The Moviegoer: School Shootings, Violent Entertainment and Other Funny Games
I had already been thinking about violence in entertainment since I saw Funny Games at Sundance; Michael Haneke's English-language remake of his own 1997 film is a grim piece of moviemaking, and one designed to start arguments about why and how we watch violent films. And then the NIU school shooting last Thursday brought all those thoughts to the front of my brain, with Illinois legislator Rep. Robert Pritchard imploring us to examine a "culture of violence" in movies and videogames, and Fox News guest and headline-grabbing hack Jack Thompson suggesting that violent videogames played a role in events at NIU. Anytime there's a mass shooting, it seems, the discussion comes up as to whether or not violent culture leads to violent acts.
As a film critic, I can only say one thing in response to those cultural pundits on the right and left who suggest that mass shootings are inspired by movies and videogames, which is, simply, "You're wrong." And that may seem a little sharp, but now and then a little sharpness is the only way to even scratch the stone-solid wrongheadedness of some people's thought processes. There are a variety of exercises in logic one can run though to demolish the theory that violent entertainment correlates to violent activity in a matter of seconds. Various mechanisms distribute American pop culture throughout the world, whether legal ones like multinational theatrical and DVD distribution or illegal ones like DVD piracy and peer-to-peer downloading. American pop culture is viewed and appreciated (or, in some cases, viewed and despised) worldwide by a large, avid audience. And yet, Western democracies like Germany, Canada, Australia and Britain don't have a statistically-similar rate of mass shootings or gun murders. Economically and demographically similar audiences are watching these films, and yet, viewers in other nations aren't making the leap to arming themselves and shooting people as the final possible act of film appreciation.
And, as I've joked with gallows humor before when this line of argument comes up, if you're suggesting that a violent pop culture causes violent activity, then when we follow that suggestion to logical conclusions, there shouldn't be a single person alive in Japan. And I know that joke may seem fairly broad and easy, but like every joke there's a kernel of truth in it; the extremes of some Japanese pop culture are far more violent than any American equivalent. Cultural conservatives on the right and left, though, can't explain why the gun-toting action of some Anime and films like Battle Royale isn't being re-created in the streets of Tokyo on a regular basis.
I didn't grow up in America, so I have no great or grand investment in the Second Amendment as an iconic principle of the American character. However, I'm in the process of becoming an American citizen, and I've been able to read English for a long time, so I feel like I have as much right to assert my position on the matter as any taxpayer. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of a well-regulated militia. (And, much like some of the other language in the Bill of Rights, the times have changed; in my neighborhood, I'm more worried about getting tagged with a stray bullet than I am about British soldiers.) In a perfect world (which is to say, my perfect world and not yours), if you're a private citizen who'd like to own a gun, great; join the National Guard. You'll have access to it when you're on maneuvers and deployed. Otherwise, you don't. And as for hunters and rural farmers who "need" firearms, I'd be willing to make a compromise for them: they can own one single-shot, bolt-action long rifle with no magazine whose ballistic signature is already on file at the local police station -- which would also be the only place you can buy and store your bullets. (I once had a lengthy discussion about this with a cabbie in Vegas who was an avid hunter; when I suggested that if he truly loved hunting he could enjoy it just as much with a bow and arrow or single-shot bolt-action rifle, he countered that he wanted more firepower than that, because "I hate to see animals suffer." "Well," I noted with careful timing as we arrived at my destination, "then maybe you shouldn't be shooting them.")
Other than that? Stop selling guns, stop selling ammo -- smash the molds and melt the inventory, with a very short amnesty period for people to turn their guns in, after which possession of a gun, never mind use, brings a life sentence. And I know this penalizes 'law-abiding' gun owners -- but, seeing as how robberies and thefts from 'law-abiding' gun owners are how so many murder weapons come into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill, I don't have a lot of sympathy for that as an argument or a philosophical principle. Maybe you could talk me into seeing things that way. Maybe my thoughts about guns are a bunch of crazy jibber-jabber, and you can explain to me why they're naive or impractical. I don't know. At least we'd be talking about it.
But when tragic events like the NIU shooting happen, we don't talk about the guns. We talk about the media, or the killer going off their medicines, or how there were no warning signs or how there were plenty of warning signs. My jaw dropped at a quote in a story about the NIU shooting, as internet gun seller Eric Thompson, who also sold equipment to the Virginia Tech shooter, expressed his shock after learning his store had sold Glock magazines and a holster to NIU shooter Steven Kazmierczak: "I'm still blown away by the coincidences. I'm shaking. I can't believe somebody would order from us again and do this." You sell gun accessories, and yet you can't believe someone would use them to do what they're made for? And if you're so shaken, why are you still in business?
No, guns don't kill people. But they make it a lot easier to do so, especially at a moment's notice as the result of some insane impulse; we can't legislate against someone wanting to pick up a gun, but we can make it less easy for them to have one, or four, or more at hand when they reach out for one. And gun companies don't kill people; they just make a lot of money as their products are used to kill people. If Kazmierczak had stepped into that class with a golf club or a knife or a baseball bat or a length of chain, many would still be hurt and some might still be dead. But he stepped into that class with three pistols and a shotgun, all of them legally obtained, and it makes me nauseated and ashamed that the first unbidden reaction I had to the NIU shootings was that five victims and the killer's own suicide seemed like a 'low' death count. And yes, we need better mental health funding in this country, so that the cracks people slip through are smaller. And we need to have constant serious discussions about what our entertainment says about us, and what that means. But at some point, someone -- I don't know who, but I strongly doubt it'll be any of the current presidential candidates, some of whom would rather offer prayers and more prayers than policy initiatives, some of whom would rather write books instead of laws -- someone needs to stand up and say that the very American principle of private gun ownership is leading to a very American practice of murder and tragedy. Mr. Pritchard and Mr. Thompson and others on the right and left suggest we need to look at the "culture of violence." But we've been talking about the culture of violence in relation to mass shootings for years and years now; when do we start really talking about guns?
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Dear Mr. Rocchi
Thank you for your concise but comprehensive argument against our the constant condemnation of our "culture of violence". Considering that you did not grow up in the United States also gives you an important point of view on the exhausted topic of blaming all of our problems on the media and culture. You make a very valid point that American films are enjoyed equally across the globe, yet the alleged violence that they incite in viewers is not equally shared. It is true, our gun control policies along with inadequacies in the mental health system are to blame. But the NRA lobbyists and firearm supporters have too much of a stronghold in our policy making. Defenders of vague Second Amendment Constitutional rights allow guns to be bought and sold too easily, letting them fall into the hands of the mentally ill. The most recent case of this being the NIU tragedy. With such high rates of suicide among those diagnosed with depression, should a retailer be allowed to sell three handguns and a shotgun to an individual with such afflictions as Kazmierczak. Background checks have loopholes and basically anyone can bypass laws that restrict who can buy firearms through gun shows. The NIU shooting is especially scary because by most accounts, prior to February 14th, Kazmierczak did not show any outward signs of his impending violence. Considering that depression is a highly fatal illness combined with the danger that Kazmierczak went off his medication three weeks earlier, his psychiatrist could have taken precautions to avoid guns falling into his hands if we had better system in place. As you said, "we need better mental health funding in this country, so that the cracks people slip through are smaller." The Tarasoff warning is already in place, which makes it the duty of mental health professionals to protect and warn individuals in danger due to threats or the condition of their patient. Shouldn't we allow them to suggest to the authorities that maybe their patient should have his gun rights at least temporarily removed. You are entirely just in assuming that if Kazmierczak did not have such easy access to firearms, his violent episode might not have been nearly as tragic. It seems that the aggression and violence that results from mental illness is characterized by a lack of control of impulses, and clearly the personal firearm is a far-too-deadly and impulsive weapon to be allowed in the hands of those with a characteristic lack of control. Psychology should have a lot more to say about gun control.
Hello James,
I'm going to throw my hat into the ring and make my own comment on why I disgaree with your position on guns for three reasons:
1. Self Defense is a Human Right
2. The Swiss have Assault Rifles at home (and the training to use them)
3. "Gun Free" Zone Colleges v. "Self Defense" Zones
1. Self-Defense is a Human Right
Unlike the UN Human Rights Comission, I'm a firm believer that Self-Defense is a Human Right on par with Freedom of Speech. For better or wose, firearms are an essential component of Self-Defense: defending against others, foreign invaders and even one's own government.
Is the American People willing to accept the Patriot Act, new wiretapping laws and the relinquishes of the only last means of defense against a government, many of the US public are weary of?
Indeed, what would be more effective for UN Intervention in Darfur? UN's constant sending of very angry letters to Khartoum or sending AK-47s and ammo so that the oppressed people of Darfur would at least have a *fighting* chance?
Does that mean I support the sale of machine guns (banned in the Us since the 20s) or that of assault rifles? Not necessarily.
There has been some thoughts on the links between gun freedom and political freedom:
http://pap
2. Every Japanese person watch violent movies, Every Swiss has an Assault Weapon
The "Japan has Violent media so they're doing fine" is a common argument; it is an argument I agree with.
But, if you want to make that Japan a case, why stop there? The Swiss are all required to train in the miliary. The Swiss even gets to keep their miltiary-grade, government issues assault rifles and some ammon - in their home. (This was changed in 2007, but still no major incidents so far)
Yet, calling the Swiss a violent gun-toting folk is like calling British cuisine supurb.
3. "Gun Free Zones" versus "Self-Defense" Zones
Shootings at the New Life Church in Colorado and Appalachian School of Law in Virginia last year were stopped by either private-armed citizens or students with gunracks on their cars (I kid you not) on the premises, not the police.
How different could the NIU shooting have been, if a law-biding study (or teacher) would of been able to run to their car, grab their gun and rush to stop Steven Kazmierczak? While we would of never known, that alternative never had a chance: NIU is a "Gun Free Zone".
Closing Words
So why the violence in America? Cultural Factors? Alienation?
What is it, it is a systemic issue - not Mortal Kombat, not Grand Theft Auto or the availability of weapons. That would be too simple and convenient.
You're right about one thing: Guns don't kill people. Our hateful attitude toward others kills people. But it's hard to teach children a lifetime of compassion and respect for others. It's easy to outlaw guns or scream about violence in films and games. Yeah, that's the American parent for you. Always blame someone else, because you raised a creep who bullies others at school or treats people like dirt. Every now and then someone who can't take the crap we dish out to one another any more lashes out. When our nation is led by a creep, someone who advocates torture and materialism and greed and class hatred, the problem intensifies. Ask yourself why so many of these events have occurred while Bush is in office. If you want a better world, where people don't shoot one another all the time, then raise your kids with better values. Take time with your fellow humans. Don't write people off because they're not as well off as you are. Strive for kindness instead of coolness. It's difficult, isn't it? And you'd rather pay for a quick fix and go back to your martini and your $2 million house, wouldn't you?
refer to www.freere
Before I'm labled as some kind of gun nut, it's important to me to say that I am a gun owner, a democrat, believer of social causes, a veteran and a patriot. This country is unique with it's history - good or bad and that includes the use of guns. They're as American as apple pie. I could argue convincing arguments either way on the issue of gun control but I'd rather relate some anecdotal facts that may give cause to reflect.
Fact: It is very rare that the cops can save you during a bad situation already in progress - they show up (maybe) to take the report but they don't save you. Learned this thru a fairly recent real-life experience.
Fact: The cities in the US with the most restrictive gun control laws also have some of the highest murder rates.
Fact: The countries where the average citizen isn't allowed a gun, statistically abuse their people at a much higher rate because the locals can't defend themselves.
Fact: The highest profile people who are anti-gun in this country either pack heat and or are surrounded with armed guards. Yet they regulate an inadequate defense for me.
(Senators Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer both have concealed weapons permits - me and 99.9% of the population in California are not allowed the same)
Fact: Most massacre type shootings take place in a gun-free zone where everyone except the shooter is unarmed in accordance with the law. No one has ever pointed a gun at me at the gun range where I practise my skills.
The common thread between the shootings at NIU and Vtech was that the shooters experienced KNOWN mental problems
Just food for thought...
I know it's a cliche but the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The fact that the increased levels of gun ownership in the United States is indisputable. One need only compare the rate of gun homocides in the UK, where all handguns are banned (even the olympic pistol team is banned from practicing in the UK), with that of the free-for-all style American gun legislation. US rates are a staggering 14 times higher than those of the UK.
I sincerely doubt that the founding fathers ever intended the second amendment to allow for accidental deaths, rampant gang violence and the acts of the deeply disturbed.
This is much simpler than most people acknowledge. It's like the elephant in the living room that no one mentions. Everyone walks around it, decorates around it, lives with it, but never discusses it.
We have so many gun deaths because guns are widely and cheaply available in this country.
Even assuming there is an individual right to own a gun (which I think is not clearly set forth in the Constitution), there is no constitutional right which is not subject to governmental restriction under some circumstances.
We have those circumstances today with our country saturated with guns sold by fly-by-night gun dealers in carnival tents. No controls, no restrictions, no responsibility or liability for the gun owner.
In my community we recently had a 14-year-old bring daddy's gun to school and shoot a gay student in the head. Brain dead. The consequences? The 14 year old will presumably be locked up. A lot of good that does for the brain dead kid or his family. And the parents of the 14 year old who made the gun available, what happens to them? Nothing, because the NRA has bribed our politicians to prevent them from passing laws to protect the public.
For example, why not prohibit ownership of handguns. Anyone who wants to protect their home can buy a shot gun, harder to smuggle into a school. For example, why not require $500,000 liability insurance be carried by any gun owner to compensate the public for possible injuries from the gun. We require car owners to carry insurance. Why not gun owners?
We need to get rid of the guns, stop the distribution at school carnivals and church picnics, at least impose as strict prohibitions as we have for the sale of alcohol, and start protecting the public from the insane murderous social policies of the NRA.
Actually, we have all this violence, not because guns are cheap, but quite frankly, because life is cheap. Or at least that is how we as a culture continue to live. By the way, there is a right to own guns, but that was given by the founding fathers who never imagined that America would be peopled by a collective population that acts as if it never made it through puberty.
One of the main reasons I would never have a gun is that I'm afraid I would use it. It's waaaaaayyy too easy to do serious, widespread and irrevocable harm to oneself and others with that tidy little weapon. Making sure that any spontaneous killing we would like to do would have to be done by hand would probably eliminate 90% of murders and suicides in this country.
I have to correct you on one misunderstanding, though. Although 98% of gun nuts intentionally misinterpret the 2nd amendment to allow them all to carry weapons to prevent theft, to make their weenies look bigger (it doesn't work, fellas), and/or to "hunt," you are equally wrong in acting as though it's to protect us from "British Soldiers." The sole, and totally legitimate purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm the populace so that when we (inevitably) get a tyrannical government (hellooooo?? NRA???? Where are ya????), we can rise up against it and take our country back for the people.
So, the real question is - how do we arm the populace against Dictators in our White House, but restrict the use of those weapons to only their legitimate use? It's extremely tricky.
I reserve the right to own more firepower than the police. I reserve the right to own armor piercing, kevlar piercing ballistics. I reserve the right to store 10,000 gallons of gasoline in MY garage, 20 feet from YOUR bedroom. I reserve the right to judge you to be a threat to my community. And the right to deem that threat actionable
You can "reserve the right" to anything you want. That doesn't mean you can't be held liable, criminally and/or civilly for acts of stupidity and gross negligence.
While I think your being snarky some people might think your serious...
There is a reason that nobody bothers talking about the guns. When my Dad had diabetes, and we didn’t know it, he was always thirsty. We solved that by making sure he had giant gallon jugs of water in the fridge ready when he needed them. Solved the immediate problem, but didn’t help the disease. Take away guns, and the killers will find other ways, possibly more destructive (learn to build a bomb on the free internet). Most mass killings are, in the end, meticulously planned out, not spontaneous. The people who kill want to. Why?
60 years ago, far more households owned guns than do today. Guns were easily available. Why, people left their guns loaded in the house (I knew several who had loaded guns in their bedrooms. We were told to leave them alone and, you know what? We left them alone). No, focusing on guns is just putting water in the fridge.
At the end of the day, it is the fault of the availability of guns, the gratuitous violence deliberately aimed at our kids, and to be honest, the fact that as a culture, we are pretty darn pathetic. We celebrate the bad, we hate those with whom we disagree, we champion the ethic of F*-You! What did we expect? Tea parties? But since nobody wants to give up their little peace of the pie, we continue chasing red herrings, blaming ‘those other guys’, and trying to insist that we are right about everything, so it couldn’t possibly be anything WE advocate.
I think that these instances of accepted violence in our culture speak more to the general attitude toward violence in this country. Many users on horsematch
At last someone has sense enough to make a connection between the firepower available and the casualty rates inflicted by nuts. I remember, back at the time of the Columbine shootings, remarking that considering the available firepower and the US high school system, the fact that school shootings are rare enough to be news is proof of the emotional stability of US teenagers. Sadly, this did not go over well. It's still true that if nuts had fewer guns, they would kill fewer people.
Violent movies and video games don't cause school shootings. Teen soap operas cause school shootings, for they present an image of what is required to be a Cool Kid...and if you don't have the cash to buy the requisite clothes, accessories, car, or music or don't engage in the displayed activities, then you're not a person and are a legitimate target for unrelenting harassment by the Cool Kids who are all about telling you that you should steer clear of them but refuse to reciprocate. Ultimately a school shooting is not the demented idea that it would be cool to reenact THE MATRIX in real life, but the loudest and most effective scream of "Leave me the hell alone!" the kid could concoct because the only barometer for a kid's situation is their report card...and any half-decent crisis manager can maintain a B average.
Maybe the argument shouldn't be that violent movies/games/etc don't influence MOST people to commit violence, but maybe an argument could be made that it MAY influence AMERICANS. After all, how many times have we heard lately the "ticking time bomb" scenario straight out of 24 as an excuse to torture? It IS a FACT that "interrogators" (read: torturers) took cues from that exact show 24 on tips for torturing prisoners. That's a fact, Jack. So how you can say torture porn flicks and shootem up games have NO influence on Americans is a little beyond me. I think it's more likely that these instances of accepted violence in our culture speak more to the general attitude toward violence in this country. The more you see blood and guts, the more you become desensitized to it. The more you see the good guy settling scores with killing and violence, the more you come to believe that may be the right way to act. That's behaviorism 101. These issues need to be considered, not just dismissed out of hand.
I was born in rural Texas 70 years ago. I grew up with toy guns when I was young, went to see Western movies, played war, had a BB gun when I was 6 years old, and was given my first rifle on my 10th birthday. I was taught gun safety from the time I could walk and talk. Every other child in town was given the same opportunity and everyone in town had rifles and shotguns. Some even carried their weapons in racks behind the seat of their vehicles.
I moved to a larger town and attended a high school that had a Reserve Officer Training Corps program. There was a rifle range in the basement of the school and a select group of cadets with marksmanship skills were allowed to compete with other rifle teams fielded by other high schools. We used fully functional regulation military “assault rifles” while marching on the school campus in plain view of everyone. Of course, they were not loaded.
The college I attended also had an R.O.T.C. program and I was chosen to compete on the team and traveled across Texas to other colleges to competition matches.
When I entered the United States Army, I qualified as Expert Marksman with the military issued rifle of the day and was required to re-qualify every year. I was selected to participate in unit pistol matches at my duty station.
In civilian life, I have hunted game and participated in rifle and pistol matches for much of my life. I even served as a police officer many years ago. I have never shot a human being, either accidentally or on purpose, during war or peace, and I hope I never have to but I want to have the option if my life is in danger.
Blaming the tool, or the availability of the tool, for the act of the user is no different than blaming violent games and movies for his mindset. Should we eliminate either or both?
I don’t have the solution to the problem and neither do you.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, I'll be willing to bet you NEVER ONCE considered taking a gun to school and killing a classmate, no matter how angry you might have gotten at one. I was taught to shoot and respect guns at an early age. I had access to rifles and pistols. As many times as I got angry at classmates or teachers in all my years of schooling, the idea of physically harming someone (beyond a good punch) never even crossed my mind.
I'm about your age, and qualified on the M1.
There were three levels at which one qualified: Marksman, Sharpshooter, or Expert.
There was no such animal as an Expert Marksman.
And yes, I do blame the "tool," as you put it.
Canada, correct me if I'm wrong, does censor out some violence on the tv, less on the sex. More sex, less violence. Works for me. They also have hockey.
Can't speak for all of Canada, but as a Canadian citizen born and raised, I can indeed assure you that you are wrong; Canadian provinces long ago ended the onerous practice of censoring movies for either sex or violence (instead of cuts they now issue ratings, just like the US. BTW, back in the censorious days it was sex that was trimmed, not violence - again, just like the states.) Furthermore, Canadian television is far more liberal in what can be shown on network airwaves than anything I've ever seen south of the border. (Recent example: CTV, a national 'over the air' network, has been airing "The Sopranos" intact - sex, violence, Carlin's seven words and all.) What we don't have in Canada is easy access to firearms. Rifles and ammo require a special certificate, a process that includes police questioning of friends and relatives to determine motives and stability. Pistols and revolvers are nearly impossible to obtain, unless you can prove you need the weapon only for target shooting, in which case your permit allows you to carry the weapon to and from a licenced target range only, with no stops along the way. A so-called "carry" permit is so rare that when it was revealed that a Toronto politician had one, a gift from his buddies on the police force, the controversy went on for months.
Sorry to dump on your traditional "guns don't kill" nonsense, but they do, and keeping them away from the easily deluded or deranged helps keep a few of us alive a bit longer. It's also why our hockey season seems to stretch out until June.
Loading comments…
Posted February 19, 2008 | 11:28 PM (EST)