Jeffery Goldstein writes in an article entitled, “Why we Watch,” that the reasons why we watch violent entertainment is a conglomeration of many reasons.  According to Goldstein these reasons include: it’s a social male right of passage, it gives people a jolt, it fills the void of daily life, it makes it allowable to show emotion, and the context lets us know its not real (1998: Goldstein, 215-222).
    Goldstein talks about the male right of passage.  He feels that violent movies are something that boys can use to talk about.  It is also a way for them to prove their manhood when they can watch a gory movie without flinching (215).  When they can accomplish such a feat it is not uncommon for them to brag heavily about it.  Here is an example from my own personal life.  As a child I remember competing with other classmates as to who was going to be the first to watch Child’s Play, a horror movie about a doll that kills people.  Also, the most popular kids were the ones that had the more action packed violent video games in their house.
    Goldstein continues saying that violent movies give us a “jolt” (1998: 216).  Who does not like to be surprised?  What makes violent entertainment enjoyable is that it is out of the ordinary and is adrenaline boosting.  The popularity of horror movies can be attributed to the suspense and build-up, which increases the anxiety levels in the viewer.  For instance in Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, the famous shower scene is considered to be one of the most violent and terrifying sequences on film (1996: Bouzereau, 184).  The build-up to that scene worked so well that many audience members believed that they saw the blade slash into the actress, when in fact it never touches her (1996: Bouzereau, 184).  This psychosomatic reaction is what sensation seekers are looking for to escape daily life.
    Life may seem too bland to some people according to Goldstein.  He talks historically of the days when there used to be public executions, where anyone could watch (1998: 217).  Now today we have laws and are “civilized”, and do not allow for such displays.  Goldstein says that violent movies can be a way to vicariously get that thrill sensation in a more civilized manner (217).  Another author Sissela Bok writes in her book Mayhem, about the Romans who held death matches in large arenas.  She however feels that with the Romans, “…there is little or no intended cruelty behind the horrors that befall victims, the paradoxical pleasure found in the carnage that humans inflict on one another is absent.  Here, the terror of the circumstances often blends with pity for the victims—something entirely different for the pitilessness that accompanies much entertainment violence” (1998:Bok, 29).  Still she connects that the media and industries does exploit the thrill feeling that comes from violence, as it is highlighted in video games and movies (1998: Bok, 29).
    Because violent entertainment is suppose to shock the audience that it makes it allowable to show emotion.  Goldstein gives examples that in a theater women are allowed to gasp and turn away, and its okay for men to feel a reaction to the film (1998: 218).  The contradiction comes to play though, as Goldstein discussed earlier that young and adolescent boys socially should not show disgust when viewing violence.  They are trapped in only showing pleasure, else they run the risk of being separated from their peers.  Mike Berry, Tim Gray, and Ed Donnerstien performed a study on the arousal, enjoyability, and perceptions of film violence on a sample of male and female U.S. students.  They found that cutting the stimulus movie significantly increased the enjoyablility for women, whereas there was no significant difference for men.  Surprisingly the cutting of the film made no difference in men’s arousal level where the cut film significantly lowered women’s arousal level (1999: Berry, Gray, and Donnerstien, 11).  This study shows that women are more excited by violent depiction, which could be a social conditioning effect.
    Finally, Goldstein says that we know that the movie is just a movie.  The context lets us know that it is not real.  We are sitting in the audience and many times the violence on-screen is shown at a distance so we are not connected or attached to the violent acts (1998: 220).  In addition he says it creates a fantasy for us where we can unplug and lose ourselves for awhile (219).  Some critics of media violence would say that is the exact reason why they are opposed to violent movies.  They feel that when we disconnect with what is happening on-screen we are desensitizing ourselves.  Sissela Bok feels that seeing violence played out over and over blur in people’s minds eventually conditioning them to a state of mind called “compassion fatigue,” where someone can simply view everyday violence as an uninvolved bystander (1998: 68).  Still Goldstein adds that in the movies we can create justice, where the bad guys always “get it” in the end (220).  In the real world where random acts of violence occur with seemingly no reason or motivation behind them, seeing justice on-screen may provide some sort of comfort.
    For whatever reason we watch violent movies for a reaction, to escape, or to seek a better reality, violent entertainment is a large industry.  Today the media is so full of violent images it is hard to avoid it.  Therefore it is important to explore the effects of viewing violence on our society and within ourselves, because it helps us understand our human nature.

Berry, Mike; Gray, Tim; and Ed Donnerstein. "Cutting film violence: Effects on perceptions, enjoyment, and arousal." The Journal of Social Psychology Washington October 1999, Issue 5. Bok, Sissela.  Mayhem.  Reading, Massachusetts: A Merloyd Lawrence Book, 1998.
Bouzereau, Laurent.  Ultraviolent Movies From Sam Peckinpah to Quentin Tarantino.  USA: Citadel Press Carol Publishing Group, 1996.
Goldstein, Jeffrey H. (editor) Why we watch.  The Attraction of Violent Entertainment.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.