The title statement is a very definite opinion, a one-sided argument that leaves little room for doubt. It's certainly a view that research can support, but also a view that can be challenged. Our society has unfortunately experienced a turbo-charging of occasional mass murderers, for which violent cinema has been held responsible by many people, including Philip Adams, from whom the title quote was taken. Adams then argues that violent cinema has had a deadening effect on our sensibilities. Have we become less sensitive to real life violence? According to Adams we have. However the fact is that violent cinema affects different people in different ways. It would be inaccurate to say that violent cinema has a desensitising effect on the sensibilities of everyone, but certainly research proves that desensitising does exist.
             It's possible that constant viewing of violent material may harden or desensitize its audience to real life violence. Micheal Medved believes that people are becoming immune to violence. The survey I conducted for workshop 4 which analysed audience response to cinema violence produced interesting and contrasting evidence. One participant, a first year male psychology student agreed that violence on screen desensitizes him to real life violence. He felt that after watching a violent film, that a report of an attack on someone would seem less shocking to him because viewing violence on screen makes him more acceptant of it. While the other participant, a first year biomedical student was affected by the evocativeness of realism. She felt that screen violence only serves to compound the reality of the violent society in which we live and it makes her more conscious of the violence that surrounds us, thus arousing fear in her. Asked about the same scenario, she said that a report of an attack would only reinforce her shock at the violence that exists in our contemporary society.
             The fact that the...