The violence in fictional movies and television doesn't compare to the real thing.

With the loosening of standards in the late 1960's and the introduction of the MPAA system, we began to see more instances of violence, and more graphic violence, in movies and television. Some of it has some merit; some of it makes me cringe. And yet no fictionalized violence compares to the other kind of violence we rarely see live, but often see reported on television. This is Violence as Myth.

But first, here is a summary view of the different kinds of violence in fiction.

Violence as Entertainment:

1. Slasher flicks - Where the suspense and scariness isn't the point, but showing a murder graphically is the point - often in scenes involving a sexual situation or other nudity.
2. Action flicks - Not all action flicks are like this, but some of them have total disregard for the collateral damage done to innocent people or even the killing of supporting "good guy" characters. It is the sense in which nobody's life is really that important except for the two main characters. What would be in real life scenes of utter mayhem and unspeakable tragedy are applauded in movies with "happy endings." As with slasher flicks, the entertainment is in seeing people killed, and it doesn't matter whether they are good guys, bad guys, or bystanders.

Violence as Art. These examples aren't exhaustive, but they illustrate how even graphic violence can have worthwhile artistic or literally merit:

1. Violence as Reality: The movie Jaws has lots of scary scenes, but only one horrifying scene, when you see a character unsuccessfully try to avoid the clutches of the shark's jaws. Previous deaths in the film weren't shown this way, but it gives you the best idea of the horror of it.
2. Violence as Plot Device: The notable thing about the movie Reservoir Dogs is that you know almost nothing of the backgrounds of the characters, but you know they are thieves who are also killers. Killing is what sets off the crisis in the story, but the story is really about loyalty, friendship, and, ultimately, professionalism.
3. The role of violence in character development.  Season 4, Episode 1 of Breaking Bad was the first I had seen of the series, and it contained the scene of a murder more graphic than anything I recall seeing on television, and certainly all the more shocking as it was rated "TV-14" instead of "TV-MA." But there was a point to it: the murder was performed before the eyes of the protagonists who were being held captive by an underworld boss, and the audience had to see what the protagonists of the series had to see, in order to show the world they had led themselves into, and to understand their motivations going forward.

Violence as Justice: Two Examples:

1. The first Die Hard - The sequels devolved into mere "violence as entertainment," circuses of car crashes, explosions, and shoot-outs that turned John McClain into a virtual superhero, whereas the first movie was more suspenseful because of the unique predicament of his situation.
2. The Book of Eli - The world Eli wanders is extraordinarily violent, and some of Eli's defensive moves seem unnecessarily forceful, but the conclusion of the movie puts it all in context

I'm generally uncomfortable with violence as pure entertainment, although I don't think it has damaged society and I certainly wouldn't censor it even if we knew where to draw the line. It's better for people to get their kicks this way, than to bring back contests between Christians and lions, or gladiator fights. And I don't mind even graphic violence if it's in the context of a larger story or morality play.

Violence as Myth

The violence on tv that I object to most is the historical pieces and news reports that elevate real-life violence to the level of myth.

Unlike people in most other parts of the world, no living American has experienced war as a civilian -- unless, of course, they are family and friends of people in the service. They haven't suffered bombings and occupations. They've had no reason to wonder if the country will survive. War is something that is done "over there." It is less real to the average American than to the average European, whose mothers or grandmothers had to endure unimaginable devastation.

This might explain why the U.S. has, overall, been more likely to go to war, and each time we do the President tries to frame it as a "difficult" but "necessary" decision. They want to star in the sequel of Profiles in Courage.

We believe in the myth of the goodness of war because so few of us have experienced it directly. It's as if we send the boys off to fight as if they were characters in a movie.

But belief in the myth is really belief in the use of violence to advance political goals.

From Oklahoma City to Norway, we see where that thinking goes.

It isn't fictional movies that drive home-grown terrorists to snap. It is the belief that politically-motivated violence is justified.

And that is something they are taught.