071217 - Hollywood and guns

Overdoing it has become a habit. The basements of my home and summer cottage are equipped with full-blown home theaters. Every now and then I just want to turn off the lights, make a bowl of popcorn and enjoy a good movie.

A while ago I got my hands on a DVD, "Shoot 'em up". I didn't expect that much of it, just harmless, if slightly violence-oriented entertainment for an hour and a half, yet another movie you could watch and forget about. Boy was I wrong. The movie itself was genuinely sick, sadistic and, worst of all, loaded with hypocrisy. Following the current trend, the main character of movie wasn't as much a person as violence itself, very graphic violence. Quentin Tarantino uses violence masterfully, to underline the plot, whereas some other directors use it just because it sells.

A good number of true cult classics are very violent, but in this case, the movie couldn't be farther from one.

Why?

The thin, far-fetched and illogical plot is filled with messages why guns themselves are evil. Demonizing objects, rather than what is done with them by criminals, the "bad guys". Like a gun was what makes an evil person evil. Ideologically this follows the absurd message in movie "Lord of War", where the people of an oppressed african village are massacred immediately after the insurgent militia has received a shipment of Kalashnikov assault rifles. Who in their right mind would believe that mass murder has ever, anywhere depended on having the "right", politically incorrect, equipment? No-one got killed until the murderous mob got their hands on sexy, shiny assault rifles? This has to be the all-time low of underestimating the intellect of the audience, the equivalent of trying to sell the Brooklyn bridge on eBay.

After these wake-up calls of extreme movie hypocrisy, I did some research on the subject. There's a clear trend of demonizing guns in the movies in 1990's and especially during last few years. It all started in late 70's and early 80's, with VCR:s. I still remeber the debate about movie violence; action and splatter movies were relatively cheap to produce and many of them became bestsellers. When questions were asked about the moral of these movies, Hollywood went on defensive. At first the arguments were logical and made sense, viewer discretion and responsibility of one's actions were valid points, but that didn't suffice. Pro-censorship activists wanted more and the studios had to do something, quickly.

If you can't win them, join them, and find an alternative scapegoat: firearms themselves. American Gun laws were fairly lax back in early 1980's and only major restrictions were the Gun control act of 1968 and the National Firearms act of 1934. Fully automatic firearms were still available to private individuals who went through an extensive background check, obtained special permits, had themselves fingerprinted and could afford the registration tax. The tax was originally ment to be so expensive that even the mafia couldn't afford to register machine guns in the 1930's. Still in the 80's the tax could easily exceed the actual value of registered machine gun parts by tenfold. Not exactly cheap, but the only legal way to own a maching gun in the US. In any case, Hollywood changed tactic, the whole influence of movie studios and actors were used to support anti-gun lobby. This was a highly calculated move; not only would it divert the focus of discussion away from violent movies, it would also create a hype of notoriety around firearms themselves and by itself promote the sales of violent movies. Who wouldn't want to see a movie where "bad" people do "bad" things with "bad" guns? An unholy trinity of maximizing cash flow at the box office.

Traditional shooting clubs, hunting clubs and other firearm organizations were completely surprized by claims like these. The same organizations that had previously concentrated in shooting sports had to face a massive unprovoked attack on all fronts. Media was out to get them, displaying acts of violence on movies wasn't a problem anymore, the fact that guns existed was, because Hollywood said so. Anti-gun activism became trendy and anyone who had the audacity to express any contradicting opinions was labeled as a gun-toting maniac. Funny, considering that in reality the vast majority of "gun toting" had only existed on the silver screen. Hollywood has been known to finance anti-gun lobby and recruit victims of violence as their spokespersons. For a sizable financial compensation, of course - money talks. Sarah Brady and Handgun Control Inc. are just the tip of the iceberg and Million Mom March as well as numerous other campaigns just a part of the well-oiled machine Hollywood has created to protect their business interests. There's nothing wrong with fictional violence as entertainment, as long as the first amendment isn't "protected" by intentionally violating the second. Hollywood's henchmen, the anti-gun lobby has far exceeded the expectations, they're lobbying the chosen scapegoat to death.

As a result, quite a few obligatory members of the Hollywood's collective probaganda machine have been forced to keep an extremely low profile of their hobby. Officially anti-gun Steven Spielberg has one of the most extensive private collections of so-called assault weapons on the west coast, yet he's been forced by a second generation alcoholic and drug addict, Drew Barrymore, to edit guns out of the hands of FBI agents in the latest release of hit movie E.T. Only because Barrymore claims that she's been traumatized by them recently, over two decades after she was thrilled to star in the movie as a child actor. A really narcistic way to treat hoplophobia, when booking an appointment to a qualified therapist should have sufficed nicely. Action movie actors Arnold Schwartzenegger and Sylvester Stallone have taken a cautious approach as far as guns are concerned, the latter of whom having built a state of the art firing range in the basement of his house in Florida, to be able to practise without worrying about being photographed on a public range. Not to mention Harrison Ford, who bought a hunting rifle at a gun store in Wyoming, only to deny it on a talk show a few days later, stating that "hunting is cruel". That's probably the only kind of comment that his employer and associated anti-gun organizations would have accepted. Additionally, a vast majority of concealed carry handgun licenses in Los Angeles are issued to movie stars, the same people who rarely if ever leave home without heavily armed bodyguards. License like this is extremely rare, only just over one US citizen in a million has one that's valid in Los Angeles.

As an interesting sidenote, many types of firearms are banned in some states, some even nationally, and one exception stands out: licensing their use as movie props. This sends an interesting message. Possessing otherwise illegal guns is OK if you're in the business of make-believe, entertainment that is largely based on displaying acts of violence and people being shot with said firearms. Considering that possessing the very same firearms for target shooting is forbidden, where's the moral? Especially when 99% of movie props could be substituted with blank firing guns; sometimes it'd be more expensive than just renting the suitable real thing but hey, it's all about profits, isn't it?

Celebrities and shooting sports aren't by far an exceptional combination. Speaking openly about the sport requires a lot of bravery, the studios don't want to hear anything but their version of the truth, especially from their employees.

Money is the primary motivation for all this. Michael Moore, known for his small-budget daytime show that was fairly entertaining, even amusing, but quite far from investigative journalism, made it big time with movie "Bowling for Columbine". Methods like making up facts, like Harris and Klebold having gone bowling before their killing spree, highly creative editing and calling the film a documentary accomplished the mission, huge success at the box office and an Oscar awarded by the radically anti-gun Academy of Motion Picture arts and sciences made him a millionaire overnight. Quite an accomplishment for a director who had given small budget investigative journalism a bad name. Basically, he successfully transfered the same concept to large budget documentaries, making mockery of the genre in the process. Unfortunately a majority of viewers failed to grasp the irony. Timing, however, was perfect. especially when anti-gun lobby kept calling the film a documentary and the studios got themselves a trusted director for all kinds of probaganda projects. Too bad that the moviegoing audience soon figured out what's going on and Moore's later films haven't enjoyed the popularity of "Columbine".

Celebrities are forced to keep a low profile of their shooting hobby. Best probaganda directors money can buy. Charming. What's next? Anti-gun celebrities whose family background give an insight to their motives. A prime example is Sean Penn, a familiar face preaching how guns are evil. His father, Leo Penn, was a spokesperson for national socialism - nazism - in the US between 1939 and 1941. It all changed June 22nd 1941 when the panzers of nazi Germany crossed the border of Soviet Union, the russian communist party stopped supporting nazi ideology and as a hardcore communist, Penn had to choose which one of the two dictators he'd support. The choice was easy, because Stalin was generously funding communist, revolutionary and even terrorist activity in the US and Penn couldn't bite the hand that was feeding him. Knowing these historical facts, it isn't hard to figure out where Sean Penn's enthusiasm in disarming people at all costs originates, especially when it's nicely in line with maximizing the profit from selling violence as enterntainment. The Penns really preach what they practise.

Let them speak, no-one's taking them seriously, right? Not quite. People who don't have any experience about shooting sports or hunting, base their opinions on the message they see on the silver screen. The studios make it easy, mixing their version of the truth with entertainment. Look up "brainwashing" and the most effective, proven methods to do it, you'll see what I'm talking about. Whereas sport shooting was common and ideologically not a big deal as late as in the 1970's, Hollywood has done its best making it look as repulsive as possible, by even portraying criminals as regular people who just happened to get their hands on a gun. Does anyone in their right mind really believe that? Like anyone would demonize the kitchen knife when someone's been stabbed to death, or just grabbing a knife would make you want to stab someone. Murder is an act of violence, not an object, and it has its roots in social problems. It's much more profitable to demonize an object and claim that it's a valid way to be responsible in preventing violent crime, rather than pay higher taxes that actually could be used to fund solving the social problems behind violence. Regular sport shooters, hunters and gun collectors, who represent by far the most law abiding segment of the society, are being sacrificed as scapegoats because movie studios are greedy and, frankly, couldn't care less about social problems if solving them will cost them anything. Keeping utter crap like "Shoot 'em up" in theaters, on DVD:s and available to paying audiences is much more important to them.

As an additional bonus, all the hype around guns has given movie producers an easy and cheap way to create panic scenes in movies. Have someone pull out a gun and that's it, screaming and public hysteria has been "explained". No more costly special effects, no more demolishing of buildings, no more stampedes, absolutely nothing else is required, just a gun and a supporting actor or even a statist. Not long ago, even suggesting that just displaying a gun would cause hysteria would have been considered ludicrous, but Hollywood make-believe has worked, nowadays it's a common way to save money and time in production costs.

The truth and common sense have been lost long ago. What's next, when guns have already been labeled as evil? Most firearms have already been banned in the UK and competitive shooters have been driven out of the country if they even want to practise, but Scotland has gone one step further - they've banned swords. And not only swords, some regular kitchen cutlery like meat cleavers have already been confiscated in the name of preventing "knife violence". Oddly enough, the law was passed shortly after the violence spectacle "300" was released; probably a coincidence but you can't help wondering how much movies can affect the perceptions of people - and legislators too.

There has already been speculation what's a sword and what's a kitchen utensil, but well-meaning and ineffective efforts to protect people from themselves have gone way too far. Hypocrisy about guns and violence has already caused problems in the UK, where Hollywood-inspired myths about guns have made them very fashionable objects, especially among the youth. Banning them has just fueled the fire. Legal and sanctioned shootings sports have been outlawed, Hollywood spews examples how guns can be used for criminal and evil purposes and violent crime has quickly reached an all-time high, exceeding the american level by threefold. Movies show how guns "should" be used, guns are readily available on the black market and what may surprise anyone who isn't familiar with the subject, a fully operational, full automatic submachine gun is easier to build at home with common hand tools than even a mediocre airgun. Detailed instructions can be found on Internet and if a black market gun isn't available or if the price is too high, they're easily put into practise.

Hollywood is holding the world at ransom, we're being forced to pay for the greed of movie industry. The real cost is our security, our liberty and the models we're willing to give to our youth. The voice of sport shooters and hunters have been drowned by the voice of Hollywood, and it's much easier to stay ignorant, to think like movie studios; to be trendy. The way they want you to think - they define what's "cool", remember?

I can take entertainment as entertainment, even when it lacks artistic merits, and I want to keep it free of brainwashing and ridiculous explanations why guns are evil. Stalin's, Hitler's - and Moore's - "documentaries" are amusing curios from the past, but let's face it, they're just thinly disguised probaganda. The disease is spreading fast and films that used to be entertaining are filled with subliminal anti-gun messages. Fine, Hollywood suffers from a severe case of misohoplia and they can't find any other use for guns than killing people. I, as well as millions of other sports shooters and hunters around the world have, using guns to harm absolutely no-one. The difference in perception is huge and if you really can't think guns as anything but killing instruments, you really should not own them. We know better so leave us alone.

Give my home theatre good movies I love. These days I feel like I'd bought a Ferrari, just to find out that the only fuel available is 50/50 mix of high octane and piss.

Henri Helanto
Vice President