As soon as the Los Angeles riots ended, members of the
entertainment community were quick to respond with food and clothing drives, checks and pledges to help reconstruct burned-out buildings. Others have recorded public service announcements or appeared in an all-star video to benefit the South-Central area. A recent industry-sponsored town meeting on the crisis drew a standing-room-only crowd.
In private circles, as well as public forums, the entire industry seemed to be talking about how best to help the inner city.
But with the big-grossing mid-May release of "Lethal Weapon 3," the first in an onslaught of violence-laden summer movies scheduled to open in the coming weeks, one riot-related subject remains virtually taboo among the people who make movies and television programs: Do heavy doses of violence in movies and television programs affect public behavior?
Mention the subject to a Hollywood insider and much of the time you'll hear immediate dismissals and warnings of government censorship.
Yet no such objections were voiced in 1989 when some of the biggest names in the industry came together to create the Environmental Media Association to promote environmentally correct messages in movies and television. Nor was there a chorus of protest last January when industry leaders announced the formation of Hollywood Supports to combat homophobia and fear of AIDS.
Although those groups are based on a widely accepted notion within the industry -- that media images influence behavior -- the question of whether this principle applies to violence is usually treated as a non-starter.
"We don't believe there is a causal relationship (between violent images and real-life violence)," said Del Reisman, president of the Writers Guild of America West. "And the cure is horrendous," he added, invoking the prospect of government-imposed restrictions.
Said Barbara Dixon, spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Alliance of America: "We have dealt with this issue for a long time and have looked at a number of studies. According to
the First Amendment lawyers who have handled the issue for us, none of [the studies] say that motion picture violence affects the behavior of people."
Despite the widespread skittishness on the subject, doubts about the effects of violence are by no means universal.
"It's simple to me," said actor Wesley Snipes. "You can see how a child, after watching a violent cartoon, how that child runs over to the next child and starts to do some of the same things they just saw."
Social scientists do not claim that someone will commit a crime solely as a result of watching action movies or television programs. But in about 3,000 studies conducted over nearly three decades, researchers have determined that a steady diet of violent entertainment does contribute to antisocial and aggressive activity when added to other factors such as violence in the home and neighborhood.
"TV violence can cause aggressive behavior and can cultivate values favoring the use of aggression to resolve conflicts," concluded an American Psychological Association task force last February after a five-year study. By the APA's count, the average child witnesses 8,000 murders by the time he or she graduates from elementary school and sees more than 100,000 other acts of violence.
The association's findings echo conclusions previously reached by the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Institute of Mental Health, the Department of Justice, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Parent-Teachers Association.
"The general public is incredibly unaware of this research," said Marcy Kelly, the president of Mediascope, a new studio-based organization that hopes to educate the entertainment industry about the research on violence and "encourage more responsible presentation of conflict and conflict resolution."
Ms. Kelly also wants to persuade producers to show the #F consequences of violence. "Many young people who wind up in hospitals having been shot say they are surprised that it hurts because it doesn't hurt on television," she said.