Unfortunately some people who view horror or crime films take their intentions a little too literal, leading them to commit crimes and in some extreme cases murder. Once captured there is a re-occurring theme within each of the statements, each admitting that it was their favourite film that influenced their actions, claiming that they were only trying to be like their idols that graced the big screen. Unsurprisingly Quinten Tarantino influenced this twisted yet glorified psychotic tale surrounding the duo Mickey and Mallory Knox; labelled Natural Born Killers. For me this film is top of the list for causing real life murders. The film captures the couples shared love for violence and how the media has been exploited to increase their profile. The coverage is maximized by Wayne Gale’s (Robert Downey Jr) show American Maniacs; this seals their fame and provides America with a constant update of how the couple’s gory killing spree is progressing.
The most famous copycat crime associated with this film is that committed by Sarah Edmonson and Benjamin Darrus who murdered two people in cold blood shortly after watching ‘Natural Born Killer’ several times. Although these people were under the influence of LSD they were quoted saying in an interview they were in a ‘love legacy a la Natural Born Killers’. Implying that they were influenced directly by the film, this opened up a case for the victims’ families to sue the creators of the film which directly contradicts the first amendment of the constitution. This is what brought the two murderers fame as their crime was then publicised due to the court case, much like those in Natural Born Killers.
Another obvious influence on real life crimes is Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of Anthony Burgess’ novella which includes the life story of Alex (the protagonist) whose main interest include classical music and rape. This sets the tone of the film instantly and his involvement with his gang whom are declared ultra-violent provide viewers with the idea that a world without law and rules may be better than the world we are living in now due to the pleasure they are expressing whilst committing heinous crimes. The scene in which he and his Droogs (his gang) invade a home, cripple the man living there and then proceed to violently rape his wife, all the time singing ‘I’m singing in the rain’. Although these crimes are clearly wrong and should not be copied by anybody their group mentality could easily be copied by young and naïve children who have seen this movie illegally. This was case when a Dutch girl was gang raped in Lancashire by a group singing ‘singing in the rain’. This is not the only example of A Clockwork Orange causing crime within society. A group of sixteen year old boys beat a tramp to death which is incredibly similar to Alex beating the drunk to death in the film.
The two films discussed above are extreme examples of how film can lead people to commit copycat crimes and although they are arguably the worst possible outcomes of a film effecting its viewers I feel that there is more to be discussed and questioned whilst looking at biographical films that follow young viewers idols, such as Eminem, Biggie and 50 cent. These films may seem innocent and simply provide an idea of how the stars made it to where they are today, they also include a lot of criminal activities that should not be encouraged yet they send out the message that it is acceptable due to the reasons they break the law i.e. selling drugs in order to feed their family.
The film ‘Notorious’ showcases the crime riddled life of Christopher Wallace (Jamal Woolard) and how he made it to stardom. I feel that this film should be coupled with the films above due to the fact that the viewers of this film idolise the young rapper and in their eyes they can do no wrong. This therefore promotes crime within youths viewing this film as they will not see it as breaking the law but copying their favourite rapper, I feel that although this film may be an accurate depiction of Christopher Wallace’s life there are certain scenes that may need removing or changing. For instance we see him selling drugs on the streets from the age of 14, by the time he is 16 he has his first child and continues to sell them in order to feed the baby. To me this is not an excuse to break the law and I am sure people watching this will agree but children who, in their eyes, he can do no wrong will see this as valiant and an acceptable reason to sell drugs.
It is these types of films that show drug use, drug sales, extreme violence and other crimes that almost brainwash the youth of today into thinking they are not committing crime simply just following the expectations set by their idols.
Every film can arguably promote something that may be frowned upon the films I have discussed are the extremes of this argument but I feel that there needs to be a stronger filter on who can and cannot see films that promote crime. It is far too easy for children to go online and view near enough any film without having to prove they are old enough. There must be a security system in place to prevent this from happening, this is only concerning the later of the films discussed as it is more likely to lead children to commit crime or begin a life of crime. As far as the first two films go there was nothing that could be done to prevent the crimes committed as a result of viewing the film. But once again I feel that film can be much more than just entertainment and some directors may intend to provoke the viewers into involving themselves in the film, this where reality can be lost.