Offscreen, have imaginary killers like Jigsaw (pictured below), Jason, and Freddy actually saved lives? Maybe. According to a new study cited in the New York Times, economists havefound that the conventional wisdom about violent movies may be wrong,that they actually reduce the number of violent acts committed in thereal world. (How cool is it that, in the Freakonomics era, economists are studying real-world phenomena that are actually fun, like serial killer movies?) The reason? Apparently, it’s not that movies featuring onscreen brutality have a cathartic effect that allows viewers to channel their violent fantasies safely and harmlessly, but simply because they keep the demographic most likely to commit violent crimes — young men — off the streets for a couple hours.
In fact, as noted deep down in the article, it’s not just violent movies that have this effect, but any movie that draws young men. In other words, says one of the study’s authors, "We need more Adam Sandler movies." Who’d have imagined that Sandler (pictured, top) is not only a culture hero but also a good Samaritan? (Especially since some Adam Sandler movies actually make you want to strangle someone — usually, Adam Sandler.)
What say you, PopWatchers? Do you think this study is right? Are guy movies a public service? Can Hollywood curb crime by continuing to pander to its favorite target audience? Would the production of more chick flicks be a blow against law and order? And have you ever felt like a movie increased or decreased your tendency toward violence?
The only violence I’ve been tempted to commit going to the movies is against the actors, writers and director of a total piece of crap, and then just to get my $10 back. And I might be tempted to do something violent here if I can’t get that “Signal” trailer to stop automatically playing every time I enter the PW site. Help me, please, P-Dubs!
That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.
That’s a pretty tough sell. They’re essentially arguing that these movies stop crime because they’re a two-hour distraction? Wouldn’t that make anything that young men do a “violent crime reducer”? And couldn’t some of these violent movies, at worst, be a mental re-charge period that only encourages and condones the behavior? As much as I enjoy the occasional Freakonomics theory, this one is just way too flimsy.
The only time a movie has made me more likely/less likely to commit violence was the time I saw “X-Men 3″. It started as a small, irritating annoyance (“Gee, this sure isn’t as good as I expected”) and slowly built to a volcanic rage (“BRETT RATNER, I HATE YOU MORE THAN HITLER!!”) so that by the time I got out of the theater, I was so mad that I wanted to punch everyone I saw.
Does that count? Probably not.
An absurd study that defies common sense. To read my commentary on this, visit cquick.agblogger.org
An absurd study that defies common sense. To read my commentary on this, visit cquick.agblogger.org
When I saw “The Sweetest Thing” I wanted to slap Cameron Diaz. Does that count?
To answer your last question Gary: yes–nearly every Adam Sandler movie ever created has increased my tendency towards violence; specifially, violence against Adam Sandler.
Feel free to substitute the name “Rob Schneider” for “Adam Sandler” above as well.
Ugh, on both accounts.
Let me see if I follow the logic. Crack houses reduce crime because while the people are in the house, smoking crack, they’re not breaking into homes or turning tricks.
Sigh…..here I go again, reminding people like Nick and everyone else on this board that using the word “retarded” that way is really offensive to those of us who know and love people with disabilities. Please, EW, can’t you put that word on your automatically-asterisked list of offensive language? That way many of us will not feel like we’re getting an unexpected slap in the face when we come here to read funny comments about Adam Sandler (or any other PopWatch subject).
Sigh…. here I go again, reminding people like Nick and everyone else on this board that using the word “retarded” that way is really offensive to those of us who know and love people with disabilities. Please, EW, can’t you add that word to your automatically-asterisked list of offensive language? That way many of us will not feel like we’re getting an unexpected slap in the face when we come here to read funny comments about Adam Sandler (or any other PopWatch subject).
Sorry about the double post – strange computer issues today.
I have a family member who is mentally handicapped and Nick saying the word retarded had no effect on me at all. So, not all of us would agree with you. If you are sensitive to the word retarded, my advice would be to not go on public message boards where the majority of the public use words such as retarded to describe thigns. As for the theory on reduced crime…sure it may be true but that’s because they are holed up in a theater for 2 hours watching something that could possibly encourage the behavior and give these criminals new/different ideas on how to go about committing these crimes.
Anyone else feeling like we’re living in one of those dystopian futures from movies of the early 80s? Except instead of grunge and metal it’s lattes and gentrification. But still dystopia.
Kelly – I have to assume that the family member you speak of isn’t your own child, because I gotta tell you, ALL the moms I know (with disabled kids) find that word extremely offensive. As far as staying off message boards—I come to PopWatch on a daily basis to be entertained and enlightened by intelligent and sometimes hilarious posts and responses. This isn’t Perez Hilton. Just because “retarded” is the insult of choice amongst middle-schoolers doesn’t mean it’s appropriate language for this board. In fact, it’s rarely used here. And when it is, I’m going to keep on reminding people that it’s inappropriate. And I guess you can keep on telling me you think I’m wrong. But I’m not going to stop expressing my views on this matter, which is a very personal and important one for me—and for my child.