Unnatural Killers Argumentative Essay
English 101
7/10/07
Option One In this day and age, people are always looking for scapegoats to blame when a horrific crime happen in our society. Sometimes, creators of violent films are labeled as malefactor for their art work because people argue it entices violence and they should be held accountable when an individual imitates their violent art work. However, I think the film makers should not be held liable for possible consequences of their films because they are exercising their constitutional rights by creating these films and people should be held accountable for their own actions instead using them as scapegoats. It is imperative that there are absolutely no restrictions on these filmmakers with regards to their art work, and …show more content…
are allowed to exercise their freedom of speech and expressions given to them by the First Amendment. These film makers should not in any way shape or form be held responsible for any negative emulation that may occur concerning their movies because these movies are fiction and they are for entertainment purposes only.
There are no indications that these filmmakers condone the actions of the "lunatics" that try to mimic their work because movies are art with the purpose of entertaining an audience.
Researchers have not been able to establish any direct link deriving a violent crime from violent movie although there are some close imitations like the one describes by John Grisham in Unnatural killers. Unnatural killers was written by John Grisham after one of his friends was gunned down by two supposedly imitating teenagers that were allegedly inspired by Olivier Stones' movie Natural born killers. For those who have not seen Natural Born Killers, John Grisham resumed it as:
It is the repulsive story of two mindless young lovers, Mickey (Woody Harrelson) and Mallory (Juliette Lewis), who blaze their way across the southwest, killing everything in their path while becoming famous. According to the script, they indiscriminately kill fifty-two people before they are caught. It seems like many more. Then they manage to kill at list fifty more as they escape from prison. They free themselves, have children, and are last seen happily down the highway in a Winnebago. John Grisham Unnatural Killers
573
In Grisham's essay he claims that two teenagers name Sara and Ben murdered his friend Mr. Savage, after they had watched the Natural Born Killers' movie. He also argues that Oliver Stone should also be held legally responsible for the death of his friend because these teenagers were inspired by his movie. The murder happened at "around five P.M., on March 7, 1995, someone entered Bill Savage's office next to the gin, shot him twice in the head at point-blank range, and took his wallet, which contained a few credit cards an two hundred dollars" Grisham Unnatural Killers 571. Grisham also claims "there were no witnesses. No one heard gunshots. His body was discovered later by an insurance salesman making a routine call" and there were not many clues at the crime scene Grisham Unnatural Killers 571. The manner they were captured was an anonymous informant told the police after he had heard the two bragging about their exploits.
Graham explains that Sarah came from an economically and politically elite background, and she was also a very good student who graduated high school with honors, attended college but later dropped out. Ben's family was the opposite of Sarah's. His father was an alcoholic that divorced his mom twice, and then later killed himself. But both Ben and Sara had major issues they were already dealing with before the murdered Savage, a history of drug abuse and psychiatric treatment at very young age. I think Grisham is ridiculous for trying to indict Stone on his friend's murder because of his movie, knowing the history of drug abuse and psychiatric behavior of the two culprits. Who is to say they were not under some type drug influence or were not trapped in their mental unstableness when they committed that crime? Although the movie may have played a slight role in the murder of his friend but I find it peculiar for laying the blame mostly on Stone's work of art.
In Olivier Stone reply "Memo to John Grisham: What's Next- A Movie Made Me Do it'? He and I share the same opinion in some of the arguments he made in his essay. For instance Stone claims "Increasingly indicted by art and fearful of technology, our society scours them for scapegoats, in the process ignoring Shakespeare, who reminds us that artist do not invent nature but merely hold up to it a mirror" Stone 686. I share the same views as him in this quote, like I mentioned earlier in my essay people should be held accountable for their own actions instead of trying to lay the blames on artists who are just producing art. He also claims "the First Amendment protects even the views of those who don't believe in it. In America, we call that freedom of speech" Stone 688. I also believe these creators of violent films are completely within their constitutional rights by producing these movies. I also think as long as these filmmakers are creating films they should be able to continue to do so with no restrictions to what movies they're creating as long as they are not blatantly telling people to go out and commit murder. The decision not to make violent movies should be reserve to them whether or not they want to make these types of movies. Here is another example of how Congress tried to violate the rights of film makers who created violent movies on the basis that these movies have negative effects on children. In Brian Siano's essay "Frankenstein Must be destroyed" Chasing the monster of TV violence. He explains how Attorney General Janet Reno took a hard line against TV violence and wanted senate to regulate TV violence by having an expert (Eron) who had done behavioral work on children regarding violence, testify on what triggered violence in children Brian Siano 592, 593, 594. Eron "reveals that aggressive kids who turned into aggressive adults like aggressive television" and also "testified before Simon's committee in [August 93], he declared that "the scientific debate is over" and called upon the senate to reduce TV violence Siano 595. However, Siano argues that Eron's "statement did not include any reference to such significant factors as parental indication- which in his own research indicates, can change the way children interpret physical punishment.( In one of Eron's earlier research he had discovered "children with less nurturing parents are more aggressive. Children who more closely identified with either parent were less aggressive. And children with low parental identification who were punished tended to be more aggressive" Siano Frankenstein Must be destroyed... 593). Once more, I think this was another pathetic way that members of congress tried in vain to change the constitution which I think is totally illegal just because they don't enjoy those creative movies that these film makers produce. I think it's time that people put their hands up and be counted for their negative actions. When congress or lawmakers tries to pass laws to restrict what movies film makers are allowed to produce just to please a small amount of people as noted in a research noted in Siano's essay "Huesmann's 1984 study of 1500 youths in the United States, Finland, Poland, and Australia argued that assuming a casual influence, television might be responsible for 5 percent of the violence in society. At most" Siano 595. After discovering such an abysmal 5 percent of people who might be influenced by these movies, I think it would be absurd just like Siano pointed in his essay to take away that freedom from the other 95 percent who enjoys that type of movie entertainment.
I think a way to put an end to all that discussion about filmmakers who creates violent movies is for every one to use their First Amendments rights and make their own choice about what movies they are willing to see. And if a copy cat wants to imitate what they see in these fictional movies then they should be ready to deal with the consequences whatever it may be.
In justifying his refutation he pointed out that researchers have shown television might be responsible for only 5 percent of violence in society at most and regulating television would be insulting to the other 95% of people that were unaffected by it. He also refutes the argument that television plays a major role in kids being violent as they grow older and claims certain shows like Batman the animated series, can help kids be more adventurous "while teaching them about such qualities as courage, bravery and Heroism" Brian Siano 598.
7/10/07
Option One In this day and age, people are always looking for scapegoats to blame when a horrific crime happen in our society. Sometimes, creators of violent films are labeled as malefactor for their art work because people argue it entices violence and they should be held accountable when an individual imitates their violent art work. However, I think the film makers should not be held liable for possible consequences of their films because they are exercising their constitutional rights by creating these films and people should be held accountable for their own actions instead using them as scapegoats. It is imperative that there are absolutely no restrictions on these filmmakers with regards to their art work, and …show more content…
are allowed to exercise their freedom of speech and expressions given to them by the First Amendment. These film makers should not in any way shape or form be held responsible for any negative emulation that may occur concerning their movies because these movies are fiction and they are for entertainment purposes only.
There are no indications that these filmmakers condone the actions of the "lunatics" that try to mimic their work because movies are art with the purpose of entertaining an audience.
Researchers have not been able to establish any direct link deriving a violent crime from violent movie although there are some close imitations like the one describes by John Grisham in Unnatural killers. Unnatural killers was written by John Grisham after one of his friends was gunned down by two supposedly imitating teenagers that were allegedly inspired by Olivier Stones' movie Natural born killers. For those who have not seen Natural Born Killers, John Grisham resumed it as:
It is the repulsive story of two mindless young lovers, Mickey (Woody Harrelson) and Mallory (Juliette Lewis), who blaze their way across the southwest, killing everything in their path while becoming famous. According to the script, they indiscriminately kill fifty-two people before they are caught. It seems like many more. Then they manage to kill at list fifty more as they escape from prison. They free themselves, have children, and are last seen happily down the highway in a Winnebago. John Grisham Unnatural Killers
573
In Grisham's essay he claims that two teenagers name Sara and Ben murdered his friend Mr. Savage, after they had watched the Natural Born Killers' movie. He also argues that Oliver Stone should also be held legally responsible for the death of his friend because these teenagers were inspired by his movie. The murder happened at "around five P.M., on March 7, 1995, someone entered Bill Savage's office next to the gin, shot him twice in the head at point-blank range, and took his wallet, which contained a few credit cards an two hundred dollars" Grisham Unnatural Killers 571. Grisham also claims "there were no witnesses. No one heard gunshots. His body was discovered later by an insurance salesman making a routine call" and there were not many clues at the crime scene Grisham Unnatural Killers 571. The manner they were captured was an anonymous informant told the police after he had heard the two bragging about their exploits.
Graham explains that Sarah came from an economically and politically elite background, and she was also a very good student who graduated high school with honors, attended college but later dropped out. Ben's family was the opposite of Sarah's. His father was an alcoholic that divorced his mom twice, and then later killed himself. But both Ben and Sara had major issues they were already dealing with before the murdered Savage, a history of drug abuse and psychiatric treatment at very young age. I think Grisham is ridiculous for trying to indict Stone on his friend's murder because of his movie, knowing the history of drug abuse and psychiatric behavior of the two culprits. Who is to say they were not under some type drug influence or were not trapped in their mental unstableness when they committed that crime? Although the movie may have played a slight role in the murder of his friend but I find it peculiar for laying the blame mostly on Stone's work of art.
In Olivier Stone reply "Memo to John Grisham: What's Next- A Movie Made Me Do it'? He and I share the same opinion in some of the arguments he made in his essay. For instance Stone claims "Increasingly indicted by art and fearful of technology, our society scours them for scapegoats, in the process ignoring Shakespeare, who reminds us that artist do not invent nature but merely hold up to it a mirror" Stone 686. I share the same views as him in this quote, like I mentioned earlier in my essay people should be held accountable for their own actions instead of trying to lay the blames on artists who are just producing art. He also claims "the First Amendment protects even the views of those who don't believe in it. In America, we call that freedom of speech" Stone 688. I also believe these creators of violent films are completely within their constitutional rights by producing these movies. I also think as long as these filmmakers are creating films they should be able to continue to do so with no restrictions to what movies they're creating as long as they are not blatantly telling people to go out and commit murder. The decision not to make violent movies should be reserve to them whether or not they want to make these types of movies. Here is another example of how Congress tried to violate the rights of film makers who created violent movies on the basis that these movies have negative effects on children. In Brian Siano's essay "Frankenstein Must be destroyed" Chasing the monster of TV violence. He explains how Attorney General Janet Reno took a hard line against TV violence and wanted senate to regulate TV violence by having an expert (Eron) who had done behavioral work on children regarding violence, testify on what triggered violence in children Brian Siano 592, 593, 594. Eron "reveals that aggressive kids who turned into aggressive adults like aggressive television" and also "testified before Simon's committee in [August 93], he declared that "the scientific debate is over" and called upon the senate to reduce TV violence Siano 595. However, Siano argues that Eron's "statement did not include any reference to such significant factors as parental indication- which in his own research indicates, can change the way children interpret physical punishment.( In one of Eron's earlier research he had discovered "children with less nurturing parents are more aggressive. Children who more closely identified with either parent were less aggressive. And children with low parental identification who were punished tended to be more aggressive" Siano Frankenstein Must be destroyed... 593). Once more, I think this was another pathetic way that members of congress tried in vain to change the constitution which I think is totally illegal just because they don't enjoy those creative movies that these film makers produce. I think it's time that people put their hands up and be counted for their negative actions. When congress or lawmakers tries to pass laws to restrict what movies film makers are allowed to produce just to please a small amount of people as noted in a research noted in Siano's essay "Huesmann's 1984 study of 1500 youths in the United States, Finland, Poland, and Australia argued that assuming a casual influence, television might be responsible for 5 percent of the violence in society. At most" Siano 595. After discovering such an abysmal 5 percent of people who might be influenced by these movies, I think it would be absurd just like Siano pointed in his essay to take away that freedom from the other 95 percent who enjoys that type of movie entertainment.
I think a way to put an end to all that discussion about filmmakers who creates violent movies is for every one to use their First Amendments rights and make their own choice about what movies they are willing to see. And if a copy cat wants to imitate what they see in these fictional movies then they should be ready to deal with the consequences whatever it may be.
In justifying his refutation he pointed out that researchers have shown television might be responsible for only 5 percent of violence in society at most and regulating television would be insulting to the other 95% of people that were unaffected by it. He also refutes the argument that television plays a major role in kids being violent as they grow older and claims certain shows like Batman the animated series, can help kids be more adventurous "while teaching them about such qualities as courage, bravery and Heroism" Brian Siano 598.