Who’s To Blame? by Josh Long

The tragedy that rocked our nation on January 8^th has left everyone looking for answers. People with full lives and potentials ahead of them are dead, and for no good reason. It’s a serious tragedy, and one that is unfortunately becoming increasingly familiar in the United States. But just as the sympathies of the country go out to the victims and their families, there is a mad rush to find someone to blame. And it’s no surprise to find fingers once again pointed at Hollywood.

In the media frenzy that followed the Tucson shooting, there have been accusations pointed in almost every direction. Dozens of theoretical culprits have been conjured up –local law enforcement, Jared Loughner’s parents, the mental health industry, even “negativity” in political rhetoric. Granted, no one is suggesting that the movies and the movies alone are responsible for the shooter’s actions. Still, the voices – usually from conservative Christians – have arisen to suggest that violence in Hollywood movies may have played a part. The accusation has been voiced almost every time there is a shooting in the country; Virginia Tech, Columbine and many others. It’s a serious accusation – and those of us who work in the entertainment industry take it seriously.

Much ground has already been covered in the counter-argument. We’ve all heard someone say that “if the Bible was a movie it would be rated R.” To a much lesser degree, movies like Ben-Hur or Braveheart get the seal of approval from most Christians despite explicit violence (24, one of the most violent television shows in recent memory is very popular with conservatives and Christians). This is not to cast aspersions on any of these works, but it illustrates that many who have problems with “Hollywood violence” still patronize it at some level. If one wants to make the argument that we should spend no time reflecting on anything involving violence, we certainly can’t read the Bible or watch the evening news. The argument must then be that the volume of violent programming and the treatment of violence in films are what contribute to the problem.

I have three responses to this assumption. The first is that, though there are many filmmakers who choose to glorify violence in their work, it is by no means the rule. Films like Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, and No Country for Old Men that are considered “violent” do not condone violence – they portray it in a realistic and often very negative light. At the same time there are films such as Lord of the Rings or Saving Private Ryan that contain extended sequences of violence but show us how the violence is in service of something vitally important. An astute viewer might find that most films today do not portray wanton violence as something positive – on the contrary, such films are the small minority.

Secondly, Hollywood does not exist in a vacuum. It takes its cues from the world in which it exists. Stories can only come from real life experiences. Violence is not a concept created from the ether by malignant Hollywood producers. Art imitates life, and in all fairness, life came first. Violence exists in the movies because it first existed in the world. A movie cannot be good or evil; it’s an object, and as such cannot be imbued with a moral identity. It is man’s response to a work of art that is good or evil.

This leads to the third point. Our reaction to a film is what either supports or denounces that kind of film. Hollywood is an industry before it is an ideology. It is a business, and businesses are driven by money. Hollywood producers will only make films they think will draw audiences. If Hollywood makes violent movies, that is because people will go to see violent movies. They are not in the business of making unprofitable films with the ulterior motive of brainwashing America. This Christmas season is an excellent example. Critical notions aside, far more people went to see True Grit than The King’s Speech and How Do You Know combined. In the United States, the people – the consumers – are the ones who have control over industry. If you disapprove of a movie, don’t complain about it to the media; send a message by buying tickets to movies you support.

But beyond all of this, there’s a more important issue. People jump on Hollywood or on politicians or on parents because they’re looking for someone to blame. Christians especially should be first to condemn this attitude. There is nothing good about casting blame – the Bible always depicts it as sin. We want to find someone to blame because it is hard to deal with the harsh reality that pure, unabashed evil exists in our world. It exists, and always has, in people. If we don’t want to accept that, we have to find some external circumstance that spurs every evil act. We can blame society, we can blame parenting, we can blame restrictions or lack of restrictions, but the fact is – individuals make their own choices. When someone chooses, of their own volition, to do harm to others, the blame lies squarely with that individual. And Jared Loughner chose to murder because he is, like all of us, flawed and fallen.

We do more evil than good when we try to find someone to blame. In the face of tragedy, we should take King David’s example (2 Samuel 12:15-24), mourn the losses, and move on. We live in a world where bad things happen to good people and that’s not going to change. The good news is that there’s a life beyond this world, free from this kind of disaster. We inherently desire a world free from evil, and in Christ we inherit the promise of that world. Until then, we can pray for the victims, spread the hope of the good news, and wait patiently for God’s completed, sanctified creation.