This is about a movie, generically a commercial vehicle designed to be profitable; but it has also been a powerful propaganda medium, from "Birth of a Nation" supporting the KKK to shaping socialist values in the 30s, to winning wars from the 40s up until this day. The words, "Ars Gratia Artis" under MGM's roaring lion acknowledges this aspect, meaning, "Hey, this is just our art, nothing more," as a denial of those who understood the political potency of their dramatic presentations.
This essay is prompted by the response of those on this website to this diary here yesterday; as a tiny sample of the general public's indifference. It also about what our first amendment means- that expansive freedom of speech crates obligations on citizens "The defense against "bad" speech is not law, but more speech."
That's what this diary is attempting, to use this venue to refute some powerful forces. It's more than just Sony pictures, but a mindset that elevates satire above discourse. It's about a gross irresponsibility that masquerades as being cool, being "with it", engendering no greater fear than not being in on the joke.
This is the end of my being nice, since I'm angry.
This article from the LA Times gives the back story of the film "The Interview." Yesterday's diary's lack of response shows both my limits as a writer, but also the disinterest of those on this site. The poll had 4 people who shared my anger and 16 against, as in it's "no big deal."
It is a big deal.
The comprehensive article in the LA Times gives the details:
In the process, the scandal shows what happens when powerful forces in Hollywood and geopolitics collide — when a company is caught between wanting to support its filmmakers' edgy vision but, as a subsidiary of a large corporate conglomerate, also must weather the fallout.
The "Powerful forces in Hollywood" are the goal to make a buck, building on the mentality of the two stoner stars that begins and ends at their own fun -- not giving a damn how this affects the 25,000,000 prisoners of that country, that's everyone, as there are only those who are prisoners of dread of any deviation from the official line and those millions who spend their lives in actual prisons. Does Sony, and the readers of this website give damn about the effect of infuriating the Stalinist Dictator who has never showed any signs of humanity.
Oh, it appears that Sony did give some thought to the effects of this film, but no indication that it ever went beyond their bottom line, whether they could be blamed for increased torture of those who have been brainwashed, not since infancy, but from the time of their grandparent's childhood, when the first "Dear Leader" turned this country into a nightmare we can't even contemplate.
Mr. Kaz Hirai, CEO, of Sony was very much concerned about this film especially when the Japanese government is negotiating with the North Korean government regarding the returning of the kidnapped Japanese to Japan," Noriaki Sano wrote to Stephen Basil-Jones, referring to the long-running showdown over at least 13 Japanese citizens, noting that Hirai and Sony Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton had spoken.
My previous diary described the very unlikely event of Kim Jong Un actually using his nukes, but there is a strong possibility, based on his history that he could make these thirteen Japanese prisoners simply disappear. Showing brutality is an asset for his continuing the pattern of his own life and his two progenitors.
Now this is interesting, how originally this was to be about a fictional villain, like the James Bond series and even going back to the 1960s, "Get Smart." We knew they were alluding to actual monsters past and present, the Hitlers and the Stalins, but they understood that actual foreign policy was not a toy for them to use to get a larger audience. From the LA Times Article:
In company emails from June, a studio publicity executive suggested that filmmakers and talent play down any political angle in interviews.
If people are asked about whether or not they are "worried about repercussions on the world stage" as a result of the film, the executive advises them to brush off the question by saying, "You give us too much credit." And if they're asked if the film is racist? "No. We're calling out the absurdity of jingoism."
Yes, they had soundbites created to diffuse articles such as mine. Friggin talking points, that would ridicule those who are aware how such trivia as this can have unimagined consequences.
Here's a comment from one of the celebrity stars, that seems to be picked up by those who responded, or trivialized this issue from the diary yesterday:
"This is now a story of Americans changing their movie to make North Koreans happy. That is a very damning story," Seth Rogen wrote,
No Seth, it's not to keep North Koreans happy, but to placate the dictator whose angry mood could result in greater suffering of some twenty million people under his control. Only the simplistic mind of you and your supporters can spin your gross ignorance of a country into succumbing to "North Koreans." Your personal celebrity seems to have prevailed. You can show cool bravado in your Beverly Hills home while the prisoners of the Gulag-that-is-a-country will have a bit more pain. And if something bad happens to them, or beyond, and reaches the public, you have those talking points from the P.R. department.
You know that originally this was to be about a fictional dictator, but that wasn't edgy enough. Ironically, we will probably never know the adverse effects of this film. Will Kim turn the screws quietly, cut the starvation rations of his people just a bit, just because he can. Maybe it will be a way of getting back at his tormentors. You will get the royalties, Sony can dish out a bit more to the CEO and shareholders, aa the suffering prisoner-citizens of this God (and man) forsaken country feel a bit more pain.
This film has been compared to "The Great Dictator", a film that ridiculed another living dictator, Adolf Hitler. Here's a section from the 1940N.Y. Times review that could have been penned to contrast that film with "The Interview" of today, three quarters of a century later.
Let this be understood, however: it is no catch-penny buffoonery, no droll and gentle-humored social satire in the manner of Charlie Chaplin's earlier films. "The Great Dictator" is essentially a tragic picture—or tragi-comic in the classic sense—and it has strongly bitter overtones. For it is a lacerating fable of the unhappy lot of decent folk in a totalitarian land, of all the hateful oppression which has crushed the humanity out of men's souls. And, especially, it is a withering revelation, through genuinely inspired mimicry, of the tragic weaknesses, the overblown conceit and even the blank insanity of a dictator. Hitler, of course.
For anyone to compare Seth Rogan, whose mindless slapstick film ignores the consequences of uncountable innocents with the great Charlie Chaplin, whose humor touched the hearts of millions and made a film to ridicule a dictator with full understanding of the consequences, is a travesty.
Sadly, the blame is not limited to Seth Rogan, or the equally shallow chiefs of Sony Films, but I fear it is a disease that has spread among those of this American generation. "The Great Dictator" was rightly controversial; "The Interview" is something quite different. It represents the will and domination of those with power - be it celebrity, wealth or mass media access. It is a glaring expression of how trivia, sound bites and cheap laughs have replaced incisive discussion. - to the extent of successfully conflating a brutal dictator, Kim Jong Un, with the suffering people under his control.
To make a comedy out of this is truly obscene.