Death (by Gun) Wish XIII

New York has recently passed important new gun control law legislation led by the efforts of Gov. Cuomo, hopefully setting the stage for similar legislation across the country. The new laws expand New York’s ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and beginning next January, will prohibit the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Given the recent spate of shootings, most recently in Boston following the tragedy at Sandy Hook, it appears essential that state legislators act, as Congress is again hampered by the party of no. Yet one "liberal" group seems less than pleased with the new law. Who is it? The NRA? Of course they would never be considered liberal, even if Michael Moore is a proud member. Maybe it's the DNC? No, they actually support gun control. Could it be the "liberal" media? No, they have tended to push the need for gun control, even if it might hurt ratings. In fact it is Hollywood, worried they will lose their cinema verite appeal if they are forced to use false weapons: NYT.

Of course, Hollywood liberalism has always been based more on convenience than actual leftward-leanings. From naming names to pushing gay studio actors toward faux dates or marriages, to their long history of racism and sexism that continues to the present day, Hollywood actors and producers have always been liberals of convenience who engage in politics out of some noblesse oblige rather than desire to actually change things. Sure there are actors like Paul Newman and George Clooney who do some good (though the latter seems to only make political films that end up with cynical conclusions), and many Hollywood films certainly do bring important issues and perspectives to American households. But the general focus of Hollywood has always been on making money, even in the halcyon 70s, when the auteurs not only made great films and changed the industry, but also broke up the old union system, allowing studios to pay less for the "invisible" talent.

When it comes to violence, well the only thing that sells better than violence in American films is sex and Hollywood has even made violence sexy (what bell hooks once aptly called "pugilistic eroticism"). Hollywood banks on violence even more than a pretty face these days and they fear that American audiences (and the increasingly large international variety) just can't be entertained by single-shot guns and rifles. We need those assault rifles to make the movies "real" and "exciting." But do we really? Well, maybe -- given how bad the plots and writing have become in blockbusters. Even the producers of Law & Order SVU are worried that lack of access to real assault weapons will undermine the appeal of the show -- maybe better at combining sex and violence than any other (though in an extremely depressing setting that makes one wonder, who would want to actually watch the depravity).

Yet as someone who watches films from all over the world, I must less than respectfully disagree with Hollywood. French, Italian and British films sometimes fall prey to American instincts towards violence, but tend to center their stories more around plot and characters. Yes filmmakers receive government funding there and the profit margins are much slimmer, but do we really need so much fictional violence? Not satisfied with the daily doses available from television drama, action flicks and video games, we have even increasingly turned to the Nordic countries, where they specialize in extreme violence (ala Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Headhunters, Annika Bengtzon, The Killing, Wallander, etc.). Maybe the powerful medium of film must finally take some responsibility for the world they've wrought. Celebrating violence on TV and in films, particularly without really contemplating its effects, must ultimately have some effect on the population? Sure, in some cases it is purely escape, catharsis, sublimation of deeper desires and the like -- but the sheer magnitude of it, particularly that consumed by young boys and men still determining who they are, has clearly manifest in increased violence toward women, between men and in the mass shooting that have plagued us for years. 

Hollywood is merely a symptom in the bigger problem of America, a country that makes most of our decisions based on profit margins and corporate interest. It is time for the American public to demand more responsibility to those who are the key ideological machine in the country (if not the globe), more powerful than schools, parents or the church. This is not a call for protectionism, but to start a serious debate about what parents and the larger society really want and how to get studios to make it. As just one example -- American audiences questioned about what genre they would like to see more of almost always pick comedy, but still action films dominate new releases. Why? Because it is hard to create a comedy that will resonate with international audiences, given language and cultural differences. But is this excuse enough to continue allowing our media executives to abrogate any responsibility for what they are selling to the youth (and adults) today? This of course ignores the advertisers, who are even worse.