, there is no doubt that cathartic and mimetic effects are still hotly debated among filmgoers, critics, and behavioral psychologists. In discussion we talk about the mimetic and cathartic argument as “purge vs. power” and I find this very interesting. In all actuality and truth, that is exactly where the argument stands. One argument sees the effects of violence as a release and the other as a motivator for more violence. The cathartic effects argument is the agreeable choice due to its more realistic approach to how violent acts on film actually influence people in everyday life and proves itself through its “tonic” qualities.
Mimetic effects are defined in our notes as “[effects] leading to aggressive behavior through the desire to imitate the actions seen on screen. Identification with characters leads to imitation.” The idea of Mimesis comes from Plato and in our notes we learned of his idea that “life imitates art” and “arousal of emotions creates insensitivity in an audience”. The rare cases in which one sees a violent film and actually goes out into the world and imitates the acts are few and far between. In one of our online reading assignments, Matthew J. Iannucci gives a perfect example of the mimetic effects of film “Five years later, when it [TAXI DRIVER] was linked to would-be presidential assassin John Hinckley and his obsession with Jodie Foster, it became prima facie evidence for those on the political right who believed that violence in film translates into crime in real life.” (Iannucci, 1) While extreme cases such as Hinckley’s may seem to support mimesis, what about the millions of people who watch violent films and do nothing? Catharsis wins again.
Cathartic effects are defined, per our notes, as “[effects] provide a release of heightened emotions by identifying with characters in films. Relieving of emotional tensions such as anger when the protagonist destroys the villain.” The idea of catharsis originates with Aristotle and we discussed his thoughts on how “tragic drama is beneficial”. His idea of the cathartic effect is that it “purges the spectator through a combination of pity (eleos) and fear (phobos).” Aristotle’s view seems to make more sense. Almost every American today has been exposed to violence in film and almost every American has left the movie theater feeling nothing more than entertained. Plato’s idea that these films draw for the negative human emotions associated with violence are off the mark. Catharsis is the stronger of the two arguments by simple majority.
The real point to be made when talking of catharsis is its “tonic effect”, which can be defined, via our notes, as “an invigorating effect that is controlled in the world of art/entertainment. This leads to “vicarious pleasure”. Vicarious pleasure, meaning in this sense that we empathize with the characters on screen and are compelled to show emotion, helps us to realize that film is nothing more than a source of entertainment. When we live with or through the characters on screen we can see ourselves as the predator or prey, the victim or the suspect, and we ultimately see ourselves as either the protagonist or the antagonist. I believe that the “tonic effects” of violent film make people realize how horrible or ghastly a “true” violent act would be, therefore; the general audience wishes to leave that experience at the door. Catharsis is more applicable to the masses in that violent cinema deters everyday people from committing grisly acts.
The cathartic effects argument with its “tonic qualities” and more realistic approach to how violence in film influences people is the more agreeable choice. Violence will continue to be a strongly debated topic in any medium, including film, but with a closer look at mimesis and catharsis, one can start to grasp the broader concepts of human nature in contrast to the big screen. Catharsis, whether one agrees with it or not, is the more logical choice when describing violent film’s effects on humans. It has been my experience, as an avid movie-goer, that the acts seen in motion pictures are minutely reciprocated outside of the fantasy world that is film. Over time, it has seemed that the idea of mimesis has started to die out. More often the topic of television news is the economy or armed conflicts all over the globe; not how violent video games or film are corrupting youth. This lack of controversy alludes to the idea that cathartic effects are more accepted in the modern world.
In-Class Notes
Unit II-PowerPoint Presentation
Prince, Stephen. Screening Violence.
New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2000
Iannucci, Michael J. Postmodern Antihero: Capitalism and Heroism in Taxi Driver” 2005.
