14

The influence of cinema

Sometimes, a film can be badly perceived by thize with it, the main character is not shown as the public or by certain spheres that can harm a hero. On the contrary, we see him committing its reputation. Like certain musical genres morally unacceptable acts. This prevents us from or groups, video games or certain literary works, fully identifying with him. Even if one manages some films are considered to have a bad influento identify with him (which may seem worrying), ce on individuals (especially youth). We will try to the film shows us that even if he is the origin, Arunderstand what these films are criticized for and thur Fleck is completely overwhelmed by events. whether they really have a bad influence on people. He doesn't really do all this with the aim of overThe last and most striking example fully illustrating zed for his true worth. These elements show that this concept is Todd Phillips' movie "Joker". This "Joker" is not a simple call to burn all the rich. psychological thriller recounts the genesis of the greatest enemy of the superhero Batman. It follows the character of Arthur Fleck, a man suffering from a psychiatric disorder and relegated to the bench of society. Faced with the difficulties he will encounter, Arthur will gradually sink into madness and commit the irreparable. The film was much talked about when it was released, especially for its violence. But above all, the film was accused of inciting hatred towards the rich. Indeed, in a scene where Arthur takes the subway late at night, he witnesses the assault of a woman by 3 traders. Wanting to defend her, he finds himself targeted in turn by the 3 In spite of everything, a large number of people men and decides to take out his revolver to shoot and associations wanted to ban the film. In parthem. Following this act, he becomes a hero for the ticular associations of victims of mass shootings working classes of the city. A cult of personality who feared a phenomenon of imitation. This has ensues and ends with a mass uprising proclaiming already happened with another film set in the same loud and clear "Death to the rich!". universe, "The Dark Knight Rises". During a preAt first glance, when we look at the film for the first ned fire on the crowd present, leaving 12 dead and time, we can indeed easily detect a message of ha58 wounded. tred towards all the rich. But the film is much more subtle than that. First of all, even if one can empathrowing the ruling class, but rather to be recogniview screening of the latter in Aurora, a man ope(...) Cinema, just like video “ games, comic books or rap music, does not make people violent(...) ”

If we go back in time, we realize that this is not the first attack of this kind. One example among others, on March 30, 1981. US President Ronald Reagan was shot after a speech at the Hilton Hotel in Washington. The author of this assassination attempt would confess a few days later that he was inspired by the film "Taxi Driver" to commit his act. Looking at all this, we could say that wanting to ban films such as "Joker" is legitimate. Except that in my opinion this is not the case.

If these events take place, it is not the fault of the films themselves. Even if it was, there would be no point in banning them. Cinema, just like video games, comic books or rap music, does not make people violent. Individuals who act out after watching

(...) Individuals who act out af- “ ter watching a movie or playing a video game are already violent by nature.(...)

”a movie or playing a video game are already violent by nature. Even if they admit to having been inspired by this or that work, it is only a pretext. If the person acts, it is because he or she is influenced by the environment that surrounds him or her and the one in which he or she grew up. Even if the work in question was a trigger for that person at the time, it means nothing. It could have been any other work of fiction or any other real event. In fact, it is usually a real traumatic event that is at the origin of the individual's exaction.

That's why, in my opinion, there's no point in banning a work because it could be the cause of an

attack or other tragic event. Even if a person was really inspired by this film or this video game, that dangerous individual would have been inspired by something else anyway.

In such cases, it is not the film that is dangerous, but the person watching it.

Cinema is no worse influence than any other art or entertainment. The only influence it can have is on unbalanced individuals by nature. This is unfortunate because during these events the film is criticized for what it was trying to denounce in the beginning. Take for example "Orange Mécanique" by Stanley Kubrick. The film depicts the daily life of hyper-violent teenagers in the midst of an English society that no longer understands them. The government will then take measures of barbaric behavioral therapies to try to rehabilitate this youth.This film questions us about the morality of society and tries to prevent this violence. However, during its theatrical release, gratuitous acts of violence perpetrated by juvenile delinquents broke out all over England. Even if the censorship committees did not have enough evidence implicating the influence of the film on these events, the damage was done.Following this, Kubrick received numerous death threats which pushed him to remove the film from the theaters. This self-censorship would last 27 years, until the death of the director. In a way, "Orange Mécanique" was a victim of the phenomenon he wanted to denounce.

In conclusion, a film can indeed be a bad influence on a person who has something bad in him or her in the first place. This does not mean, however, that the film should be banned, because the person would use another pretext to do so. It's up to everyone to make the effort to learn about what they are going to see and to know the difference between fiction and reality. Author: Baptiste