Filmmakers Should Not Be Villainized For Movie Violence Summary

438 Words2 Pages

The counterpoint, "Hollywood Filmmakers Should Not be Villainized for Movie Violence", is the more persuasive article and is better supported by evidence. For example, filmmakers should not need to take into consideration the behavioral changes in people due to the violence portrayed in their movies. According to the strong evidence in the text, "Violent behavior is an extremely complex issue that cannot be reduced to a simple cause-effect relationship" (Counterpoint para. 3). Violence seen in movies is certainly not the one and only cause of violent behavior, especially in children.
Additionally, the text points out a judicious verdict about parenting. It is not the fault of the filmmaker if a child watches his or her film. The parent of the child should be monitoring the media he or she allows the child to view. In the text, Freedman explains how filmmakers are not to be blamed for the violent content they put in their movies. He asks, "How can we hold filmmakers responsible for putting children at risk when it’s a parental duty to monitor what children are watching? Parents must teach their children appropriate behaviors" (Counterpoint para. 4). Parents have a duty to communicate with their child and explain the difference between movie violence and violence in real life. …show more content…

This is because when one is busying his or herself by watching a movie, he or she is reducing violence by not partaking in violent actions. Based on the data in the text, "crime rates have dropped steadily since 1993. . . violent movies may actually play a part in this reduction in violent crime. Children who are watching a movie are taking part in a nonviolent activity" (Counterpoint para. 5). Watching violent movies and films also satisfies ones desire to engage in real life violence and controls the urge to do something