So I just watched the trailer for “Gangster Squad,” and it goes something like this: Gun, gun, shot of phallic-looking building, Ryan Gosling, gun, firefight, is that Nick Nolte?, firefight, guns getting handed out like candy, someone getting hit with a gun barrel, guy pointing gun in other guy’s face, gun, gun, firefight, explosion, raid involving guns, casings falling cinematically to the floor.
It’s two and a half minutes long, so I left out a lot of guns.
Comments
Ms Weiss -I'm for whatever the beautiful people decide is good for us. When we need them we can roll them out to give us good advice. We like their politics whats wrong with their guns !
Once again, an excellent article. Only have a few very minor disagreements with you:
"I’m not suggesting some vast conspiracy between the studios and the NRA. But the gun lobby understands that glamorizing firearms is very good for business. When the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre was blaming “blood-soaked slasher films” for Newtown, he neglected to mention that the NRA National Firearms Museum was showing an exhibit called “Hollywood Guns.”
It would have seemed rather odd to hear him say in the middle of that speech "Oh, and by the way, the NRA is having an exhibit of Hollywood Guns, as I speak to you today."
After investing tens millions of dollars in a film, realizing that borrowed money has interest payments on it, a studio needs to get the film into the theaters, the lenders could care less about "sensitivity" issues. So it isn't the studio, it is the investors. Once again, money.
Other than that, I think your article brings up some very valid points. My problem with these movies (other than the pure gratuitous violence) is that they foster the concept that it is somehow ok to break the law if you are doing good, no matter how violent it gets. The other HUGE thing I did not like, was the part in the trailer that stated it was based in part on a TRUE STORY, really? Exactly which part and what true story? I do not know of a gang of police officers shooting bad guys up wantonly, ever. Maybe I am wrong, doubt it. But a young person may believe that it happened, "back then".
One more step in the chain, if a person can somehow demonize another, then it is ok to shoot them.
I'll have to give you an "A" on this one "History". A well put response. While I like many am a big fan of action movies they can send a message and the first step one needs to take in order to kill another human being is to demonize them. Make them the "other". A good many of today's movies make it to easy, to impersonal almost gratifying to kill another person. Most people who has partaken in the taking of another life never quite see the world the same again. We need somehow within our culture to find a way to express what the cost of taking a life is, to the person killed and the person doing the kiling.
Thank you Mr. Turk. I mentioned a week or so ago that I had seen a segment on "The View" with a forensic psychiatrist who specializes in this area. It was well worth watching. He explained how the games and other entertainment helped someone who is dissociated from society further their disconnect and enable their actions. Interestingly, he went on to explain how something like autism is not a cause for these events, but rather masks the symptoms, making it difficult to detect this type of individual. His overall theme is that it is a pathway, not a single event that leads to the shootings.
You have to remember that people *choose* to go to these movies, they're not compelled to go. As long as the Hollywood money machine knows that blood splattering all over the screen will make them millions, they'll continue to feed people this stuff. I have a really hard time understanding why so many millions of Americans call such smut as Gangster Squad 'entertainment', I find it very unsettling to have some acquaintance describe how entertaining it was to have some guy get his guts blown out by gunfire.
Rather than focusing on Hollywood (though they do play a role in this), why are we so afraid to confront the fact that so many human beings (mostly men) have such a fascination, an obsession, with watching other human beings suffer violent death? I can't recall ever seeing an article focusing on the audiences of these violent movies, why? Is confronting this side of our humanity simply too unbearable, too scary, to admit and come to terms with? You have to remember that rather than abhorence, millions of Americans went out and bought guns after Newtown. Pretty scary, eh?
Renaldo, you are right about "choosing" to go to the movies. BUT, the TV ads are a different matter. Turn on football game, Gangster Squad ad, violent as all get out. I have seen it during other shows too. So one is exposed to it without "choosing" to see it directly.
About Americans going out and buying guns after Newtown. I am laying that right at the feet of Obama and few other morons who started howling for Gun Control. Americans do not like being told they cannot have something, so before any potential "ban" might have been enacted, they ran out to buy a gun, so that it could be "grandfathered" in. Just plain stupid, they did not "need" it before the shooting, but suddenly they thought they might "need" it after. Just stupid.
As for "abhorrence"? Anyone in their right mind felt sick over what happened, but right after that, most people thought to themselves "how is this going to affect ME?" And that by the way is a natural human reaction to any event. Some politicians immediately saw it as an opportunity to further their agendas, Feinstein, Cuomo, Patrick, Obama. I am not even the slightest convinced that they are motivated by their "deep sorrow". Others ran out to buy guns in case they could not buy them later. Some have sat down to seriously try to figure out what the HECK is going on and what to do about it. It may be a while before we hear from them. Hopefully they will not be drowned out by the radicals on either side.
This comment has been removed.
How many movie stars have armed guards? How many star in these gun movies? How many millions do they make from these movies? Most of them are for gun bans but not for themselves or movies that make money. Do as I say, but not what I do. Just like Al (global warming )Gore,
he takes money from the oil rich $100 million for his share of TV station (which he suppose to hate because of global warming) double standard anyone
not to mention having to sit through Sean Penn!
No kidding, everytime I see him, he sort of reminds me a bit of a rodent, he has that wrinkled up nose look. Well, maybe he is a rodent of some sort, given his political views and then his willingness to star in movies that are contrary to his stated beliefs.
This comment has been removed.
Violent movies (fiction) are available all around the world, but it is only in places where guns are easily obtainable that gun violence (reality) is prevalent. Yes, eliminating the glamor of guns in movies might help change public attitudes in the US, but it would be far less effective than the proper regulation of weapons designed specifically for the killing of other people.
So then what would you do when someone shoots a bunch of people with weapons not specifically designed for killing people?
BTW, contrarty to popular opinion fostered by MSM, the AR15 was not designed "specifically" to kill people. It is also used for varmint hunting, target shooting and other competitions. It's military equivalent, which has a burst and full auto mode IS designed "specifically" for killing people, which is why it has those modes.
Frankly, itty bitty tiny derringers are designed specifically to kill people. You may not remember the outcry years ago about Saturday Night Specials? If you think about most handguns, they have no other purpose than self defense, ie, killing another person.
I wonder how all these "gun banners/regulators" will sleep at night if they get their way, knowing that they have contributed to the deaths of people who could have defended themselves and their children? I suppose they will just assume those victims would have been just like them, unarmed anyhow, luck of the draw, and all that. Or justify saying, "Well, they could not have REALLY defended themselves." Even though every month dozens of people do exactly that, only the MSM doesn't like those stories.
For something not designed specifically to kill people, it's an awfully good tool for the purpose. BTW, I'm not actually in favor of an all-out ban. I'm much more in favor of regulation. Regulations should get tighter the more dangerous the weapon. So, a bolt-action 22 rifle: some regulation. A semi-automatic handgun: lots of regulations.
You didn't mention Arnold's new movie. "Bullet to the head" You can't make this stuff up.
That's not Arnold's new movie, it's Stallone's.
This comment has been removed.
As long as I can keep watching Walking Dead, I'll be happy.
Ok, but no guns for you! Not even a pink one that shoots bubbles, otherwise, you will be suspended for ten days like that little kindergarten girl.
This comment has been removed.