Representing violence in cinema industries

Publication type Article
Status Published
Occupation: Prof. of Department of Sociology, Senior Researcher
Affiliation: Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Film Art Research Institute (VGIK)
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameSotsiologicheskie issledovaniya
EditionIssue 8

   The representation and the consumption of violence in films trace their roots down to the bio­social and cultural-anthropological nature of the human being. This notwithstanding, the mass character of the habitual consumption of violent screen spectacle is a result of commercially predicated symbolic violence. With the example of television, presented is the escalation of screen violence in the post-Soviet period of national history. In light of the possibility for the Werther effect, materials of a sociological study (the city of Kirov, 2016) are used in considering the consumption of screen violence by urban moviegoers of the Russian heartland, the convergence of gender differences related to it, and the psychological and institutional-economical logic of the symbolic violence perpetrated by the film industry at the point of consumption. Ma­terials of a survey among high-school students of three Russian cities are adduced for verifying the hypothesis of the existence of a risk group among screen violence consumers. It stands to reason that to propagate physical violence in real life does not constitute a purpose of film industry. However, habitual consumption of violence in films, coupled with some spectators' predisposition toward aggressive behavior (the risk group), is capable of eliciting such a dysfunction. Based on the materials of an experimental-statistical comparison be­tween the risk group and a control group, it is shown that, for instance, the screen spectacle of gore brings forth a sensation of delight among, respectively, 84 and 21% of young movie-goers; about the punishment of a film character intent on succeeding in life by the means of violence, lamentation is experienced by 72 and 6%; to an occasional impulse to hit someone succumb 54 and 3%. These and other empirically garnered facts attest to the capacity of violence in films for impacting manifestations of physical violence in real life.

Keywords film industry, film, screen violence, spectator, symbolic violence, consumption, masculinity, femininity, risk group, aggressiveness
Publication date14.10.2018
Number of characters1057
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

views: 721

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Griffin Eh. Kommunikatsii. Teorii i praktiki / Per. s angl. M.: Gum. tsentr, 2015.

2. Zhabskij M.I. Sotsiodinamika kinematograficheskoj zhizni obschestva. M.: Kanon+ROOI «Reabilitatsiya», 2015.

3. Tarasov K.A. Nasilie v fil'makh: tri usloviya mimeticheskogo vozdejstviya // Vestnik VGIK. 2015. № 2 (28). S. 90-95.

4. Tarasov K.A. Ot nasiliya v kino k nasiliyu «kak v kino»? // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 1996. № 2. S. 25-35.

5. Kravchenko S.A. Mezhdistsiplinarnaya diagnostika i kontekstual'naya ehkspertiza riskov, uyazvimostej, bezopasnosti i doveriya // Voprosy analiza riska. 2017. № 1 (25). S. 3-8.

6. Rondeli L.D. Kino i ego auditoriya. Analiticheskaya letopis' vzaimootnoshenij (1969-2010 gg.). M.: VGIK im. S.A. Gerasimova, 2013.

7. Fedorov A.V. Prava rebenka i problema nasiliya na rossijskom ehkrane. Taganrog: Izd-vo Yu.D. Kuchmy, 2004.

8. Shendrik A.I. Globalizatsiya v sisteme kul'turologicheskikh koordinat// Kul'turologicheskie zapiski. Vyp. 9. Khudozhestvennaya kul'tura v ehru globalizatsii. M.: GII, 2004. S. 135-176.

9. Yung K.G. i dr. Chelovek i ego simvoly / Pod obsch. red. S.N. Sirenko. M: Serebryanye niti, 1997.

10. Alia-Klein N. et al. Reactions to media violence: it's in the brain of the beholder // PloS One (the Public Library of Science Journal). 2014. No. 9 (9). URL: (data obrascheniya: 22.08.2017).

11. Comstock G., Paik H. Television and the American Child. New York: Academic Press, 1991.

12. Krahe B. Media violence use as a risk factor for aggressive behaviour in adolescence// European Review of Social Psycholo¬gy. 2014. No. 1 (25). P. 71-106. URL: (data obrascheniya: 01.09.2017).

13. Signorielli N., Gerbner G., Morgan M. Violence on television: The Cultural Indicators project // Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 1995. No. 2 (39). P. 278-283.

14. Stephenson W. The Play Theory of Mass Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.

15. von Feilitzen C. Influences of mediated violence. International and Nordic research findings // Children and Youth in the Digital Media Culture. Yearbook 2010. From a Nordic Horizon / Ed. by U. Carllson. Gote- borg: Nordicom, University of Goteborg, 2010. P. 173-188.

16. Violence on the Screen and the Rights of the Child. Report from a Seminar in Lund, Sweden, September 1995. Stockholm: Svensko Unescoredets skrittserie nr 2, 1996.

17. UNESCO Global Study on Media Violence. A Summary. 1998. URL: (data obrascheniya: 10.06.2017).

18. Baumann E. et al. Wie Medien genutzt werden und was sie bewirken. URL: (data obrascheniya: 10.06.2017).

Система Orphus