Are violent films like Dhurandhar, Animal and O Romeo desensitising teens? Psychiatrists raise red flags

Dr Amit Sen, child and adolescent psychiatrist at Children First, Delhi, is no stranger to dealing with cases of teen aggression. “There has been a massive increase in juvenile crimes because of a normalisation of aggression in content, be it in films, OTT or gaming, all of which celebrate kills. None of these formats goes beyond the instant justice, hyper-violent storyline, or discusses the accountability of the conflict or the result of the protagonist’s behaviour,” he adds.

What happens in the adolescent brain when it is exposed to violent images on screen?

Studies have shown that the prefrontal cortex of the brain, which is responsible for impulse control, risk assessment and long-term planning, is not fully mature until the mid-20s. “Even at 18 years of age, this region is still fine-tuning its functioning. In contrast, the amygdala, the brain’s emotional and threat-processing centre, is firing at full capacity much earlier. While an 18-year-old may possess the intellectual capacity of an adult, their emotional regulation and executive functions are often operating on a provisional licence. Cognitive capacity (logical reasoning) matures by age 16, but psychosocial maturity (self-control) lags behind, leaving a maturity gap,” says Dr Ajinkya.

This neurodevelopmental gap is why adolescents and young adults are notoriously susceptible to peer influence, sensation-seeking and impulsivity.

Dr Sen says how 13 onwards, the pruning of the brain begins, a process which follows the “use it or lose it” principle, where commonly used neural pathways are strengthened, and rarely used ones are removed. “So, these years are very important for self-regulation to get established. It’s normal for teens to feel frustrated as they deal with rejections, failure, peer comparisons and academic pressures. If they turn it inwards, it results in mental health problems like depression of anxiety, self-loathing even. If they turn that anger outwards, it is violence, rock music, jostling in the football field and graffiti,” he says.

But if the way to manage and override these is also explained simultaneously and the teen can mimic the right adult behaviour, then there is a balance. “By consistently demonstrating positive behaviour — such as empathy, resilience, responsibility and effective communication — adults can help shape social skills and values of young people,” he adds.

What about the troubling impact of violent films on adolescent minds?

The primary danger is not that a violent film will turn a normal 18-year-old into a killer overnight. “That is a reductionist view. The risk is more insidious. The real concern is emotional desensitization and a ‘mean world syndrome.’ It is the normalisation of aggression and an indifferent to suffering. Repeated viewing of violent films can shape what a developing brain perceives as acceptable, normal, or even glamorous. When the cinematic world routinely resolves conflict with brutal force, it may erode a youngster’s normal reaction of aversion to aggression and violence,” says Dr Ajinkya.

The 2023 editorial of the journal Lancet Regional Health-Americas mentioned how research had consistently shown exposure to violent media was associated with increased anger, aggressive thoughts and violent behaviour. Besides, it is crucial to distinguish between the typical 18-year-old and a vulnerable one. “For an 18-year-old, whose identity and social scripts are still being formed, these narratives can become woven into their understanding of power, conflict and masculinity. For a young person with a stable home environment, strong social support, and well-developed critical thinking skills, a violent film is mentally processed as fiction—a temporary thrill with little to no lasting impact. However, for those struggling with mental health issues, a history of childhood trauma or social isolation; the very same content can serve as a reinforcement for maladaptive coping mechanisms and aggressive fantasies. The violent content may act as an accelerant,” explains Dr Ajinkya.

A 2008 study found that even movies rated ‘A’ for their violent content were also seen by millions of 10- to 14-year-olds, with popular titles reaching nearly half of this age group. “By the time these little guys turn 18, their cumulative exposure to screen violence is immense, having been desensitized through years of consumption. This baseline normalization makes it harder for them to recognize the potential impact of increasingly graphic content as they age,” says Dr Ajinkya.

So, how can we guide teens better?

Rather than advocating for censorship, feels Dr Ajinkya, which is both impractical and contrary to the autonomy granted to legal adults, the focus should be on media literacy and mindful consumption. “We need to equip adolescents and young adults with the tools to deconstruct what they watch — to understand the director’s intent, the difference between realistic and sensationalized violence, and the commercial motivations behind hyper-violent content. Parents and educators should continue these conversations well into early adulthood, recognising that the need for guidance doesn’t abruptly end at 18 years of age,” he advises.

Dr Sen says it is important to talk about violence and what it does before and after. “You have to give the counter-argument. So many under-18 boys get trapped in crime, and consensual teenage relationships get panned under POCSO (The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act. To prevent teens from being criminalised, we must develop their critical awareness and help reshape their responses to visual media and teach them how to navigate it rather than fully restricting it,” he says.