Illustration by Ryan Davis

“She’d do anything for attention,” Elspeth remarks in “Saltburn.” She wasn’t talking about mainstream media and its need for shock value, but she may as well have been.

Everything in “Saltburn,” the graphic violence in “Napoleon,” and the glorification of drugs and abuse in “Euphoria” all beg the question: Have we seen everything? As media gets more and more graphic, we are all subject to the race to shock audiences. 

Nothing inspires change or conversation in today’s society like shock. Films and books and television shows produce shock value because it’s effective. Nearly every social media post about “Saltburn” focuses on the nature of one of three explicit scenes, none of which are cinematically great. In a study conducted by the University of British Columbia, it was proven that safe sex advertisements with higher shock value promoted higher rates of change in consumer behavior.

Often, writers and directors choose to shock us simply because they have the opportunity to. Scorsese’s new film rendition of the book “Killers of the Flower Moon” contains a clip of Robert De Niro repeatedly spanking Leonardo DiCaprio. The scene is not found in the book nor important to the plot in any way. Similarly, in “Blonde” — a Marilyn Monroe biopic that is also Netflix’s first NC-17 movie — they depict a graphic scene of a sexual encounter between Marilyn Monroe and JFK. Because they could. Critics have since labeled the film “trauma porn.” 

This kind of purposeless shock value is not limited to Hollywood. “Lapvona” by Ottessa Moshfegh (the wildly popular author of “My Year of Rest and Relaxation”) is packed with scenes of graphic violence and sex. “The New Republic” declared the book a “relentless gore fest” and Moshfegh a “virtuoso of bodily fluids.” 

Desensitization to violence and sexual content has serious and significant effects on our everyday lives. A study, which was performed on undergraduates, found that habitual exposure to media violence results in much higher rates of real-life aggressive behavior. Violence in “13 Reasons Why” led to an increase in youth suicide rates, which resulted in the removal of a scene depicting the main character’s suicide two years after the show’s release. However, the television show, which centers on minors, still contains scenes of graphic sexual violence. 

We can all agree that censorship is harmful to societal growth and personal development. I am not arguing against media with difficult themes and complex narratives. Rather, I am arguing against the use of these themes and narratives with no intention other than to elicit gasps in consumers. 

According to entertainment scholar Maria Popova, “A powerful story transcends the shock value to help the reader reconcile the cognitive dissonance of controversy and emerge closer to the ‘truth,’ if only just a little bit.” As consumers, we can work against desensitization. Let’s be sure not to conflate tragedy or violence with progressiveness. If something shocks you, talk about why without glorifying it. When you see graphic scenes of violence and abuse, start conversations about why these things are not okay — not about how crazy the movie was. Controversy does not equate with creativity.