Natural Born Killers and Responsibility

This essay was originally a written exam assignment from Copenhagen Business School. The Course subject was "American Cinema, Law and Culture" and was done in the Fall 2008



Introduction


Natural Born Killers from 1994 is a movie that has a classic plot with a new perspective. The plot is about a couple who roam around the country as psychotic outlaws, who kill people on their way. The new perspective is how the media and the public follow the couple, treat them as superstars and in the end also sympathizes with them despite the horrible murders. Young people even become fans of them and look upon them as role models. Obviously this was meant to expose the media world, and how the media make superstars out of criminals, and the film contains clips from recent episodes of this obsession with of crimes from stars – most notable the ice skating scandal with Tonya Harding and the trial of O.J. Simpson. The main characters Mickey and Mallory see their lives in the light of their fame, which is apparent when they think of their first meeting which takes place in a TV show called “I Love Mallory”. The director Oliver Stone may have included this to show how they themselves have been raised and have their worldviews formed by the media. The show also points out how Mallory was abused by her family and therefore becomes almost euphoric when her father and mother get killed by Mickey and herself. Stone said the movie was aimed at eighteen-to-twenty-four-years-old-males who “had grown up on a diet of tabloid news, video games, and MTV” (Vaughn p.216).
It has always been a concern that movies could inspire crime and some people also tried to hold the director Oliver Stone responsible for crimes that apparently were inspired by Natural Born Killers. This paper will take a closer look at the discussion of responsibility of movies. To illustrate this issue I will focus on one particular court case against Stone and the company Time Warner, who released the movie, and the arguments put forth – especially from one of the accusers John Grisham and from the center of the conflict Oliver Stone.




Natural Born Killers


When Natural Born Killers was released in 1994 it spawned controversy. Not only due to the violence which is ongoing throughout the movie, but also because the plot showed how the media and the public glorified the mass murders and how the world came to idolize Mickey and Mallory Knox. The movie was initially rated NC-17 due to the violence but after cutting five minutes of the most outrages content it received an R rating (Vaughn p. 217). However, the violence was probably not as controversial as the moral issues about the “purity of murder” in the movie (Lavington p. 195).


The Question Of Responsibility


The question of whether the movie industry has a responsibility is not a new issue. It has been discussed for many years. The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 says in section 3 of the General Principles that “The Motion Picture has “special MORAL OBLIGATIONS”", and later in Reasons Underlying the General Principles that “the presentation must not throw sympathy with the crime against the law nor with the criminal as against those who punish him”. These guidelines were a result of a development of restriction of movies which began because of the motion picture The Birth Of A Nation from 1915 which glorified and justified the actions carried out by Ku Klux Klan after the Civil War. This movie led to riots and violence, and most people thought that if movies could affect society this much, there ought to be restrictions.
The first attempts to restrict the movie industry succeeded, and Hollywood complied with them, but in the 1960s most restrictions were taken away – which was a result of the movement from the code system to the rating system and landmark court cases such as Freedman vs. Maryland in 1965 - and it created movies with less morality and consequently more controversy. In 1967 the movie Bonnie and Clyde was accused of glorification of crime, because the sympathy in the movie was given to the main characters and criminals Bonnie and Clyde. Movies like these helped to push the limit for what could be shown on film.
However, there is and has always been a strong desire to put moral obligations to the industry and the media world. The question of responsibility of the movie industry was also brought up in 1993 when a five year old boy set fire to a mobile home and killed his two year old sister. In the following court case, the family blamed Mike Judge, the creator of the show Beavis and Butt-head, because of the character Beavis´ high enthusiasm for fire, and particular an episode “Comedians” where Beavis sets fire to a building. Later an 8 month old girl was killed by a bowling ball thrown from an overpass at a highway. Again Mike Judge was blamed because of an episode “Ball Breaker” where Beavis and Butt-head drop a bowling ball from a rooftop. In both instances the families to the criminals did not have cable TV, no connections to the show were proved, and Judge was cleared of blame. (Wikipedia) However, it showed a clear tendency to connect real incidents with what is shown on the screen and a growing desire to blame the entertainment industry.


The trial Of Ben Darras And Sarah Edmondson


There have been several cases of copycat crimes relating to Natural Born Killers, including at least 8 murders (Brooks), and many people have tried to hold Oliver Stone responsible for them. However, there is one case that stands out – not just because of the horror of the crime but also because the crime is remarkably close to the movie and because the famous author John Grisham took part of the case in favor of the accusers.
Ben Darras and Sarah Edmondson were two 18-year-old lovers who, like Mickey and Mallory Knox, rode on the highway and killed one man and paralyzed a woman before they were arrested. These crimes were inspired by Natural Born Killers but quite possible also a result of hard drugs and an obsession with the media and fame (which is exactly one of the main themes in the movie). Stone and Time Warner were sued by the paralyzed woman, Patsy Byers, who were publicly supported by John Grisham – a friend of Bill Savage who was killed (Brooks).


The Arguments


The main argument of the case was that Oliver Stone and Time Warner were "distributing a film they knew, or should have known would cause and inspire people to commit crimes" (Brooks). Grisham believed that the fault could be shared. He argued that the film had a direct “causal link” to the crime and consequently the makers of the film had a responsibility along with the criminals. He believed that the public should boycott these kinds of films, and that the courts should make Hollywood responsible for the effects of the audience. He wrote an essay about the case called “Unnatural Killers”, in which he claimed not only that the movie had a part of the blame but also that the crime probably would not have happened without the film:

“Troubled as they were, Ben and Sarah had no history of violence. Their crime spree was totally out of character. They were confused, disturbed, shiftless, mindless--the adjectives can be heaped on with shovels--but they had never hurt anyone before. Before, that is, they saw a movie. A horrific movie that glamorized casual mayhem and bloodlust. A movie made with the intent of glorifying random murder.
Would Ben have shot innocent people but for the movie? Nothing in his troubled past indicates violent propensities. But once he saw the movie, he fantasized about killing, and his fantasies finally drove them to their crimes.
Oliver Stone is saying that murder is cool and fun, murder is a high, a rush, murder is a drug to be used at will. The more you kill, the cooler you are. You can be famous and become a media darling with your face on magazine covers. You can get by with it. You will not be punished.” (Grisham)

In the essay Grisham does acknowledge that the movie probably was not made with the intention of inspiring the likes of Ben Darras and Sarah Edmondson, but he claims that the outcome is a natural result of the film and that not only Stone and Time Warner but the entire Hollywood must be put under restriction.

When the First Amendment about Freedom of Speech were brought up, Byers attorneys claimed that Natural Born Killers falls under one of the exceptions of it (these exceptions are written in the law and allows the courts to rule against the general principle). The exception makes it possible to forbid speech when it is used to advocate unlawful action and is likely to produce crime.
The court said that the accusers must prove that the movie really intended make the audience commit crimes in order to hold Stone and Time Warner responsible.

Stone and Time Warner claimed that they were protected under the First Amendment and that their movie did not fall into the exception since they did not advocate unlawful action but only showed it. The movie was a work of art which showed the insanity of the criminals and the surroundings, but it did not advocate crime. Art is not necessarily supposed to be interpreted and Natural Born Killers is in fact totally illogical and lacks consistency. Consequently it also lacks a moral viewpoint (Kagan p. 235, 251), which should be permitted because it is a movie.
Oliver Stone claimed that:

"Once you start judging movies as a product, you are truly living in hell. What are the implications for freedom of speech? You wouldn't have any film of stature being made ever again."(Brooks).

In 2001, almost 6 years after the trial began, the case against Oliver Stone and Time Warner was dismissed on the grounds that the accusers were not able to prove that Stone and Time Warner intended to incite violence, and that there was no direct link between the crime and the movie. The court also stated that the movie was in fact protected by the First Amendment.

From the arguments against the movie it seems that people want Stone to show morality but to him his movies are not required to do that. In an interview before the release and before the controversy he said

“We poke fun at the idea of justice, and the idea of righteousness, the concept that in America there´s a right way and a wrong way”. (Kagan p.252)


Oliver Stone And John Grisham


Stone believes that movies are works of art and that they are not required to take a moral standpoint or accept responsibility for other people´s actions. This may seem correct but hasn´t Stone tried to influence people´s opinions and society with his films? His movies about the war in Vietnam “Platoon”, "Born On The Fourth Of July” and “Heaven And Earth” seem to try to influence how people see the war and the young men like Stone himself who went to fight it. More recently his movie “W” about George W. Bush also seems to be aimed at influencing public opinion. Despite Stone´s claims that he wants to take a neutral objective view of what has happened in the White House during Bush´s presidential terms, a "fair, but true portrait of the man" (Wikipedia), the movie does highlight all the mistakes of the president and shows him as a quite incompetent politician. It is in sharp contrast to his movie about Fidel Castro “Comandante” in which Stone portraits Castro as an intelligent charming leader and which, according to critics, avoids the more difficult issues of democracy and human rights. So in the end I believe that Stone´s movies are not “just” art but also instruments to affect public opinion. But the question is: does that lead to responsibility?

John Grisham´s claim that Ben Darras and Sarah Edmondson would not have shot and killed Bill Savage and paralyzed Patsy Byers if they had not seen Natural Born Killers cannot be proven. What we do know is that before they took off and hit the road they did take a huge amount of acid, and that they had been addicted to drugs and violent art for many years (Brooks). In this respect it could have been any film containing violence that inspired them. Grisham wants the entire industry punished and forced to restriction by tough penalties. This would be very hard to accomplish. Tom and Jerry is a quite violent cartoon in which the mouse Jerry is playful and actually a bit evil to Tom, and he starts conflicts with Tom just for fun. If all children acted like this after watching Tom and Jerry there would be a problem. Where do you draw a line?
John Grisham´s own novel “A Time To Kill” also throws the sympathy on the murder, because the murder´s own daughter were raped and killed by the two men he later kills. If Stone is responsible for the shootings of Ben Darras and Sarah Edmondson, Grisham himself might be guilty next time a father, whose daughter is raped and killed, confronts the killers and shoots them – after having read “A Time To Kill”.

Grisham´s essay does not mention the parental responsibility, which were also left out in the court cases against Mike Judge and Beavis and Butt-Head. Some children are not suited to watch Beavis and Butt-Head alone. Ben Darras and Sarah Edmondson had their lives shaped by violent art and drugs. The responsibility for this might not lie solely on themselves but perhaps also on parents and the society that did not provide a better way for them to spend their time. The irony of this is of course that this is exactly what the movie is about – Mickey and Mallory who are left with the insanity of the media world and the mushrooms they get high on. Even though Stone claims that there is not a morality here, the message of the movie could be that we should be careful about drugs and be more critical towards mass media. Thus the movie could be a huge warning sign.


Conclusion


In the end the court case and the controversies did not clarify whether the movie industry has a responsibility of how it influences society and public opinion. It did clear Stone and Time Warner from any direct criminal responsibility, but the moral responsibility is to be discussed for the years to come. Some people believe that today movies have a greater effect on society that any other forms of art. This creates an opportunity for the likes of Michael Moore to try to influence the public from explicit and rather propaganda -ish movies like “Fahrenheit 9/11” or an opportunity for more implicit movies like Stone´s “Born On The Fourth Of July” to influence and shape people´s views. It also creates the risk of misunderstandings and false perceptions of role models like what happened in the case of Natural Born Killers. But after all I believe that movies are only as strong as the public allows them to be. You can minimize the influence yourself by caring for the people next to you and refusing to let your 5-year-old son watch Beavis and Butt-head late at night. Consequently I believe that the overall responsibility of crimes must be carried by those who carry out the actions and not by movies that only influence what kind of crimes that happens.

Alone On The Bedroom Floor

ALONE ON THE BEDROOM FLOOR

-Love and affection

“A sad fact widely known
The most impassionate song
To a lonely soul
Is so easily outgrown
...
But don´t forget the songs
That made you cry
And the songs that saved your life
Yes, you´re older now
And you´re a clever swine
But they were the only ones who ever stood by you”

-“Rubber Ring” Morrissey/Marr 1985

These are word from the gorgeous B-side on the single “The Boy With The Thorn In His Side” by The Smiths, but for millions around the world it is much more than that. For many a lonely soul lying alone on the bedroom floor it is the words and the sound of bitter resentment and pain shared by so many people.

Today music is blasted out in the face of everybody in an extreme amount that cannot be compared to other forms of arts like literature, movies e.g. It is used as background music in any kind of setting. This is why some people do not consider it great art and it is why many people will find it hard to believe that some music has had an extraordinary influence on lives.
In the 1950s beatnik poets like Jack Kerouac, William Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg spoke out the words of millions of restless young Americans, who used their novels as inspiration and comfort – an almost religious guidance for their lives. The very same affection exists in some music.

“Get me away from here, I´m dying” was Stuart Murdoch and Belle & Sebastian´s key track on their 1998 album “If you are feeling sinister”, and it yearns for a song “to set me free” in a world where the character is all alone and where the rain is “washing against the lonely tenement”. The main theme here is the loneliness but also how some songs are capable of transforming the rainy setting into a brighter world where there “is love in everything and everyone”. A more realistic perspective can be found in Morrissey´s lyrics where we are often taken through the rainy streets of Manchester, England. However, his dark humor can be extremely uplifting and sometimes floor- rolling funny:

“Spending warm Summer days indoors
Writing frightening verse
To a buck-toothed girl in Luxembourg!”
“Ask” Morrissey/Marr 1985

Mind you, this is a song about how shyness and kindness can destroy your life. But still we are left with lines that provides a smile and a brighter perspective on the subject. This enables many people to see the funny side of the darkest things. Not being able to show emotions was also the key issue in the final song The Smiths recorded together, “I Keep Mine Hidden”, B-side to “Girlfriend In A Coma”:

“Hate, love and war
Force emotions to the fore
But not for me, of course
Of course
I keep mine hidden
I keep mine hidden
But it's so easy for you
Because you let yours flail
Into public view”

“I Keep Mine Hidden” Morrissey/Marr 1987

If that inability makes you lonely, it is comforting to know that somebody else – or perhaps millions else, who knows? – feels that same. Whether you know any others like that or not, you don´t feel as lonely as before. The reason why fans goes to incredible amounts of pain and effort to touch Morrissey at his shows does not have to be sexual as many tries to simplify it to. It may actually be because they consider him the greatest of friends – one who has shared his most inner thoughts with you and one you can rely on and lean onto. There is always hope and even if it ends with death there is beauty:

“And if a double-decker bus
Crashes into us
To die by your side
Is such a heavenly way to die
And if a ten-ton truck
Kills the both of us
To die by your side
Well, the pleasure - the privilege is mine”

“There Is A Light That Never Goes Out” Morrissey/Marr 1986

Such words are comforting in times of despair and hopelessness, because it provides the light that never goes out in the darkest setting - death. The subject of death were also a main part of Arcade Fire´s album “Funeral” from 2004. The release from loneliness and despair were treated in the opening track “Neighboor #1(tunnels)” where the character in the midst of snow and crying parents digs a tunnel to the lover and ends up living in the middle of it.

“And if the snow buries my
my neighbourhood
And if my parents are crying
then I'll dig a tunnel
from my window to yours
yeah a tunnel from my window to yours
You climb out the chimney
and meet me in the middle
the middle of the town
And since there's no one else around
we let our hair grow long
and forget all we used to know
then our skin gets thicker
from living out in the snow”

“Neighboor #1(tunnels)” Arcade Fire/Deu 2004

The loneliness here is released by connection through a tunnel. The secret world of friends who have something in common that no one else knows about. A tunnel that connects. That tunnel could be physical or something else. Like music.

From the sonic outbursts of Dinosaur Jr. and Sonic Youth to the lonesome cries of Stuart Murdoch and Morrissey there is another level of understanding and love in music that grow seeds in people and affect lives. Through this essay I have tried to show how music can be much more than just a background in the traffic or the regular lame Saturday night dance floor sounds. It may connect in a spectacular way that nothing else in this world is capable of. It may bring people together without actually knowing each other. Does that include you?