There have been several high profile cases where this argument has surfaced over the years, but it seems to have been turned into a rather convenient scapegoat by, ironically enough, The Media.
The most notable case in England is that of the Jamie Bulger killing. On a Saturday afternoon in Liverpool, Robert Thompson and John Venables led Jamie Bulger away from his parents in a shopping centre, took him to the nearest railway line and murdered him in a brutal manner. When they came to trial, it came to light that there was a copy of Child's Play 3 lying around at one of the boy's houses. Despite the Chief Investigator of the case ruling out any link between the video and the corpse, the judge at the trial made a rather throwaway remark along the lines of 'maybe these films could have an effect on a 10 year old', since it is a well known fact that children can't tell the difference between reality and fiction-look at the effects of Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. At this exact point, every newspaper journalist in the court finally had a hook to hang this story from, and the next day the cover of every tabloid in England splashed with the face of Chucky proclaiming that the film was the only reason that this crime occurred, and led the charge to ban the film-bringing back the 'Video Nasties' scare from 10 years previously.
One of the killers was reported to remark that they couldn't bear watching horror films (but murder a toddler with little or no remorse), as well as the previous statement form the Chief Investigator, but by this time there was a moral panic snowballing it's way through the country, so no-one would listen anyway, being more caught up in their Anti-Chucky crusade. In the end, the film was banned, with both The Sun and The Mirror-amongst other papers of this ilk-taking credit for this situation.
This isn't the first time that this has happened in England, either. Back in 1987, Michael Ryan going on a shooting spree in Hungerford was blamed on First Blood (or Rambo to the British Media Generalising Division), simply because of a couple of the targets that he hit-a petrol station followed by a police station. However, when the film was shown on Channel 5 in 2000, there were no reports of mad gunmen blasting anyone in small English towns. Is this because Ryan killed 14 people for some other reason? And if so, why had no-one meantioned it? Probably because they didn't know what the reason was, and this notion seemed to stick.
Remarkably, the 1996 Dunblaine massacre wasn't blamed upon any film, just the gun ownership issue. So why wasn't this brought up in the aftermath of Hungerford, a whole 9 years previously? If the same measures were taken then, those kids might still be alive and it wouldn't be a mission to get a copy of First Blood that doesn't have all the problems associated with taping off Channel 5 or being what is known as a 'Pirate Copy' in those circles. Which seems to be the more important out of the two-not being shot in the face or not being able to watch a cult film starring Sylvester Stallone? Since the trilogy has been released on both VHS and DVD, there hasn't been a single case of somebody rampaging through a shopping centre wearing a bandana with an explosive-tipped crossbow, either.
The most prolific film to have scapegoating cases brought against it so far is Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers.
The best known case is that of Nathan Martinez, of Salt Lake City, Utah. The story basically goes that he was obsessed with the film after seeing it 10 times, then shot his mother and stepsister, before going on the run in a stolen car. When arrested, a copy of the NBK soundtrack was found in the car, and the snowball started to grow. Obviously, the crime was inspired after seeing the film so many times, and he wanted to copy the main characters, Mickey and Mallory Knox.
Now, there are numerous aspects of this argument that come into question straight away. The first being over the amount of times he had seen the film. The reasoning behind this being that he must have been sane before seeing it the first time, and after ten decided to start blasting away. The reasoning also dictates that he probably started to seethe with an inner rage after six viewings, and bought the gun after eight. The crime itself is totally different. In the film, it's Mallory's parents taht get killed, the father by being beaten before drowning in a fishtank, the mother burned alive. Not similar to Martinez's victims, and a totally different Modus Operandi.
There was also the case of the Paris Copycats, but that case had one fatal flaw: the film hadn't even been released in France at the time.
What makes the various arguments seem pointless is that NBK is a satire on the Media's obsession with violence in order to boost the ratings-a specific case is WSVN: Miami. Why else is there shows such as America's Most Wanted in existence? The film even sends this type of show up with American Maniacs, which follows the rules of the show perfectly-such as using cinematic sound and visual techniques and glamorising the protagonists. The opening credits for this segment show the likes of Charles Manson and Richard Ramirez sharing screen space with the character of Wayne Gayle, the host. This is a heavy handed way of showing that the media is just as big a killer, at least in terms of ratings-a point which every Daily Mail reader missed. I'm sure the families of someone murdered getting on one of these shows would be really happy with this. Jill Dando's murder, as dramatised on CrimeWatch served as an eerie form of justice-and the alleged killer was portrayed as being more akin to Michael Myers from the Halloween movies than any real killer.
There have been several other recent cases of this, including the murder linked to Scream 2. Irony here is that the whole premise of the film turns out to be that the murders will be blamed on the movies (the film within, Stab, here), and would make a great trial-remember the spectacle of the OJ Simpson trial? Another point raised is that the victims aren't important, only the bodycount. Any recent serial killer trial will testify to this, Jeffrey Dahmer also had the added hook of numerous gruesome details. And once again no link was made between the two, just a few quick headlines.
Then again, NBK has been banned on video in this country indefinatly, although it has surfaced on Channel 5 on a couple of occasions. Now, the film is so OTT and the techniques used so mind-bending that there is no way that you could confuse this film with reality without tripping on acid. The effect is much like watching the film on a broken TV set. On the other hand is the easily available (although slightly cut) Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, which is more graphic and all too realistic for comfort-as well as being loosly based on the crimes of Henry Lee Lucas. The notorious scene in which Henry and Otis kill a family (shot on home video) really makes you feel like a voyeur into something you don't want to see, as well as a part of the crime, which is the whole point of the film. However, this film has never been attributed to any crimes. Not even Lucas' own killing spree.
There are other films/cases out there to meantion, such as A Clockwork Orange, which led Kubrick to goon the record defending his film by stating "Sanitised violence has been accepted for years. What worries people now is seeing the effects of violence". However, there are other factors to take on board. When it comes to media scapegoating, now it seems movies aren't enough any more. Other forms of media have to be blamed to keep the spotlight on the case longer-in case some real news might have to be shown instead (WSVN again).
Along with AC/DC being attributed somewhere in the Ramirez killing spree of the mid-80s, the main culprit of Musical Contamination of The Sane Mind came from the Columbine High School Shootings in Colorado.
After two students, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, blasted the contents of the canteen with rifles and grenades during the lunch break, it was made known that they were fans of Marilyn Manson. They were also into Rammstein, but that didn't reach the British Press since no-one knows who they are over here. Nine Inch Nails were also roped in for added value-but MM were the main focus of attention. Just because the band/vocalist share a name with the most notorious man in America that isn't Liberal or Communist, does that mean that they were told to go forth to mutilate, maim and cause untold chaos by the lyrics?
Of course not. They aren't a Norwegian black/death metal band. That seems to be the closest to any lyrics containing that content, looking back at the early 90s and all the 'trouble' that arose then. Murders of members of various bands (by members of other bands, not fans) and church burnings/desecrations, this time by the fans. This was more because of the extreme nature of some black metal fans, especially in Norway. And if you get bored (fjords only hold the interest for so long), you get worked up, so trashing a graveyard is as good a release as any.
As a Columbine postscript, it emerged that neither Harris nor Klebold were actually fans of Marilyn Manson in the first place. However, this FACT hasn't been soaked up into the collective conscious of Middle America in any way, to the level that on his current stint on the US Ozzfest, Manson pulled out of the Denver show because of ill feeling remaining. To quote manson himself, "In America it's easier to put the blame on one person, rather than the ills of society."
More recently, the shootings in Santee, California, by Charles Williams have also been blamed on 'Evil Music', with Linkin Park getting the blame when it came to the crunch. Obviosly 'They' (Middle American Reactionary Committee) saw the video for One Step Closer on MTV in the background, which made the task a lot easier. It also give the line "I find bliss in ignorance" a whole new perspective. Of course, what if a group of N'Sync fans shot up their school? It would be kept quiet by the media, because boybands are part of the media intent on nulifying the general public into complacency, whilst the likes of Linkin Park et al most certainly aren't. We all remember the serial rape murders in North London in the Early 80's who used their 'Satanic Music' before committing another crime-Michael Jackson's Thriller album. That was conveniently forgotten, wasn't it?
During the Rodney King riots in LA, rather than blame the racism that was plain to see in the LAPD, what gets the blame? Rap music. Or more correctly, Cop Killer by Ice-T's metal side project, Body Count (ie, not rap-clearly heavy metal). But they still blamed rap, because it was performed by and for black people, and white kids listen to rock music, as did some of the officials who were in charge of pointing the finger, so it was easier to go for the music of the black population, rather than what some white kids might listen to-otherwise known as ignoring the fact that BC fall more into the latter categopry, just they have an all-black line-up. The track was eventually pulled from all copies of the album, so is a rarity. However, NWA got roped in as well, but Fuck Tha Police is easily available, with the same sort of content, so there is a less than mild discrepancy there. This might link to the Moral "Majority's" opinion that all Heavy Metal is evil and is The Devil's music, as well as the fact that NWA are one of the most influential rap acts of all time, and banning their material would be akin to banning The Beatles' White Album-a personal favorite of Mr. Charles Milles Manson, by the way. Was this brought up in the wake of the Tate/LaBianca killings? Nope.
Or, more likely, only one sacrificial lamb was needed, and since the track was called Cop Killer, it would obviously be about encouraging people to kill cops and go against authority, which the Dominant Ideology (white, male, middle class) cannot bear to think about. There was nothing wrong with the cops that beat Rodney King half to death getting acquitted that could have sparked the riots, considering the LA police force were notorious for quite some time before NWA or Body Count even got near a studio.
Minorities taking over? Perish the thought. Never mind the fact that there are more of them, so they aren't really a minority. The real minority out there is the Moral Majority, who only get the attention they receive due to their leader being the vice-president's wife, and the fact Tipper Gore is so much like Kyle's mother in South Park it's painfully amusing, until another pointless ban or issue is raised to take the attention away from her menopause.
Another scapegoat, for the first notable time for a high profile case such as this, video games were blamed. Obviously, playing first person shooters, such as Doom and the like, means you can't tell the difference between a pixellated demon trying to attack you whan you are clutching a chainsaw, and a group of jocks that beat the shit out of you all day and get away with it since they represent the pride of the school every Sunday, so must be treated like Gods. This also led to a minor edit to Silent Hill, so in the school section of the game, rather than faceless children attacking you, it switched to standardised zombies-apart from the Japanese version, since they aren't stricken with knee jerk reactions every time something goes wrong with society and they don't know why.
The same goes for NBK, the title means that the film is about nothing more than killing, so must be evil. John Major went on the record as saying "It sounds distasteful", so he hadn't seen it to make up his mind, but had it made up for him. Good example from our then Prime Minister of making up their own mind and stating their views. And if those in power cannot do this, what chances do us poor plebs have?
The fact that Mallory kills her parents since her father abused her, and her mother just stood there and did nothing, is a valid point to make. There are frequent cases of parents abusing their children, causing them untold physical and psychological damage. In the end, Mallory ends all the torment by striking back, which numerous children have also done, such as the Menendez brothers. So this is actually taking into account reality, so it's art imitating life, rather than the other way 'round.
Regarding Columbine after that minor sidetrack, why not blame The Basketball Diaries? After all, someone walks into a High School, wearing a leather trenchcoat like the perpitrators, and blasts a classroom. But it has the lovely Leonardo Di Caprio in it, so they can't blame that, so something else needed to be fingered. I don't know, how about the NRA? All this Second Ammendment quoting can't disguise the fact that it's easier to buy a gun than a bottle of Budweiser in the States-a gun can be bought as young as 16 in some states. So which can do more harm, drinking a bottle of Becks, or having a loaded 12-gauge in your hand, pointed at someone at point-blank range, with the safety off? But this is American History we're dealing with, and you can't do that, they rule the world, remember? We have to bow down to them, they know all. The final solution, after scapegoating, wasn't gun control, they decided to pass a bill to put The Ten Commandments on display in every High School, which would obviously stop anyone wanting to kill other people. Sort of like The Crusades were nicely asking people to convert to Christianity and Mein Kampf was saying Jews should be tolerated.
On this subject, the scapegoats are always along the same lines. If a film gets the blame, it's usually a horror movie, although NBK is different, but at the same time it can be said that satire and the other themes contained didn't translate into Middle America, and the media buzz sent out shockwaves all over the globe, since America knows all.
However, there is one text out there that has caused more deaths than the entire cinematic output, Gangsta rap and anything heavier than Matchbox 20 combined. It's a book, and has been overlooked for a very long time. Not Mein Kampf, but The Bible. This is a book responsible for all the violence and carnage during The Crusades, the atrocities in Serbo-Croatia, The Troubles in Northern Ireland, and a manual for all cult leaders from David Koresh to Jim Jones, and that's just off the top of my head. Yet is there even a slightest murmour of banning this tome of death? Not one. Even the 'evil' (to quote Bob Dole) Nine Inch Nails pointed this out in the lyrics of Heresy, which promptly got them labelled as 'Satanic', which shows how reactionary they get in The Bible Belt. Then there's the flagrant racism shooting through the pages (white-only in Heaven), and the basic statement that only Christianity is right, you'll soon find out why. The contradictions add to the problems.
Even the events of September 11th could not escape these wild, unfounded, and generally quite annoying allegations. One group claimed that Osama bin-Laden's crew had got all the necessary data for flying a 747 into the World Trade center from...Microsoft Flight Simulator. Excuse me? Just to make sure you read that correctly, I will repeat it with added empasis and definition - Microsoft Flight Simulator inspired al-Queda to demolish the WTC. Did the claims makers have any idea how ridiculous this notion sounds? I thought the fact that the US armed themselves to the teeth in their arms race with themselves and threw their weight around by bullying the world would be a better cause to inspire these events, but what would I know?
And it gets better!!! One letter to Teletext (and probably several to various papers) claimed that "maybe they got their sick ideas" from watching films like Die Hard and other high octaine, explosion riddled Hollywood blockbusters. Well, it's true that Pearl Harbour made me want to bomb somebody, but Michael Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer and the offices of Touchstone Pictures for producing such a dire, excreable waste of celluloid, time, money, effort and space. Hardly the same ballpark here...
On to WSVN: Miami, which I hinted at before now. They feel that crime is the only way to get ratings, so they show just that. Considering they're a news station, I'm sure that weather forecasts and sports results wouldn't go amiss. They show off their technology, and make any crime a spectacle, using things such as police radio reports. The same techniques as before are employed-they even have their own in-house music department. If dumbing down could be pinpointed, this is a good place to look. However, the ratings are higher than their (upmarket) competitors.
So, as a summery, what effect does the media have upon society? NONE.
With the exception of paranoid schzophrenics, everyone can tell the difference between The Real World and what they watch on TV, even kids, contrary to popular opinion. The theory there is that the ability to reason is obtained during puberty, I take it. They probaly do such things because, perish the thought, they are nowhere near as innocent as people believe they are. The points I have made here are all 100% valid, whilst the arguments are anything but. Another thing, I have seen all of the films listed here on several occasions (even closely studied NBK for A-Level), yet I do not feel the urge to kill people, and can tell the difference between what is real and what isn't-the world is not something out of eXistenZ, and won't be during my lifetime.
Maybe if all these people stopped to think about what they were saying, they would realise that fearmongering is nothing but a quick answer to the problems in society today. No film has been proved responsible for a single death, whilst The Bible has counted for millions over the centuries, with a pedigree including The Crusades, The Troubles and Arkan and his friends in Bosnia, yet I hear no cry for it to be banned. Next time somebody flips out, five will get you ten he'll think he's Jesus. Not Rambo, not The Terminator, and certainly not Tyler Durden.
The recent reissue of A Clockwork Orange in cinemas in the UK certainly didn't account for any gangs of wannabe Droogs to start roaming the country looking for some ultraviolence, much as screenings of NBK and First Blood on Channel 5 cause all out anarchy and bloodshed on the streets as soon as they finished, or even in the commercial breaks.
But whenever the theories do get proven to be incorrect, which they usually are, do we hear any form of apology or admission of being wrong from these people? Of course we don't, they can't be seen to be wrong after causing all this fuss from a kneejerk reaction, so slip away waiting for another time to be in the limelight for another undeserved 15 minutes. The reputation of the film will always carry this stigma, since people will only remember the contraversy, rather than the truth.
Time for everyone to find a new scapegoat for the problems in society. How about society itself? It seemed to work for Travis Bickle and D-Fens, just as it did for Charles Manson. The real motivation for killing is a dark one, not something simple that can just be quickly slapped onto the nearest available scapegoat and brushed over quickly. Quickly dismissing a murder for material gain, or watching Roman Polanski films (he was a suspect for the Sharon Tate murder just because of a couple of films he made) is a lazy tactic done by press journalists to make a headline with sufficiant impact, and the fact that there are so many people out there in society that cannot think for themselves, so they have their opinions written by a tabloid hack.
People that cannot discern the difference between fact and fiction are already psychotic, such as the man that tried to kill Ronald Reagan because Jodie Foster told him to when he watched Taxi Driver and he had to save her (killing Reagan would also have saved the US from a lot of trouble, come to think of it), rather than the other way around. The cathode ray does not corrupt the mind, although it can be argued it switches it off. The only corruption that it does cause is corrupting the thought process with all the lies and bullshit that flow from news broadcasts, causing so many people to believe whatever they say, despite it being just the opinions of the broadcaster, which don't necessarily link in to The Truth. THAT is the only danger that the media has.
