Can Hollywood's depiction of violence on the big screen incite its audiences to commit acts of violence? After the 2012 mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, when James Eagan Holmes opened fire during a screening of "Batman: The Dark Knight Rises," the public feared that the entertainment industry would do exactly that. Bob Strauss, film critic for the Whittier Daily News (LAFCA), wrote about this topic in his article: “Is Hollywood Violence to Blame for Mass Shootings? 'It's a really complex question.'" He attempted to shed some light on the subject, as most people today are confused about the connection between screen and reality. Yet, is it actually true Can the tone and subject matter of a film inspire a person to commit a violent act or are we still confused?Say no to plagiarism on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned.” » ?Get the original essay Strauss says on-screen violence and real-life violence are complex and don't boil down to a simple yes or no answer Strauss interviews Brad Bushman, professor of communications and psychology at the. Ohio State University, and Robert Thompson, professor of popular culture at Syracuse University, to find out if on-screen violence can influence a person. This influence cannot be boiled down to a single answer. there are risk factors, but on-screen violence is low risk, actors who support gun control but star in violent films are hypocrites, and if you ask the public they will tell you that it's true. Thompson asks Strauss: Do other types of films influence audiences to act in a certain way? No. People were more encouraged to do the opposite. Thompson compares the baby boom generation to the television show "Dick Van Dyke Show." The TV show didn't depict marital sex, and it did depict premarital sex, but baby boomers normalized premarital sex. If baby boomers weren't influenced by a popular television show, how could they be now? The article ends with the fact that these types of films will continue to be made as we, the audience, return to watch them. I chose this article because Strauss cites Buchman and Thompson numerous times on the possibilities for why someone could be influenced but does not. explain the meaning of the quotes. As this article is intended for the general public, the lack of clarification could amplify confusion and misinterpretation of the content by the public. The article is a good start to spark public interest in finding out the answer, but that's all you'll get out of it. You need to do your own research if you want to find an answer. When I read the article, I felt confused because I had no conclusion about the meaning of the quotes and the importance of Hollywood and mass shootings. Strauss simply reiterates quotes from Bushman and Thompson and does not translate or support these views with explanations or evidence. This is simply a comment on the situation. In particular, I wanted to analyze the low risk factors mentioned at the beginning of the article. I think this should have been explained in depth as it has a greater impact on the issue of Hollywood's influence on violence. Perhaps if Strauss provided some insight or explanation of what a low risk factor is and what primary or high risk factors might be, such as mental health issues or an offender's history, the reader.