Posted on 07/28/2012 8:41:59 AM PDT by moneyrunner
If it's now coming out that the Colorado Killer, James Holmes, was obsessed with being a character in the Batman movie, shouldn't we be having a national discussion on how much Hollywood is responsible for this murderous rampage. And while we're at it, a lot of the other social ills like the sexualization of teens, out-of-wedlock births and gang violence, all depicted in living color on the silver screen? On Tuesday, Matt Drudge linked to a blistering attack on Hollywood by Charles Hurt of the Washington Times in response to the massacre at the midnight Friday showing of the new Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado: You are devastated that such an “innocent and hopeful place” — here you are talking about the movie theaters that play your twisted movies — would be violated in such an “unbearably savage” way. I mean, really, who could think up such monstrous hatred and nihilistic violence? Umm, have you watched any of your own movies lately?
And, in the selfless modesty that is the hallmark of an Academy Awards ceremony, you tell us that your “feelings” about the massacre are so deeply profound that the mere words of the English language built up over hundreds of years are simply not up to the task of describing them. Wow. You do have a gift for fantasy.
But the real clue that you remain shrouded in guilt-free delusion is when you mention the “senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community.” Senseless? Really? If by “senseless” you mean carried out almost precisely from the scripts of your own movies, then, sure, it was “senseless.”
Crazy people obsess over lots of things, you could never remove every possible influence to their delusions, nor would it stop the delusions. All you would do is inconvenience the rest of us who are not crazy and will never develop a violent delusion no matter how many violent movies we watch.
probably because we refuse to be our brothers’ keepers
There is one and only one thing/person to blame, and that is the despicable POS who commited this crime.
300,000,000 people see a cumulative one-third to one trillion murders depicted per year.
One third to one half of those people have easy access to a gun.
For all that, there is about one mass shooting per year.
That pretty much eliminates any correlation.
That pretty much proves no causation.
In contrast, 93 people are killed each day with automobiles.
And nobody gives a damn.
There was a Cracked.com article on the most vicious, horrific scenes in Shakespeare. Cutting off a girl’s tongue and hands. Feeding a dead child to an unsuspecting parent. Murders of parents by children and vice versa. Shakespeare had lots of blood, guts and gore. No one is blaming his classic works for murders through the centuries.
Blame the murderers, not the social media they may have watched.
Hollywood must have been worried that their films may have caused the murder of JFK. They immediately withdrew THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE from circulation for many years.
After the death of Bobby Kennedy all movies from the 1940s through the 1960s were recut and butchered to remove “excessive violence” before being shown on TV. Now, if those movies had no influence why were they recut?
And if movies don’t influence people why is there so much product placement in them? Now James Bond is drinking a European beer instead of his usual “Shaken, not stirred”. drink.
What inspired a kid to think he could fly and throw himself out of an apartment window after seeing SUPERMAN?
What inspired an idiot to injure himself jumping his unmodified auto like THE DUKES OF HAZARD?
Why did white dinner jackets fly off the shelf after James Bond wore one in DR NO?
Why did the .44 mag S&W become scarce after the DIRTY HARRY movie?
What inspired Colt to start making their old Peacemaker in the 1950s?
What inspired two young people to go on a killing spree after seeing NATURAL BORN KILLERS?
Movies are not so much entertainment as a source of advertizement. They won’t affect most of us but then there are still kooks out there.
Your comment is off base, psychiatrists have a duty to report criminal activity, and they adhere to it. The idea that a psychiatrist is breaking patient confidentiality by reporting criminal activity is a Hollywood myth. You can bet that this shrink had no idea what he was planning.
Thank you for cutting to the chase and describing what happened from a biblical, theologically correct position = the root of the problem - sin, the motivation behind his henious actions - his own lusts, and the fact that he alone bears responsibility for his crimes, not “guns” or movies, etc.
Movies can affect those prone to violence or the mentally unstable. In the early 70’s I was stationed at Hill AFB, at the base theater they played a Eastwood Dirty Harry Film (Magnum Force IIRC) a week later 3 airmen from the base went into Ogden UT and acted out a murder during the course of a robbery ie made people drink drano as a guy in the film did.
Clearly these people were prone to violence and went to prison for their crimes, however the roles of the movie with these criminals cannot be ignored.
If the guy was obsessed with being the Joker he sure didn’t do a good job of it. Clothes are all wrong, color scheme is all wrong, the bombs as distraction plan was kind of Joker-esque except his bombs didn’t work, then there’s the whole giving himself up peacefully thing. Pretty much not Joker, which tells you exactly how much it’s because of the movies: not at all.
You could make the case that it's video games as much or more than movies that influence these kooks.
Just look at the 1960’s tongue & cheek Batman series compared to the stream of Batman films that have come out in recent years. Look at the Joker for example. Cesar Romero played the Joker in the 1960’s.
Well, as you say, it was a tongue-in-cheek version made for the family television audience, so there wasn't an opportunity for graphic violence.
I watched a documentary about exploitation film director Roger Corman recently. He's been doing some very gory and grisly stuff for almost 60 years now, without it having much effect, so far as I know.
To be sure, though, Roger Corman's movies were so low budget and cheesy and the effects were so obvious that few self-respecting nuts would want to imitate them.
Great points. I don’t know why others aren’t seeing this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.