So... I know this seems like a somewhat random topic, but the idea is for you to sort through a variety of compelling arguments and develop your own point of view. For tonight's homework please evaluate Oliver Stone's argument in his response to Grisham's attack. Post it below.
p.s. I just watched the first six minutes of "Natural Born Killers" (it's on youtube). It's absolutely brutal. If you have a high tolerance level for violence you can take a look. But you've been warned. :)
As I was watching the first six minutes of NBK, I realized that, to me, the movie seemed a lot more corny and outdated than violent. I think it's interesting that a movie so controversial at its release doesn't even phase me, and I'm sure that controversial works before that, like CITR, had a similar effect on the generation that followed it. Controversy burns out fast, and before long, it's considered tame to the controversy that follows it. So for someone like me, who is used to violence and controversy in entertainment, it seems that Grisham is making a big deal about about something that everyone else knows and simply lives with- that entertainment has been pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable since it's existence. That's why we call it entertainment.
ReplyDeleteI've been exposed to far worse content than NBK has to offer, and I'm pretty sure the rest of my class has as well. I don't think that anyone in our class intends to murder someone simply for the thrill of doing so...or maybe Grace would. But if she did murder someone, it would be because of her own psychological flaws. (JK Grace, thanks for being a good sport.) I'm sure that violence in entertainment does have it's negative effects, but to go as far as to prosecute the provider of that entertainment is drastic and shortsighted.
Poor Grace! :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletewhy me?!?!?!!?! :(
DeleteI watched the six-minute movie clip, and I found my myself horrified, sickened, laughing, and confused. I was horrified by the random people that Mikey and Mallory killed as well as being sickened by them taking joy in it; I was laughing at how deranged and ridiculous Mallory was acting and how she was able to beat up a larger man considering how tiny she was. Finally, I was extremely confused by the song choice of the movie; it didn't seem to flow, it was disorganized, and romantic music was being played directly after a gory scene.
ReplyDeleteI personally would never kill anyone, but even if I was at my darkest time and I watched this movie, I would have NO desire whatsoever to "copycat." I'm honestly surprised that they killed 52 people considering how sloppy they were when it came to covering their tracks. I believe Oliver Stone made some very valid points defending his movie, because I personally think it's harmless. I wouldn't consider it NEARLY as influential as "Catcher in the Rye." "Catcher in the Rye" inspires many people to rebel against society because such a large number identify with the misunderstood, "different," outcasted persona; it is unlikely that nearly as many people would identify with the mind of a serial killer, as is displayed in "Natural Born Killer."
As Stone said,"the average teenager spends 15,000 hours a year watching television, compared with 11,000 hours a year in school." A major point he made was that even though his movie may have contributed to the desensitizing of youth, he alone is not to blame for youth being exposed to violence - television shows, advertisements, video games, and other violent programs attest to that. Stone used Shakespearean allusions to help communicate his argument, which was well-worded, intellectual, and contained a lot of supportive evidence/facts.
After watching the opening scene of Natural Born Killers, I am feeling a little bit concerned that I did not find it to be disturbing at all. I am hoping that the rest of the movie is more violent and twisted, just for the sake of understanding Grisham’s argument. I agree with Calen in that entertainment has always pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable in society, and that is exactly what this movie did, so as expected, it will be met with harsh criticism. Grisham’s general argument is that there have been too many occasions where people have admitted to embarking on killing sprees inspired by Oliver Stone’s movie Natural Born Killers. Although his arguments had valid points, I must say that Stone’s response to Grisham’s accusation is extremely well executed. Stone’s opening sentence is extremely powerful and relevant to the situation. He relates the accusations surrounding misinterpreted artistic expression to the Salem witch-hunts of the Colonial Era. Stone uses this comparison to elaborate on his point that it is the nature of society to blame its issues upon others, rather than taking responsibility for its own actions. He also pokes fun at Grisham by saying that people should blame situations involving “unfaithful lawyer-husbands” upon influence from Grisham’s book, The Firm. Stone also points out flaws in Grisham’s accusations. For example, Stone addresses the fact that watching a violent film can surely leave an impact on a person’s thoughts and feelings, but it cannot be the sole and driving force towards murder. He points out that Mallory and Mickey’s parallel, real life killers Ben and Sarah had histories of disturbing abuse that ultimately made them psychopaths. Stone’s main argument is to protect art and creativity from being silenced, even if it poses a potential threat of being misinterpreted by others. He states that “we can never know the outcome of nascent art”, so it should be protected for societies sake.
ReplyDeleteWell, I watched the trailer and I do not feel the need to ever see the movie Natural Born Killers. I can see how it would not faze someone like Calen because it sounds like he has seen lots of movies like this, but that could be the issue. The issue here is not that people are going to claim “a movie made me do it” as Stone jokingly said, but the issue is that the youth is so desensitized of violence. We see so many violent images and like Stone said, we watch a considerable amount of violent TV that the lines between what is morally right and wrong can begin to blur. It is not the result of one movie like NBK that makes someone commit murder, it is the millions of other images and videos like it that can begin to influence someone. I agree with Calen and Stone that persecuting the artist does not solve the problem, as the artists “do not invent nature but merely hold up to it a mirror.” Artists like Stone only reveal the existing problems in society, they do not create new ones and influence people to go on murder rampages.
ReplyDeleteFirst off I would like to say that I refuse to watch any part of this movie because I HATE scary movies and horror and violence and gore. But I will take your word for it! I can definitely imagine why Grisham was able to make such a compelling case against Stone and Natural Born Killers.
ReplyDeleteStone's argument in response is based around the fact that Grisham is attacking him and the rest of the "striving artists" around. He even brings in the Constitutional Amendments at one point to try to strengthen his argument. Stone calls Grisham out for making a personal attack on him and blaming the director for indirectly causing the murders of Bill Savage and Patsy. Basically, he is defending his movie and his honor. But his more powerful argument in the passage is when he finds a hole in Grisham's argument--when Grisham actually admits that Ben and Sarah had a history with drugs, alcohol, and they had had psychiatric treatment. Stone states that this could have been a clear cause behind their actions, NOT the movie. In fact, he goes as far as to say that any movie could have sparked their actions, not just NBK. Personally that does not make sense to me, and with the evidence presented in Grisham's argument, his is just much more compelling. I do not believe Stone's is as effective and I think it only appeals to horror movie fanatics. I was not actually convinced by his defense. I do think that it WAS the movie that planted the murderous seeds and caused Ben and Sarah to go on this disturbing killing spree.
Nice try, Stone, better luck next time.
When I was a kid, my older cousin actually thought it would be funny to make me watch this movie with him and all his "super cool" friends. I was not amused. Although I may have TECHNICALLY been in the room WHILE the movie was playing, that does not mean I can say I watched it, considering I was too busy hiding under the blanket and whining at Jordan about how much I hated him. It was a mortifying movie to watch as a child, and honestly if I was to watch it again at 17, my reaction would probably be the same.
ReplyDeleteDespite what Calen may believe (sorry to disappoint anyone), I personally have never really had any issues deciphering right and wrong. However I'm also the kind of person who tends to stay away from anything too gory or violent. I never really found any amusement in watching horror movies. What's so fun about scaring the living daylights out of yourself? NOTHING I TELL YOU. And yet, it has become such a significant part of today's media.
I agree with Caroline about the fact that with all the violence society is exposed to, it can easily become difficult to blur your own line of judgement. However, this is something that will not happen by simply watching a horror movie. Your not going to just come home after watching SAW 50 or whatever and go "hey! I should become a crazy murderer JUST like the guy from Saw!" The same goes for this movie, "Natural Born Killers." Although it is quite gruesome, I don't believe it's necessarily the level of gore that can spark something within a person, but the repeated exposure to the gore. With someone who may not necessarily be the best at judgement, they might get the wrong impression.
And personally, even if I WAS a crazy murderer, if I was going to kill a bunch of people and risk going to jail and ruining my life, I would at LEAST kill them with my own ideas. It's kind of lame to copy something you saw out of a movie isn't it?
Grisham’s pointed criticism of Olive Stone and his move Natural Born Killer is certainly understandable, due to the emotional strain he must have felt from the death of his friend and its connection to the movie. However, Stone makes compelling arguments that seem to, in my opinion, disprove Grisham’s accusations toward the film industry and Stone specifically. I personally believe that whatever an artists intent is in producing some work, whether the intent be to compose a satire, social commentary, or to reflect personal ideologies, the piece is ultimately up for interpretations by those that receive it. An artist has no way of predicting how another will be influenced by their work because there are so many different ways of interpreting one work of art. Art is subjective, and ones reactions to an art piece are more of an indication of their own character than that of the artist. Stone could not have predicted how Sarah and Ben would react to his movie and should not be held accountable for that. As Stone himself points out, the two kids already had obvious psychiatric problems prior to their viewing of NBK, so rather their upbringing and defects of their environment should receive blame for their crimes rather than the movie. Millions of other people saw the movie and were affected by it very differently. Statistics wise, the fact that a few teens out of the millions that saw the movie committed crimes or murders does not speaker well to Grisham’s argument. Not to undermine the seriousness of the murders that did occur, but I don’t believe that they can be attributed to NBK.
ReplyDeleteThe movie Natural Born Killers is absurd. I just sat through the 6 minute video that I think you were talking about and, just wow. John Grisham obviously has no sense of sarcasm and satire because this movie seems like one huge joke, with a sprinkle of violence and gore (or maybe a large splash). I agree with Oliver Stone on the majority of his argument. You cannot blame a director of a movie to be liable for actions claimed to have been because of his product. Film is art, and an artist cannot be responsible for how a viewer interprets his piece. Sarah's lawyers could have easily thought up the brilliant idea to pawn off the responsibility of the crime onto someone else, and Oliver Stone happened to be the easiest target. Both Sarah and Ben admitted to having drug and psychiatric problems in the past, which proves them to be rather unpredictable in their actions. Grisham fully embodies his lawyer persona in his writing. He is rather snakey and does not make many valid points, but his persuasive language proves to make the reader seriously consider some of his arguments.
ReplyDeleteLike Meghan, I refuse to ever watch a gory movie, unless the blood flat out looks like ketchup. Otherwise, I will be kicking and screaming. Just saying! :)
ReplyDeleteIn tonights reading, Grisham pointed out certain defects of Olive Stone's movie knock off of his book Natural Born Killers. In reading Grisham's article, I have sympathy for him because of the death of his friend. However, I do think that Stone makes several worthy counter arguments. Stone discusses in his article that while his movie was very gory, there are already several other TV shows, commercials, and movies showing the exact same amount of gore and that the murders are not necessarily caused by Stone's movie. Stone points out that he only brought out the reality of murders to society, and that it is not his fault that the public has been so ignorant up to this point. Even a more effective argument he makes, is that even Grisham points out that the murderers were alcoholics, drug atticts, and psychotic, and that this could have definitely lead to the murders NOT his movie. So all in all, I agree with Stone. woo!
John Grisham is a talented writer, and his argument is interesting to read, and while he does make valid points, like the fact that although Oliver Stone considers "Natural Born Killers" a satire on murder, it really glorifies it, or that Sarah Edmondson and Ben Darras had no violent history before watching the movie, it is unrealistic to think Stone could be legitimately punished for this. While Stone's movie probably influenced and triggered the idea for Ben and Sarah to commit these murders, it is not realistic to think he could be punished because of how many other stories like this could be made valid. What if a teenage boy who plays violent video games like Call of Duty, goes out and shoots someone? I seriously doubt the company who makes the games would be sued. But the video game portrays shooting and killing not only as "no big deal" but a requirement to win. So yes, it's valid to say these games or movies might negatively influence people but they also cannot simply blame the movie or game; the person holding the gun is the one at fault. Although Grisham's argument is valid, it is unrealistic; because so many other stories would fall under this problem, and there is no tangible evidence that links the movie directly to the crime. As Arianna pointed out, Stone is able to counteract Grisham's accusations because of the everyday violence exploited by the media.
ReplyDeletePs i'm totally going to watch Natural Born Killers tonight. Not to get any ideas, just because I'm interested to see it after reading this article.
I too am not particularly a fan of scary films so I think I'll skip watching it.
ReplyDeleteStones argument that his movie could not have been the thing that drove Ben and Sarah to murder is very well supported. There is no way a movie, no matter how disturbing or gory could drive a regular person on a killing spree. There are hundreds and thousands of TV shows, movies, and books out there every day being watched and read. If we were to go by Grishams claim, I would expect about half of our population to be cereal killers by now. Arianna highlights an important part of Stones counter argument. Ben and Sarah already had histories similar to those of many other killers. The had scaring childhoods, they were alcoholics, and had even needed psychiatric treatment before. While I can see how a movie may have given them the idea that killing might satisfy that part of them, it was ultimately their choice and anyone with anywhere close to a normal sense of morality and a conscience would have pushed that thought away with horror. Movies, TV shows and games these days are growing increasingly violent and may be affecting the children of this generation by desensitizing them to violence but even that is not enough to take away all of the horror of killing another person. Even in that case, that is a parenting decision and no blame can be put on the movie directors and authors of today.