TASK 2 (Discuss both views): Violence in movies

Some people feel that the government should regulate the level of violence for films of television and cinema. Others feel that violent films should be not regulated. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Sample Answer

Opinions regarding the extent to which violence should be depicted within the movie industry have remained a topic of contentious debate. While some posit that the onus should be on the government to oversee violence levels in films on mainstream television and in cinemas, others vehemently oppose such oversight, pointing to realism and relatability as legitimate justifications. This essay will discuss both perspectives before presenting my final stance on this issue.

At one end of the spectrum are supporters of strict government oversight, who argue fervently for violence censorship within the movie-making realm. These proponents contend that once violent content is approved by the responsible authorities, regardless of its magnitude, this “green light” could potentially trigger an irreversible trajectory of gradually intensifying violence to the point of no return. The underlying reason for this is the inextricable link between elevated levels of violence and increased viewership. When brutality, aggression, and bloodshed are normalised in popular culture, their widespread proliferation can have detrimental psychological effects on the average person, fostering belligerent thoughts and encouraging violent behaviour in everyday life. Individual consequences aside, promoting violence may also erode other equally important aspects of filmmaking. Chief among these is the masterful use of carefully constructed plots, alongside witty dialogue and authentic acting, all of which can be overshadowed by excessive violent content.

At the other end of the spectrum, proponents of free artistic expression cite the immense demand for realism in filmmaking. These advocates point to prominent examples of films in which the depiction of violence is of instrumental importance to their overall success. One such example is Saving Private Ryan, which portrayed the harrowing reality of World War II. Despite featuring ultra-realistic, brutal, gory, and hair-raising scenes, including graphic depictions of mutilation, disembowelment, and skull-crushing violence, the film won numerous prestigious awards from pre-eminent institutions due to its realism, authenticity, and grounded portrayal of history. Those who argue for autonomy in artistic creation maintain that removing such violent scenes would, at the very least, water down historical events. This could serve as misinformation and contribute to misunderstanding by misleading viewers into believing that wars were relatively benign and non-violent.

Upon weighing both viewpoints, although the argument in favour of government oversight raises legitimate psychological and socio-cultural concerns, the opposing camp emphasises the value of realism and historical accuracy. Ultimately, I believe that those who support regulation present a more convincing argument; however, such oversight should be judiciously implemented so as not to impede the progress of the film industry while simultaneously preserving audience engagement. To this end, governments should establish a structured classification framework in which films are categorised according to their respective levels of violence. For example, R-rated movies should be inaccessible to children and should only be available to adults aged 18 and above on various streaming platforms. Furthermore, censorship should be carefully applied to eliminate scenes that are excessively gory or brutal in order to preserve the integrity of cinema.

Vocabulary