Percentage of top grossing US films by decade that depict killing(blog.jgc.org)
blog.jgc.org
Percentage of top grossing US films by decade that depict killing
http://blog.jgc.org/2010/08/percentage-of-top-grossing-us-films-by.html
16 comments
I was expecting the graph to descend chronologically myself. It seemed to me that every other movie that I remember from 80s and early 90s were slasher films (Krueger, 13th, Critters, Steven King movies). Now, its romantic comedies left and right.
... or maybe I just got married.
... or maybe I just got married.
Yeh same here. Typically graph x-axis are time, totally threw me off.
So seeing that in reverse I was like "Well because we have more family and less Rated R movies nowadays that are blockbusters". Even rated R movies are not the same as the top grossing one is 'Passion of the Christ'.
Not sure what is worse graphs with time in the wrong direction or that more family movies are being made now with killing in them.
So seeing that in reverse I was like "Well because we have more family and less Rated R movies nowadays that are blockbusters". Even rated R movies are not the same as the top grossing one is 'Passion of the Christ'.
Not sure what is worse graphs with time in the wrong direction or that more family movies are being made now with killing in them.
Certain parts of our society have been rushing headlong toward the ideal infantilization / dis-empowerment of the individual, toward utter dependency on the police and the state for protection from violence, poverty, etc. As a personal connection to self-reliance, self-defense, weapons, firearms, and indeed violence becomes increasingly taboo it also becomes increasingly potent (see also: the draw and power of sex in puritanical society), and thus that much greater of a draw for entertainment.
As martijn points out in the comments, no conclusions can be drawn without data about the pool of all movies.
If it makes you feel better about the world, actual murders per capita is not significantly higher now than it was in the 1960's; I guess we've all figured out that life lessons don't come from blockbuster movies --- just fun explosions.
If it makes you feel better about the world, actual murders per capita is not significantly higher now than it was in the 1960's; I guess we've all figured out that life lessons don't come from blockbuster movies --- just fun explosions.
> actual murders per capita is not significantly higher now than it was in the 1960's
As of 2010, US murder rates are significantly higher than they were in 1960. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Violent crime increased significantly in the 60s, 70s and 80s, peaking about 1990. Since then they've dropped somewhat, but we're still at somewhere around 1975 levels.
As of 2010, US murder rates are significantly higher than they were in 1960. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Violent crime increased significantly in the 60s, 70s and 80s, peaking about 1990. Since then they've dropped somewhat, but we're still at somewhere around 1975 levels.
The actual article you linked to says, "Overall, the crime rate in the U.S. was the same in 2004 as in 1969, with the homicide rate being roughly the same as in 1966." As the subject is the homicide rate, that seems the most relevant datum.
The largest difference between 1960 and now is reported sexual crimes. Unfortunately they are so under reported it's hard to compare different time periods.
Edit: The year 2005 was overall the safest year in the past thirty years.
PS: You can get an idea based on the % of serial rapist victims that report at a later date, but that's extremely unreliable.
Edit: The year 2005 was overall the safest year in the past thirty years.
PS: You can get an idea based on the % of serial rapist victims that report at a later date, but that's extremely unreliable.
30 years from 2005 is 1975....
1969, let alone 1975, was considerably more violent than 1960.
Go to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/State... select all states and violent crime rates and the push "get table".
You'll see that the murder rate in 1960 was 5.1. By 1969, it had jumped to 7.3. By 75 it was 9.6. It peaked at 10.2 in 1980 with a lesser peak at 9.8 in 1991.
By 2005 the murder had dropped to 5.6. (FWIW, 2004 was 5.5) 2008 was 5.4, which is still above 1960's 5.1
1969, let alone 1975, was considerably more violent than 1960.
Go to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/State... select all states and violent crime rates and the push "get table".
You'll see that the murder rate in 1960 was 5.1. By 1969, it had jumped to 7.3. By 75 it was 9.6. It peaked at 10.2 in 1980 with a lesser peak at 9.8 in 1991.
By 2005 the murder had dropped to 5.6. (FWIW, 2004 was 5.5) 2008 was 5.4, which is still above 1960's 5.1
Above the rate for the year 1960, but not the rate for the decade 1960's. Still, 5.1 vs. 5.4 for such a rare and random event is not particularly meaningful. Also you need to adjust the numbers to compare the same thing. EX: If you compare manslaughter between 1961 and now a similar drunk driving accident would have a different outcome.
PS: I work with these numbers all the time. Murder is for lack of a better term the least reactive crime type, compared to say assault it far less influence by things like age, education, and gender etc.
PS: I work with these numbers all the time. Murder is for lack of a better term the least reactive crime type, compared to say assault it far less influence by things like age, education, and gender etc.
> Above the rate for the year 1960, but not the rate for the decade 1960's.
My point is that the rates were changing so much during the 60s and 70s that speaking of averages loses too much information. 1960 and 1969 were very different as far as violence in the US is concerned.
> 5.1 vs. 5.4 for such a rare and random event is not particularly meaningful.
It's frequent enough to be statistically significant. We're not talking about the difference between 1 and 2 incidents in a population of 1M, we're talking about 10k incidents in a population of 180M.
The advantage of talking about murder (which includes manslaughter) as opposed to rape and drunk driving is that reporting isn't a big problem - the only argument is over the circumstance of death.
My point is that the rates were changing so much during the 60s and 70s that speaking of averages loses too much information. 1960 and 1969 were very different as far as violence in the US is concerned.
> 5.1 vs. 5.4 for such a rare and random event is not particularly meaningful.
It's frequent enough to be statistically significant. We're not talking about the difference between 1 and 2 incidents in a population of 1M, we're talking about 10k incidents in a population of 180M.
The advantage of talking about murder (which includes manslaughter) as opposed to rape and drunk driving is that reporting isn't a big problem - the only argument is over the circumstance of death.
Do you really think the probability of someone that caused a fatal accident with a low BAC being charged with manslaughter was the same in 1960 and 2005?
As to being significant looking at different crime rates you tend to see similar trends but the "peak" year is often different. You can try to interpret it to mean something, but the reality is your looking at an imprecise estimate of an imprecise estimates of a highly random event it's really vary random after the first digit.
As to being significant looking at different crime rates you tend to see similar trends but the "peak" year is often different. You can try to interpret it to mean something, but the reality is your looking at an imprecise estimate of an imprecise estimates of a highly random event it's really vary random after the first digit.
1991 Forcible rape 106,593
1992 Forcible rape 109,062
1991 Robbery 687,732
1992 Robbery 672,478
> but the reality is your looking at an imprecise estimate of an imprecise estimates of a highly random event it's really vary random after the first digit.
Your assertion would be more convincing if your anecdote was had variance in the second position. Instead, it has variance in the third position (1065 and 1090) and less than half a unit in the second position (6877 and 6725)
The murder/manslaughter numbers are varying by 4-6x as much. (5.1 to 5.3/5.4)
Your assertion would be more convincing if your anecdote was had variance in the second position. Instead, it has variance in the third position (1065 and 1090) and less than half a unit in the second position (6877 and 6725)
The murder/manslaughter numbers are varying by 4-6x as much. (5.1 to 5.3/5.4)
My point was, you can ask questions like: Which was the peek year for crime? Why did rape not follow that trend? etc etc.
However, X + 2% vs Y - 2% does not necessarily mean anything. If you want to understand people you need to look beyond any single year to find cause and effect.
PS: A heatwave can significantly change a city's crime rate, but on it's own there is no meaningful long term effect. Average things out over months and years and you can start to see meaning emerge from chaos.
Downward trend: - 2.2%
1991 Robbery 687,732
1992 Robbery 672,478
Upward trend: + 2.3%
1991 Forcible rape 106,593
1992 Forcible rape 109,062
However, X + 2% vs Y - 2% does not necessarily mean anything. If you want to understand people you need to look beyond any single year to find cause and effect.
PS: A heatwave can significantly change a city's crime rate, but on it's own there is no meaningful long term effect. Average things out over months and years and you can start to see meaning emerge from chaos.
> My point was, you can ask questions like: Which was the peek year for crime? Why did rape not follow that trend?
"What was the peak year for crime" assumes a definition of crime, a way to aggregate rape, murder, etc. While we can agree on one, that agreement isn't binding on others. That's why I didn't claim that there was a peak crime year.
That said, averaging the 60s doesn't make sense as there was too much change.
Demographics alone tell us that different kinds of crime will peak a different times.
> By second digit I was talking about % change,
Since I was talking about to 5.1 to 5.4, the 98/99 comparison isn't especially relevant.
> A heatwave can significantly change a city's crime rate, but on it's own there is no meaningful long term effect.
You're assuming that weather doesn't have trends or long term effects. I'd argue that the dust bowl did. Urban heat-islands cause persistent heatwaves. (Yes, that's artificial climate, but ....)
"What was the peak year for crime" assumes a definition of crime, a way to aggregate rape, murder, etc. While we can agree on one, that agreement isn't binding on others. That's why I didn't claim that there was a peak crime year.
That said, averaging the 60s doesn't make sense as there was too much change.
Demographics alone tell us that different kinds of crime will peak a different times.
> By second digit I was talking about % change,
Since I was talking about to 5.1 to 5.4, the 98/99 comparison isn't especially relevant.
> A heatwave can significantly change a city's crime rate, but on it's own there is no meaningful long term effect.
You're assuming that weather doesn't have trends or long term effects. I'd argue that the dust bowl did. Urban heat-islands cause persistent heatwaves. (Yes, that's artificial climate, but ....)
What is there to conclude, other than that people are more tolerant of killing being portrayed in films? After 1980, there's an inverse correlation between the frequency of murder or violent crime in the US and depiction of killing in film - the former goes down while the latter continues to increase.
(http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)
It's a silly and misleading graph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
Alternatively watch something like Howard Hughes's Hell's Angels (1930)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
Alternatively watch something like Howard Hughes's Hell's Angels (1930)
It is lots of fun reading through the pre-Code movie synopses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Face_(film)
Sex and violence are not some kind of radical new idea. The shape of the OP's graph is almost certainly caused by the censors of the mid-20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Face_(film)
Sex and violence are not some kind of radical new idea. The shape of the OP's graph is almost certainly caused by the censors of the mid-20th century.
The lesson taught in almost every movie is that your problems are only permanently solved by the death of your action antagonist. Even kids' movies have this lesson, e.g. A Bug's Life where the bad-guy grasshopper is eaten by a bird. There are few movies where the action antagonist does not die, and these invariably involve morally ambiguous lead characters (e.g. The Dark Knight).
It's shame that more conciliatory outcomes are not considered. And you wonder about youth violence, but if this is the message taught by every film what do you expect?
P.S. counter examples please!
It's shame that more conciliatory outcomes are not considered. And you wonder about youth violence, but if this is the message taught by every film what do you expect?
P.S. counter examples please!
> And you wonder about youth violence, but if this is the message taught by every film what do you expect?
The facts don't bear this out, despite how often it's repeated. Real world violence is not proportional to violence in movies (or video games for that matter).
The facts don't bear this out, despite how often it's repeated. Real world violence is not proportional to violence in movies (or video games for that matter).
Heck, even The Flintstones had to kill the bad guy.
I think this gets at the distance between US culture, as it were, and the realities of violence. War is not the only source of violence. But it is a big one, which affects the entire culture pretty significantly.
So the 70s correspond to Vietnam. And the 40s correspond to WWII. Today, we also have wars. But we are somehow increasingly disconnected from the realities of what that means.
Anyway, it's a nice chart. But if you ever watch old movies right after WWII (in the 40s, early 50s), you can almost feel the trepidation around anything but those undervalued, safe moral environments. In some ways, it's a more mature audience / understanding -- it's more focused. But because a lot of the country has seen real horrors, it seems like now they crave some kind of careful normalcy (which doesn't have much violence). Perhaps the 70s also had that incentive. A lot of social change and some violence in the late 60s might've prompted it. Or, alternatively, people actually might've believed in non-violence for a while, and that might've stimulated other subjects.
I don't know. But obviously, according to the chart, it's a self-perpetuating phenomenon. So this can be explained by saying that US culture (perhaps increasingly in the form of high grossing films), left to its own status quo momentum, gradually disconnects us from the realities of violence.
So the 70s correspond to Vietnam. And the 40s correspond to WWII. Today, we also have wars. But we are somehow increasingly disconnected from the realities of what that means.
Anyway, it's a nice chart. But if you ever watch old movies right after WWII (in the 40s, early 50s), you can almost feel the trepidation around anything but those undervalued, safe moral environments. In some ways, it's a more mature audience / understanding -- it's more focused. But because a lot of the country has seen real horrors, it seems like now they crave some kind of careful normalcy (which doesn't have much violence). Perhaps the 70s also had that incentive. A lot of social change and some violence in the late 60s might've prompted it. Or, alternatively, people actually might've believed in non-violence for a while, and that might've stimulated other subjects.
I don't know. But obviously, according to the chart, it's a self-perpetuating phenomenon. So this can be explained by saying that US culture (perhaps increasingly in the form of high grossing films), left to its own status quo momentum, gradually disconnects us from the realities of violence.
I tend to think modern US blockbusters, are heavily influenced by special effects rather than characters, which usually means killing lots of stuff.
So more lenient movie moral codes wrt censorship and larger budgets for action, combined with a growing expertise in stunts and fight choreography, and a growing movie industry eager to entice audiences into theatres with blockbuster escapist theatre, result in a greater percentage?
There, I drew my own conclusion. Provided the data is true.
There, I drew my own conclusion. Provided the data is true.
my brain wants very badly for the data to flow chronologically from left to right, rather than its current arrangement.
If you enjoyed this blog post, you might enjoy my travel book for people interested in science and technology: The Geek Atlas
Is that a boilerplate footer for every blog post? Because I didn't really see the connection between gore in movies and the book :)
Is that a boilerplate footer for every blog post? Because I didn't really see the connection between gore in movies and the book :)
So, killing animals that can't "speak" doesn't count? That's odd, I'd pay good money to see people slaughtering those obnoxious anthropomorphic CG animals Hollywood is so in love with.
It would be interesting to see if a similar curve exists for movies depicting sex (not necessarily nudity).
Big budgets mean big ticket sales. They also mean action. Thus, killing.
Let's look at the top 10 (I will use US sales): Avatar (2009) - Yep, Titanic (1997)- Yep, The Dark Knight (2008) - Yep, Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) - Yep, Shrek 2 (2004) - Nope, E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) - Nope, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) - Yep, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) - Yep, Spider-Man (2002) - Yep, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) - Yep
So 9 for 10
So 9 for 10
I count 8:
Avatar (2009) - Yep
Titanic (1997) - Yep
The Dark Knight (2008) - Yep
Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) - Yep
Shrek 2 (2004) - Nope
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) - Nope
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) - Yep
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) - Yep
Spider-Man (2002) - Yep
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) - YepShrek 2 might be borderline. The giant gingerbread man bites it, and while he is depicted as a moron, he does speak.
yeah, I switched Shrek from yes to no and forgot to update the count - I am a little iffy on the sentientence of the Giant Gingerbread Man.
I have been reminded that the fairy godmother gets blown up. So 9 for 10.
So, it looks like the top US grossers only 1 was made without showing someone being killed.
So, it looks like the top US grossers only 1 was made without showing someone being killed.
Can similar percentages be calculated for cursing, sex, blasphemy, atomic-mutated monsters? (At least one of those probably peaked in the late 50s.)
Could some correlation be with average age of movie-goers?
How did the author know which depict killing?
What will happen after 100%?
Then when I read the title correctly on HN, I remembered the graph going downward and thought it was weird that films were showing less killing. I clicked through and was surprised to see that the x-axis was descending chronological order.
So now that I finally get the graph, let me throw out a WAG: with the end of the military draft, the almost complete departure of workers from agriculture, and increasing safety in society, violence of any form and especially death is not a real part of most peoples' lives. It is therefore fair game for fantasy and storytelling because there is little negative emotional experience attached to it, but there is a high degree of novelty.