Because of two posts this week:
I have a ton of e-mails.
People are going to explore whether there was a connection between violent art and violence. That's not a surprise. If it's a surprise to you, where have you been the last decades?
Whenever violence pops up, there's an attempt to pin it to art.
You can stand where ever you want on that hypothesis (don't call it a theory, it's never been proven). I don't believe art causes violence.
I believe art reflects life.
I believe issues prompt people's actions. I would argue that a person utilizing violence is doing so for a number of reasons but that art is not responsible for violence.
That's my take, disagree if you'd like.
That being my take (a big question in the e-mails). So that being my belief, Chris Nolan's in the clear, right?
Again, this is a historical pattern of many decades. Violence takes place and a film, song, TV show gets blamed. Chris Nolan should have known that.
"Chris Nolan should have known that" does not mean he shouldn't have directed the film he sees in his head and fully realized it.
But "Chris Nolan should have known that" does mean when his Fan Boiz are acting crazy online, utilizing hate speech, he doesn't show up and minimize it.
He looks like an ass and he brought it on himself.
He should have condemned the sexism and homophobia, the threats on critics lives.
He treated it as no big deal.
Now his movie is connected to a tragic shooting.
I bet if he had a few days to take back, he'd come out with a statement condemning the sexism and homophobia of previous days. I bet he realizes now just what an ass he looks like and how, if he pretends to care in public now, everyone's going to be remembering how he defended hate speech.
Nolan's not responsible for the shooting, the film's not responsible.
But when you're given the chance to speak out against hate speech, don't drop the ball.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):