Violence In Films

Peter T. Chattaway, a film critic for Christianity Today and Books & Culture, and an associate editor at B.C. Christian News, agrees that onscreen violence has its place: “It’s a question of how those things are portrayed.” Those things he is talking about is violence. I found this interesting because if violence is portrayed as only killing and blood every where for no reason, it shouldn't be in a film or watched. If there is violence and it is used to prove something, to show good/right and if it has meaning then it is fine. Like Peter said it all matters on how violence is portrayed.
“In a proper context, depicting violence can be used to send valuable messages to those mature enough to view it in its context." This is what Michael Elliot says. I found this interesting because it is what I found a lot of critics said and because it is something I agree with. I agree with it because I think that if there is violence put into a film it shouldn't just be fill space, but it should be put in the film because it is proving something or because it has meaning a ties into the film and what the film means.
One thing that I disagree with is that it is said in this article that, Parental responsibility is a serious problem today; otherwise, how could so many kids so regularly consume “violent meals”? I don't think it is the parents fault, but it is their kids fault for putting themselves in front of that violence and watching it.
I think that violence is good to have in some films and bad to have in others. Violence is good to have in films when it is meaningful and actually plays a role in the movie and isn't just filling space. I do not believe that violence should be in a film just to get more money, but to show and prove something. Violence must have a reason.