I want to make special note of my pal Paul Harrill's recent posts on his blog, which is normally one of my favorite reads about film. Paul, who participated in the film blogger panel at SXSW, is also a professor at Virginia Tech and has, over the past couple of weeks since the tragic shootings there, written a number of thoughtful and passionate posts about the situation in Blacksburg. He also has become - I think largely to his dismay - a small part of the story. Paul felt that some of the photographs of the killer, which were sent to NBC and later disseminated by numerous media sources, bore a resemblance to images in Chan-Wook Park's recent South Korean film OldBoy. And in the midst of the decision by these media outlets to immediately make public - without any kind of context - the killer's photos, videos and writings, Paul hoped to give some kind of reference. Says Harrill:
For others, the image might have suggested something else, but I am a filmmaker and I suppose I am inclined to make comparisons between images of cinematic texts, if one can use such coolly academic terminology for a killer’s self-taped imagery. Both images feature people looking into a camera’s eye brandishing a hammer and, importantly for me, both images are “revenge texts.” The fact that both images are of Asian males was largely inconsequential to me; if either person had been of a difference race, nationality, etc. I would have, I feel, made the same connection.
Paul's observation made it into several news accounts and - as is the media's wont - it suddenly became the defacto link: MOVIE INSPIRES KILLER.
More from Paul:
I thought, some readers and viewers would be perplexed by such an image, and I wanted to suggest a possible reference. Mainly, though, I wanted to use this opportunity of having the Times’ attention to tell them how I would prefer that they did not show such images in the first place. This message was included in my email to them though, perhaps not surprisingly, they chose not to acknowledge that comment. I believe that giving airtime to a killer’s ramblings does a disservice to those of us here in Blacksburg who are deeply, actively grieving; I also believe that it likely gives the killer the attention he so desperately desired. For me, sharing these images publicly goes beyond pornography.
How misguided and naive can a person be, particularly in light of the comments in my last post? I should have said nothing, done nothing, and ignored it all. I made the mistake of attempting to make sense of the nonsensical, assuming that my comment could be a simple footnote to a single still image, and above all, presuming that a person can have any control over any comment he feeds to the Media Machine.
Last weekend in the Baltimore Sun, film critic Michael Sragow tried to discount the link between the perennially popular film and the Virginia Tech massacre:
Despite that one image of Cho with a two-fisted grip on a hammer, and another self-portrait of him holding a gun to his own temple, there appeared to be no clear connection between Oldboy and Cho.
Paul Harrill, who teaches film and video at Virginia Tech, initially drew attention to the similarities between Oldboy and Cho. London's Evening Standard first announced the link, reporting yesterday that, "Police believe Cho Seung-Hui repeatedly watched the movie." But no subsequent report has confirmed that theory or suspicion. Harrill, in an e-mailed statement, expressed dismay over the snowballing story, and said he was simply making an observation. His point, he wrote, was to "initiate a conversation" about "news outlets using a mass murderer's fantasies as sick spectacle and - let us never forget - as a source of revenue."
Harrill wrote on his blog about the fall-out:
This morning I awoke to several emails and blog comments accusing me of everything from racism against South Koreans to blaming cinema for the carnage on Monday. And all day I have been courted by several major media outlets salivating for an interview with me, as if I could somehow explain the events of Monday to them by way of a movie. How sad. How absurd. The answer to all of these individuals has been “No.”
Let me be clear: My comparison of these two images was not meant to suggest in ANY way that movies, any movie, “made him do it.” Likewise, my comparison of these two images is IN NO WAY an attempt to make ANY generalizations based on racial, nationalistic, or any other sorts of lines.
The unfortunate thing is that this sideshow lost focus from Harrill's initial intent, which he outlined in a previous piece that referenced Jill Godmilow's theory of "The Pornography of the Real":
I think of storytelling as a kind of citizenship, so I don’t blame people for wanting to know the stories unfolding in Blacksburg, nor do I blame journalists for telling those stories. Still, how one gathers the facts, why you gather them, and the way you tell them can’t be separated from the story you’re telling. Sadly I’ve been witnessing firsthand how many journalists, particularly those from out of town, seem to have forgotten that common decency is also facet of citizenship. My main consolation, and it isn’t much, is knowing that the members of the media will move on to another spectacle in very short time.
There should be an intelligent conversation in this country about how the media responded to the Virginia Tech story, particularly the decision by NBC and other media outlets to air (immediately, without context and seemingly without limit) the killer's photos and videos. There's a legitimate question to be asked here. Did the public at large gain anything from seeing - on their television screens and splashed across the front page of the morning papers - what amounted to a publicity shot of a madman, arms splayed open, guns cocked? Would NBC have been justified in merely describing what they had received and saying that they saw no public good in rewarding the killer's evil by publishing his manifesto (despite comparisons to the Unabomber, in which the killer at the time was on the loose)?
Slate's Jack Shafer argues that NBC and the other media were somewhat in the right but questions the filtering of images:
NBC News needn't apologize to anybody for originally airing the Cho videos and pictures. The Virginia Tech slaughter is an ugly story, but the five W's of journalism—who, what, where, when, and why—demand that journalists ask the question "why?" even if they can't adequately answer it. If you're interested in knowing why Cho did what he did, you want to see the videos and photos and read from the transcripts. If you're not interested, you should feel free to avert your eyes.
The real story here is the odd restraint NBC News showed. Cho mailed NBC News about two dozen QuickTime videos, of which the network has aired only a handful. NBC anchor Brian Williams said last night that the network is also holding back Cho photos, as well as Cho writings it deems incoherent and obscene. It seems to think that it's protecting viewers by rationing Cho material while at the same time it reruns the already released video indiscriminately.
I think Shafer's view that "you should feel free to avert your eyes" is simplistic and intellectually dishonest. I got off the plane in Tampa last Thursday morning and there was no averting my eyes - the photograph in question was everywhere you looked - on newspaper boxes, on hanging televisions in the terminal and in gift shops. It was impossible not to see it.
The conservative blog Hot Air agrees with Shafer, perhaps surprisingly given that NBC seems to be the current big media villain in right-leaning circles:
I tip slightly in favor of airing it because (a) I hate when the media plays paterfamilias in deciding what is and isn’t “appropriate news” for the public to see, and (b) I was honestly curious. (The National Review's Stephen) Spruiell’s** been grasping for some grander justification, like bringing the power of collective intelligence to bear on the evidence, but I think he’s just dressing up natural curiosity about the psychology of a mass murderer in some nobler utilitarian faux purpose. Which is not to say the media should be showing us crime-scene photos and pornography, etc., pursuant to point (a); obviously the feelings of the victims’ families do matter and just as obviously there are experiences so mortal and private that we recoil instinctively from images that exploit them in the interest of news. As unsatisfying an answer as this may be, I think ultimately it’s just a gut reaction about where to draw the line of decency, and so long as NBC didn’t/doesn’t show any crime scenes, I’m willing to cut them a break.
[**Note from AJ - Bringing the conversation full circle, Spruiell's post at NRO reference's Harrill's Oldboy observation.]
NBC's Brian Williams later wrote on his blog that the worst of the videos will never be made public:
I do not know of a reputable news organization that would have stopped after that first step ... and put the contents into a drawer. We chose to air but a small portion of the sociopathic rants, writings and recordings of a murderer. It was shocking material ... beyond disturbing. However unpleasant it might have been for us all to watch, we are journalists and it was inarguably a huge news development. In consultation with law enforcement, and with all of our senior and standards executives and producers present, we then set about heavily editing some of the material -- enough to convey the mindset of the troubled gunman....
A critical piece of information in a huge national news story was dropped on our doorstep. While I love my work, our task yesterday was extremely unpleasant. Yesterday was an awful day. There was no joy in this for any of us. To the contrary: opening each computer video snippet for the first time was a sickening and harrowing experience -- and it's good to know that the worst of them -- all now in the hands of investigators -- will never see the light of day. As I said on the air last evening: we are aware that this puts words in the mouth of a murderer. We are also aware that this danger, represented by this sick young man, lives among us ... and lives on our campuses and in our schools with our children ... and to see it and hear it is to understand the consequences. We are fellow citizens, parents and television viewers -- we understand why families are upset -- and this continues to be an awful chapter in American life.
While I appreciate the position that NBC was in, I don't think that there was enough time between NBC's receiving the package and their releasing of images. While NBC News claimed in a statement that "we did not rush the material onto air", there was little to be gained from running it the same day that they received it. It could have been put into context in a larger piece, rather than as wallpaper behind the yammering Chris Matthews on MSNBC. If NBC has made judgments that some of the material - which no doubt would also give insight into what happened - should never be seen, I don't entirely buy the notion that the other material had to make it on the air in time for the evening news.
Further, NBC's excuse that their judgment has been validated by other news organizations...
The decision to run this video was reached by virtually every news organization in the world, as evidenced by coverage on television, on websites and in newspapers
...rings hollow to me. The other organizations could claim that they were just following NBC's lead and that once the photos were out there, they had no choice but to run with them (I don't agree with this either but it's not an unlikely explanation).
This has me reflecting on two films I saw at Full Frame - The Devil Came on Horseback as well as Taxi to the Dark Side. Both show extremely graphic images about major news events that no major news organization would touch. And the images in both films are essential to the viewer's understanding of the stories, which may help explain why so many are still in the dark about Darfur and Abu Ghraib.
So why do I support the use of these images in these films while I think NBC erred in its use of the photos and videos from the Virginia Tech killer? One word: Context. The thing that Paul Harrill was trying to provide and the thing that more time considering would have brought. And more and more, it's the thing that nonfiction filmmakers seem to be able to provide with much more success than traditional journalists.
In one scene in Manufacturing Dissent Moore discussses how the Bush administration used fearmongering (trumped up WMD claims, bogus imminent threat claims, false testimony before the UN regarding mobile chemical weapons labs, etc, etc) to manipulate the American public into siding with him on the invasion of Iraq. Then in the same speech Moore turns around and tells the college students that if they don't vote for Kerry then Bush will draft them and send them right to the front lines. That statement had no more truth in then Bush's claims about WMDs. So fearmongering for Bush bad but fearmongering for Moore good? And what about the truth, or is getting people all riled up, even if its based upon lies, good enough?
We're just as frustrated as the next person that we have not gotten to the promised land with Moore's assistance. Why isn't he more effective? How about effective at all? Just maybe Moore's approach has something to do with it, which is exactly the issue Manufacturing Dissent raises. We're lefties so we get the whole speaking truth to power argument but what if it's half truth? Is it half as effective, or maybe not effective at all? Moore is hard to ignore but easy to dismiss.
Pierson writes in the open letter to Moore "You're on the side of the fucking angels with "SiCKO" and no lapses, omissions or oversimplifications can detract from its contribution to the greater good." But this is exactly the problem: the lapses, omissions and oversimplifications do distract from the greater good and to all of our detriment. This is akin to arguing that lying for the cause is good for debate. What's the point if it's based upon lies? We all want the same thing to live in a well-functioning democracy the only way we can get there is by having an informed electorate that acts upon their knowledge at the ballot box and the only way we can get there is by having media that chooses not to lie to the people. Part of our argument in Manufacturing Dissent that it is also destructive when Moore does it as it is when FOX News does it. Some say who cares if Moore lies to his lefty base and gets away with it? Others will argue it doesn't matter if FOX News lies to their viewers. For better or worse it does have an impact an that is exactly why its important. We need to be having debates based upon facts and not resting upon misconceptions and lies. How will this get us to where we want to be?
For the record, Mike Westfall, who seems to always have the last word in internet posts (under whatever pseud he chooses) was both interviewed and contributed footage to Manufacturing Dissent but it is incorrect to term this a "consultant" however grateful we remain. We never made any pretense with Westfall, we told him repeatedly that ours was a film about Moore. And yes Westfall is right there remains marvelous opportunity for films to be made about the plight of working Americans. Hopefully someone will "consult" with Westfall about that.
SiCKO, just like Moore's previous films, will have no impact on the American health care system. But hey why should some piss ant Canadians stand in the way of mighty America trying to get universal health care right? We meant many things with this film, this was not amongst them.
And maybe sometime we can go for a beer AJ and you can confess all of your ethical lapses to us like other filmmakers are doing. Let's start with the violating of your own 'self imposed' standards (if you don't follow your own 'rules' what's the point in having them?) about blogging about other films, even as you suck and blow your own mediocre and largely ignored film. I know I was at SXSW when it screened during the music part of the fest and all of like 50 people turned up for a screening in the 1,200 seat Paramount Theater, and that's the music crowd. Then we can discuss your ethically challenged principles that allowed you to put together a doc about deceased Kurt Cobain based upon interviews he granted to another under very different circumstances. To say nothing of what I don't yet know. Ethics smethics, who's kidding who here? Come confess, the filmmakers always seem to feel better afterward. Now if they just could have been as honest with their audience to begin with...