Can Hollywood's depiction of violence on the big screen influence its audiences to commit violent acts? After the 2012 mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, when James Eagan Holmes shot up a screening of “Batman: The Dark Knight Rises,” audiences feared the entertainment industry was doing just that. Bob Strauss, film critic for the Whittier Daily News (LAFCA), wrote about this topic in his article: “Is Hollywood Violence the Cause of Mass Shootings? 'It's a really complex issue.'” He attempted to shed light on the topic as most people today are confused about the connection between the screen and reality. Yet, is it really true? Can the tone and subject matter of a film influence a person to commit a violent act or are we still confused? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayStrauss says that violence on screen and real violence is complex and not a simple yes or no answer. Strauss interviews Brad Bushman, a professor of communications and psychology at Ohio State University, and Robert Thompson, a professor of popular culture at Syracuse University, to understand whether violence on screen can affect a person. This influence cannot be summed up with one answer. The article states that there are risk factors, but violence on screen is low risk, actors who support gun control but star in violent films are hypocrites and if you ask the public they will say it's true. Thompson asks Strauss, do other types of films influence audiences to act a certain way? No. People were more influenced to do the opposite. Thompson compares the Baby Boom generation to the television show “Dick Van Dyke Show.” The TV show didn't portray marital sex, much less premarital sex, but Baby Boomers normalized premarital sex. If Baby Boomers weren't influenced by a popular TV show, how could they be now? The article ends with these kinds of films that will continue to be made as we, the audience, continue to watch them. I chose this article because Strauss quotes Buchman and Thompson on numerous occasions about the possibilities why someone could be influenced but doesn't. explain the meaning of the quotation marks. With this article aimed at the general public, the lack of clarification could amplify public confusion and misinterpretation of the content. The article is a great start to spark the audience's interest in finding out the answer, but that's all you'll get. You have to do your 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 meaning of Hollywood and mass shootings. Strauss simply reiterates Bushman and Thompson's quotes and does not translate or support these opinions through explanation or evidence. It's just a comment on the situation. I particularly wanted to analyze the low-risk factors mentioned at the beginning of the article. I believe 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 information or an explanation about what a low-risk factor is and what primary or high-risk factors might be, such as mental health issues or a delinquent history, the reader might understand how watching a movie might be considered a low risk factor. My interpretation without any knowledge of low risk factors would be that a person could watch a movie and be.