Is it Fair to Blame the Audio-Visual Mass Media For a Lowering

Ever since modern audio-visual media has become widely available to the general public, there has been a gradual increase in screen sex and violence, which has coincided with a progressive decline in behaviour and attitude towards sex and violence in society today. As new, daring directors perfect their latest scary horror movie, setting new levels in screen violence, content restrictions are sometimes bent and bypassed, setting new standards in content for the film industry.With the ever-changing society, it is difficult to determine what levels are acceptable and which films go beyond the boundaries of decency and morality and should be banned from our television screens. Every so often the debate over the effects of media sex and violence flares up in the popular press, as it did when Michael Ryan went on a killing spree in Hungerford, his mind supposedly warped by idolising the action hero Rambo.

Similar consequences are supposedly linked with rape and the viewing of films of a sexual nature.On such occasions the press will call for tighter restrictions on video rentals and greater control on film content. Even so, with the tighter restrictions that the authorities try to impose, there are still those who will rape and murder other members of the public for no clear reason. Is it fair to use the sex and violence in the media as a scapegoat? The following films and TV series have been chosen to analyse their portrayal of sex and violence and the possible consequences of their content: The A-Team, Ulzana's Raid, James Bond, When Harry met Sally and Baywatch.The first programme we analysed was the A-Team, an over-exaggerated action series produced in the eighties with a wide audience of viewers as young as ten. The series was shown on a weekly basis, following an ex-military group whose mission was to protect those who were helpless against the threat imposed by the typical "bad guys".

The A-Team portrayed a very glamorised image of guns and fighting. The various weapons and machinery used during the frequent fight scenes were often filmed at close range and were one of the key features of interest for viewers.The fight scenes were always over-exaggerated with loud sound effects and victorious and upbeat music, sometimes downright humorous with the sheer strength of the blows and length of fighting. Slow motion was occasionally used for maximum impact to emphasise the blows. Numerous rounds of bullets were fired in every episode, rarely with any effect or consequence, but nevertheless exciting and playing an integral part in the drama. All kinds of methods of transport were used to apprehend the villains and, using their resourcefulness and skills learned in the army, the A-Team were able to enhance the vehicles.

For instance, during the episode which we watched, an old helicopter was stolen and the A-Team were able to add guns and rockets to it in preparation for a mid-air battle. During the helicopter fight the villains' helicopter was shot down, hitting the cliff and blowing up, and yet they were miraculously still able to evacuate the burning wreckage with barely a singed eyebrow! This was a conscious decision by the producers of the series as a way of showing a high level of on-screen violence but without the stark reality of injury, suffering and death.However, this is not necessarily a good or moral thing to portray. It shows a false reality where guns are fun and people don't get hurt. The emphasis is on glamour, excitement and victory.

This makes it acceptable for those watching, as they do not want to see people dying and would not be suitable for the younger audiences. This could in essence make the younger generations who watch these types of programmes believe that guns are acceptable and harmless. Another aspect of the A-Team which could have had an effect on its regular viewers was its attitude towards the role of the women portrayed in the series.Most of them were given a "Barbie Doll" image - glamorous but helpless and not particularly intelligent. They did not have strong characters but were there to add glamour and the occasional love interest. Such portrayal could well have given the impression of weakness and inferiority in women and overall dominance by men.

In summary, The A-Team was an action series produced in good faith merely to entertain. However, with hindsight it was morally wrong because the viewers were given an unrealistic view of men and women and did not witness the true consequences of the over dramatic action in this highly popular series.The second extract we watched was from a well-known western genre film, Ulzana's Raid - a very realistic and sometimes gruesome film which, in stark contrast to the A-Team extract, shows the true effects and consequences of battling with lethal weapons. While the Apache rampage, destroying property and taking lives, the 'brave' American soldiers are in pursuit, picking up the pieces. In the particular extract that was shown, although there was no real fixation on the guns, the effects of the weapons were shown - they shot to kill.At one point a dog was killed and the audience was left with the image of a number of arrows protruding from the dead body.

There are explicit scenes of violence as the Indians torture a man and burn him at the stake showing a glimpse of his charred body, a depiction of how ruthless and bloodthirsty the Apache were, and this scene filled the American troops with fear and anger. On the surface this would appear to stereotype the "vicious, blood thirsty Indians" and the "courageous Americans". However, the film delves deeper into the inner thoughts of one particular American soldier and the Indian tracker.In an attempt to understand the reasons behind the slaughters, the American discovers from Timotei that the Indians kill men to "take on their power". This is a key point in the film, showing that the Indians are not merely cold-blooded killers, but they do actually have reason, almost justification, for what they do.

At another point during the film the viewers are shown a horse and cart trundling along a sand track. The driver is an American and he is accompanied by a woman with her young son.The cart is brought to a halt as the Apache approach. One would expect the man to act courageously and to defend his passengers, but instead he pulls out a pistol, shoots the woman and then turns the gun on himself. The young boy remains unscathed and watches in horror as the Apache strip her of her jewellery and depart. Once again,this was an unexpected turn of events and encourages the viewer to think more deeply about events and motives - the Apache would have tortured the cart driver and raped the woman in order to gain power from them.

However, the driver must have known that the boy was of no use to them and so his life was not at risk. Ulzana's Raid has the foundations of a basic Western film with the horses, guns, Americans and Indians, yet delves deeper into the motives and feelings of the contrasting sides, showing a variety of different consequences as a result of the killings. In contrast to The A-Team this film is actually far more violent and graphic and therefore has a higher certification rating. However, even with the increased violence, some would argue that this film is morally more correct than The A-Team.The violence is shocking and realistic and there is no real attempt to glamorise or sensationalize the horrors of war. This film is therefore far less likely to inspire anyone to kill as there is no glory or triumph, only the shocked grieving of the victim's fellow countrymen.

The third extract that we watched was from the popular James Bond series of films, "The Spy Who Loved Me". This film covers both sex and violence, as is common in many current popular films. Sex and violence go hand in hand, but for the purposes of this essay it will only be analysed for its sexual content.The Spy Who Loved Me" was the most sexually explicit of all the films watched, especially in the title sequence, although throughout the rest of the film there was sexual innuendo rather than explicit sex. The main use of sex in the film was to extract information from the opposition.

Although nothing is seen, the sex is implied between Bond and the Russian spy, both trying to extract information out of each other. Sex plays an important part in James Bond's character, he is the ultimate spy, he is able to successfully complete all his missions in style and can 'get the girl' at the end.Sex is not the major theme of the film, but is merely used to pad it out and is the icing on the cake after the successful completion of Bond's dangerous missions. He uses sex in two ways; for pleasure - as seen with the girl in the desert - and to extract information. The main reason for the very mild sexual content is the audience that the film is trying to appeal to.

The James Bond series of films was originally designed to be the ultimate 'man's film', so the directors tried to include all aspects that would appeal to men. However, with a certificate of "12", the film mustn't be too explicit.There are no emotional strings attaching Bond to his sexual partners, so from this point of view there is no focus on relationships and consequences of actions between lovers which thus produces unreal scenarios. The unforeseen popularity of the Bond films amongst all age groups, for both men and women, shows that the content is very mild and inoffensive. It is fantasy and as such should be taken at face value as pure escapism with no hidden depths.

As with "The A-Team", it is possible that the wrong signals could be picked up by an immature audience.It could be interpreted that casual sex for shear pleasure and violence in order to obtain success are exciting and therefore acceptable because the real consequences of such actions are totally neglected in this type of action packed spy film. When Harry Met Sally was another film extract used in the analysis of screen sex. This is a romantic comedy based around two friends - Harry and Sally.

When trying to comfort Sally after a break-up with her partner, their friendship develops into a sexual relationship with somewhat predictable consequences.The video sleeve depicts Harry with a look of surprise and regret on his face and Sally with a content expression. These emotions later develop into the stereotypical reactions from a man and woman's point of view. Harry regrets the incident, and wants to forget that it ever happened, return to being friends - the way things were before. Sally, however, wants to develop the relationship, looking into the future at the prospect of marriage. The film deals with these reactions and the way the two characters deal with each other's emotions and the events resulting from this.

Although being more focused on sex than "The Spy Who Loved Me", it is far less explicit in its representation but explores the effects of their relationship and reactions of its characters in greater depth. This film has a strong moral basis and illustrates far more faithfully than the other extracts the very real effects of a sexual relationship without being too frank. The final extract analysed was a scene from the popular American series Baywatch. The series is particularly popular among men for the bikini scenes of the female life-guards.

The particular extract that we watched showed a couple in a jungle-like cove swimming and flaunting.It was an extremely popular series because it offered an endless stream of beautiful, skimpily clad young girls and bronzed muscular body guards who always won the day. The story lines were superficial and needed no real concentration. As with "The A-Team" and "The Spy Who Loved Me", it was unrealistic and offered no insight into relationships or real life events. There was little or no violence but once again sexual innuendo was apparent.

This programme was aimed at a young audience on primetime television and was not intended for in depth analysis but merely as light entertainment.Some young viewers may have been influenced by the glamour of this unrealistic portrayal of beach life in America. The real issue, as a result of watching the extracts discussed in this essay, is to analyse the effects of the sex and violence portrayed in them on the general public. In a Panorama Special on violence in the media, it was concluded that screen violence does affect a small minority of people, making them more violent and provoking them, in severe cases, to commit violent acts. For the rest of the population it is still largely undecided what effect screen sex and violence has on them.Laws have been passed and councils established to set boundaries and to monitor the media in order to maintain moral standards and to protect society in general from content which could be regarded as unsuitable, offensive or provocative.

However, there are those who believe that screen sex and violence should be increased, as they can have cathartic effects and help viewers with pent up destructive emotions to release them through viewing rather than direct action. The greatest villains in history did not have television to inspire them to commit their great atrocities, for example Hitler.They were able to find their inspiration elsewhere. In conclusion, it is very difficult to say what standards should be set for sex and violence in the media for there does not appear to be any firm evidence to support the theory that over exposure to explicit sex or violence encourages viewers to copy what they see or generally lowers moral standards.

Despite the media being censored for extreme content, a small minority will always idolise action heroes such as Rambo, fantasize about glamorous women such as Pamela Anderson and in extreme cases copy offensive or violent acts which they have witnessed on screen.But should the majority be denied the right to watch programmes of their choice in order to prevent a very small minority from behaving inappropriately as a result? The only solution to ensure that people could not be adversely influenced by the media would be to ban all screen sex and violence. However, this is just not possible because to do so would be to take away people's liberty and freedom of choice. It could be argued that film and television writers would be denied their freedom to be creative and to express themselves and the general public would be denied free access to entertainment of their choice.It could be further argued that if sex and violence on screen were banned then newspapers and books should also be censored.

Obviously it is very important to set standards and to ensure that there are definite boundaries, particularly to protect the young from inappropriate material. Over the years these boundaries have become wider, increased violence and explicit sex have become more acceptable and this must give the message to young viewers that this is the norm.Surely it is in the interests of all society that we try to educate our children to have high moral standards and respect for each other. Exposure to excessive sex and violence cannot be beneficial and therefore these boundaries need to be reviewed and tightened. People will always enjoy watching horror films, action movies, love stories and fantasy dramas and should have the right to do so, but in the knowledge that what they are viewing is constructive entertainment and not destructive and perverting.