We motif of social violence in the space of cinematic communication

Social violence traditionally has been a constituent in the information flow of artistic communication, of the cinematic one especially. With the language specific to cinema it is easier, than with the languages of other arts, to attract and command the attention of a broad public with the spectacle of violence. Also, as a rule, it is more economical because of the relatively low cost of embodying violence on the screen considering the overall expensiveness of film production. In the West, the filming of practices of violence aimed at entertaining the public, as well as the public concern at the possibility of their negative impact on the rising generation, has a long history. Within the concept of “the audience as the victim” there were thousands of studies conducted, especially in USA. In the USSR cinema of the entertainment orientation was under the ideological ban which put the representation of violence within certain boundaries. In the 1990s the situation of cinema changed drastically. Je escalation of entertainment violence on the screen caused a public concern. Sociologists began to study its perception by and impact on spectators. In this regard, the article considers the experience of conceptualizing the reformatting of its representation after, consequent upon the impact of the last century’s revolutionary violence, cinema had obtained the status of “the most important of all the arts” and “the social significance” of the violence became the cultural code of its representation. But with the transition of Russian cinema to the market, foreign entertainment movies were granted open access to the nation’s film screens. Entertainment violence reached the status of a commercially important communicative attraction. Its effectiveness in this function is viewed in the article based on the materials of sociological surveys conducted among filmgoers of the cities of Kirov and Ekaterinburg. Another side of the issue considered as well is the sociocultural effects of violent images on the rising generation in whose midst there is a “risk group” that merits careful research and preventive acknowledgment in the process of social control.

1. Anderson C.A., Gentile D.A. Violent video game egects on aggressive thoughts, feelings, physiology, and behavior// Media Violence and Children: A Complete Guide for Parents and Professionals / Ed. by D.A. Gentile. Santa Barbara, 2014.

2. Berger A.G.Pe essentials of mass communication theory. Pousand Oaks, 1995.

3. Czitrom D. Early motion pictures // Communication in History. Technology, Culture, Society / Ed. by D. Crowley, P. Heyer. Boston, 2007.

4. Fedorov A.V. Prava rebenka i problema nasiliya na rossiyskom ekrane [Children’s rights and violence problem on the Russian screen]. Taganrog, 2004 (in Russian).

5. Fiske J., Dawson R. Audiencing violence: watching homeless men watch Die Hard // Pe Audience and Its Landscape / Ed. by J. Hay, L. Grossberg, E. Wartella. Oxford, 1996.

6. Freilikh S.I. Teoriya kino: ot Eysenshteina do Tarkovskogo [Pe theory of Wlm: From Eisenstein to Tarkovsky]. M., 2007 (in Russian).

7. Gentile D., Murray J. Media violence and public policy. Where we have been and where we should go next // Media Violence and Children: A Complete Guide for Parents and Professionals / Ed. by D.A. Gentile. Santa Barbara, 2014.

8. Gitlin T. Media unlimited: how the torrent of images and sounds overwhelms our lives. N.Y., 2002.

9. Goldstein J. Introduction // Why We Watch. Pe Attraction of Violent Entertainment / Ed. by J. Goldstein. N.Y., 1998.

10. Hodkinson P. Media, culture and society. Los Angeles, 2017.

11. Kinematograph — zerkalo ili molot? Kinokommunikatsiya kak sotsiokulturnaya praktika [Cinema: Pe mirror or the hammer? Cinematic communication as a sociocultural practice]. M., 2010 (in Russian).

12. Kultura i kultutniy potrebnosty moskvichey [Culture and cultural needs of Muscovites]. Pravitel’stvo Moskvi. Institut ekonomiki Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Gosudarstvenniy institut iskusstvoznaniya. Ser. Megaproekt “Strategiya razvitiya Moskvi do 2025 goda”. M., 2010 (in Russian).

13. Levis J. Are you receiving me?// Understanding Television / Ed. by A. Goodwin, G. Whannel. L.; N.Y., 1990.

14. Outlooks on children and media: child rights, media trends, media research, media literacy, child participation, and declarations/ Compiled and written by C. von Feilitzen, C. Bucht. Göteborg, 2001.

15. Platon. Sobr. soch.: V 4 t. T. 3. [Collected works in 4 volumes. Vol. 3]. M., 1994 (in Russian).

16. Pod znakom vesternizatsiya. Kino — publika — vozdeystviye [Under the sign of westernization. Cinema — Public — Impact]. M., 1995 (in Russian).

17. Podoroga V.A. Nasilie v sovremennom kinematografe (podhod k probleme) [Violence in contemporary cinema (an approach to the issue)] // Politicheskaya conceptologia. 2016. N 1 (in Russian). URL: http://politconcept.sfedu.ru/2016.1/12.pdf

18. Rich M. Foreword // Media Violence and Children: A Complete Guide for Parents and Professionals / Ed. by D.A. Gentile. Santa Barbara, 2014.

19. Rogers E. Communication technology. N.Y., 1986.

20. Rondeli L.D. Kino i ego auditoriya. Analiticheskaya letopis vzaimootnosheniy (1969–2010 gg.) [Cinema and its audience. An analytical chronicle of the interrelationship (1969–2010)]. M., 2013 (in Russian).

21. Salinski D. Polyet granati nad polem istoryii. K voprosu ob otdalennikh reaktsiyakh v pole kulturnoi releksii [Flight of the hand grenade over the Weld of history. For the issue of deferred reactions in the Weld of cultural relection] // Ekranizatsiya istorii: politika i poetika / Ed. by L. Budyak. M., 2003 (in Russian).

22. Sochineniya Gerberta Spensera. Osnovaniya sotsiologii [Pe works of Herbert Spencer. Principles of sociology]. T. II. Ch. II. T. III–VII. SPb., 1898 (in Russian).

23. Sotsiologiya i kinematograf [Sociology and Cinema]. M., 2012 (in Russian).

24. Stephenson W. Pe play theory of mass communication. Chicago, 1967.

25. Tarasov K.А. Nasiliye v Wlmakh: tri usloviya mimeticheskogo vozdeystviya [Violence in Wlms: three conditions for the mimetic egect] // Vestnik VGIK. 2016. N 2. (28) (in Russian).

26. Tarasov K.A. Peprezentatsya nasilya v kinoindustrii [Representing violence in cinema industries] // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2018. N 8. DOI. 10.31857/S013216250000799-1 (in Russian).

27. Tarasov K.А. Poklonniky razvlekatel’nogo nasiliya na kinoekrane [Fans of entertainment violence on the screen] // Zhurnalist. Sotsial’niye kommunikatsii. 2020. N 3 (39) (in Russian).

28. Vostrikova E.Y., Sputnitskaya N.Y. 40 let nasiliya: monitoring kinoperiodiki [40 years of violence: a monitoring of Wlm periodicals] // Telekinet. 2018. N 3 (4). URL: https://telecinet.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/34-36-72.pdf (in Russian).

29. Webster J., Phalen P. Pe mass audience: rediscovering the dominant model. Mahwah, 1997.

30. Zhabskiy M.I. Vozmozhnosti, granitsi i tekhnika oprosa [Possibilities, boundaries and the technique of the survey] // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 1984. N 3 (in Russian).

31. Zhabskiy M.I. Sotsiodinamika kinematograWcheskoy zhizni obshchestva. [Sociodyinamics of cinematic society’s life]. M., 2015 (in Russian).

32. Zhabskiy M.I., Tarasov K.A. K istorii sotsial’nogogo regulirovaniya v sfere kinokulturi [Toward a history of social regulation in the sphere of cinema culture] // Kultura i iskusstvo. 2012. N 2 (in Russian).

33. Zhabskiy M.I. Sotsilogiya kino [Pe Sociology of cinema]. M., 2020 (in Russian).

34. Zhabskiy M.I., Tarasov K.A. Kino — svoboda ot tsensuri… [Cinema — the freedom from censorship…]. M., 2021 (in Russian).