Human society, over the years, has remained ensconced in violence. There are over 45 armed conflicts raging around the world right now, not to mention the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza. As the world becomes more intolerant and confrontational, art — it is its duty to reflect on or envision life — quite naturally, would be inclined to capture this tumultuous moment. One instance of art imitating life is the increasing portrayal of violence in cinema. An analysis of over 160,000 English-language movies, published in JAMA Paediatrics, has revealed this rising trend over the past five decades; it was measured through the use of such verbs as ‘kill’ or ‘murder’ in film dialogues.

Explicit portrayals of violence have deleterious effects. They can, for instance, condition viewers to adopt hostile responses in real-life situations, contributing to societal issues like bullying and domestic violence. Studies by the University of Michigan have shown that fictional violence contributes to both short-term and long-term increases in aggression among young viewers. A test group at the University of Wisconsin, too, demonstrated that watching a violent film immediately heightened aggression towards partners. Significantly, repeated exposure to violence also leads to desensitisation, making viewers less empathetic and reducing their emotional response to real-world brutality. In other words, the normalisation of violence in films has the potential of creating a culture more accepting of aggression.

Given the impact of the cinematic portrayal of violence, should the reel reflect the real? The question reveals the delicate tension between artistic licence and ethical imperatives. Films on World Wars cannot be made sans depictions of carnage. Blood, gallons of it, was perhaps necessary for Quentin Tarantino’s exploration of the theme of vengeance in his Kill Bill series. But where makers or censor boards can draw the line is in the glorification of violence as entertainment. When violence is depicted without meaningful intent, it can trivialise its impact, even fetishize it, discouraging critical reflection. What is of concern is the increasing willingness among makers of commercial cinema — Indian film-makers are a case in point — to incorporate violent content into a variety of narratives to sensationalise brutality for commercial gain. The harm to mental health and societal well-being caused by mindless violence despite attempts to justify it as a cathartic force in favour of justice outweighs arguments in favour of artistic licence in these cases.

A world free from violence is utopian. Art and cinema cannot be in denial of this fact. Realistic cinema cannot be conceived without depicting brutality in all its shades, including its affiliate forms. But what must be resisted is the urge to profiteer from portrayals of violence. It is essential that film-makers, censors and the audience work together to ensure that violence is not trivialised, or monetised, for mere entertainment. The potential societal harm caused by unchecked violence in films must be carefully considered and films that glorify violence regulated for the well-being of audiences and society as a whole.