To start, I don't expect to find any answers about what happened in Colorado. My only hope is to figure out what questions are the right ones to ask. Our initial question is to ask "why?" It's not a bad question to ask, but it is too broad. Without narrowing the question, trying to figure out "why" would be too large of a task to expect to even make progress on. Until more information comes out, any discussion of motivation or thought process of James Holmes, the shooter, is merely an exercise in speculation. Still, there some broad themes worth pondering.
My first thought was wondering what connections people would draw between the shooter/shooting and the Dark Knight Rises. I'll admit that as a huge fan of the Christopher Nolan Batman movies, I risk getting defensive. With that disclaimer in mind, I think that drawing connections between this or any movie is a folly. While it's certainly been said before, it's worth repeating. A mind fragile enough to be pushed over the edge by a movie would almost inevitably be pushed over the edge by something. While there are certainly similarities between the way the attack was planned and the type of attacks executed by The Joker in The Dark Knight (not to mention the outrageous hair color), this is not evidence that Heath Ledger's amazing character had any influence in motivating these murders. That said, it's difficult to deny that there wasn't some influence upon the form that his murderous ambition took.
Holmes was, by all accounts, a very smart young man. Enough attention has been paid to his brain power that it's worth asking why nobody saw what most would consider a brain defect. While the dream of predicting this type of behavior through study of the brain may be a reality someday, today it remains a dream. Many will try to look back at "signs" that were visible ahead of time. We should not fall into the trap of this "confirmation bias" type of retrospection. I can only hope that when we finally achieve the necessary understanding of the brain to make these predictions without the benefit of hindsight, we not only have the ability to treat the problem, but we also have a way to give people access to the care they need.
Finally, there are the guns. While it's fair to say that James Holmes killed the people in that theater, it's undeniable that his guns allowed him to do that much more efficiently. I'm not a gun owner, but as a Wisconsinite, I appreciate the place that guns have in our culture. That said, the availability of guns to those who have no business owning them is something that should trouble us all. I cannot claim to have the solution to this problem, but I think that it's time to reevaluate how we think about guns. Marijuana faces exponentially higher restrictions than guns, and I doubt you can find credible statistics to show that pot is as dangerous as a gun in the hands of a madman.
These are just some of the broad themes that the tragedy in Colorado brings to my mind. I'm sure that as more information comes out, further questions will be raised. Answers, however, will be much more difficult to find.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Media Ratings Madness
America is schizophrenic when it comes to depictions of sex and violence in media. We tell ourselves that we want to protect children from graphic sex and violence in movies, TV and video games because we're afraid that it will have a negative effect on them. If we assume that violence and sex in media is something that we should concerned about, Americans should be concerned about the methods we have chosen to make this happen.
When it comes to movies, we have the MPAA's rating system. There are two components to this. First, there is the "G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17" portion. This is the actual rating. Along with that, the MPAA descriptors to inform people why a certain rating was given. These could include items like "graphic violence" or "strong language". But, what do these ratings actually mean? Probably nothing. The MPAA says on it's website that it's board of parents tries to represent what they think the average American parent's standards.
I think it's pretty clear that they've failed to represent the average American. While the descriptors may be useful enough, the actual rating are nearly useless. The head of the MPAA Ratings Board said recently that they do not make "qualitative judgement" about movies. While she was referring how good or bad a movie is, you can't say that film ratings are anything but qualitative judgments. So, are the qualitative judgement of a bunch of people whose judgments on such matters we cannot verify. Would you walk up to a random person on the street and as if the new Batman movie is appropriate for your kids? That's what you're doing if you rely on the MPAA's ratings. The MPAA would argue that they use criteria to take some of the subjectivity out of it, but a quick look at the guide for the ratings system will show you that in place of subjectivity, they've inserted arbitrariness.
Video games suffer from from much of the same problem under the ESRB's rating system. While the descriptors are again helpful, the rating itself is nearly useless. All one needs to do is compare the Halo games to the Grand Theft Auto games. One has been all over the news (though, mostly Fox) because of the things you could do: killing policemen, patronizing prostitutes, killing prostitutes, buying, selling and using drugs, driving drunk and the list goes on. In Halo, faceless space marines defend the world from alien invaders. Unlike Grand Theft Auto, there's no cursing, no drugs, no alcohol, no blood, the violence is cartoonish rather than graphic, and there is not a prostitute to be found. The fact that these games are given the same "M" (mature) rating shows you what a joke the system is.
While the discriptors in the movie and game rating systems can be helpful, the actual ratings are arbitrary and inconsistent. Anybody who wants to know what's really going on in a movie or game would be well served to look beyond what the ESRB and MPAA are providing you, because they're not giving you much.
When it comes to movies, we have the MPAA's rating system. There are two components to this. First, there is the "G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17" portion. This is the actual rating. Along with that, the MPAA descriptors to inform people why a certain rating was given. These could include items like "graphic violence" or "strong language". But, what do these ratings actually mean? Probably nothing. The MPAA says on it's website that it's board of parents tries to represent what they think the average American parent's standards.
I think it's pretty clear that they've failed to represent the average American. While the descriptors may be useful enough, the actual rating are nearly useless. The head of the MPAA Ratings Board said recently that they do not make "qualitative judgement" about movies. While she was referring how good or bad a movie is, you can't say that film ratings are anything but qualitative judgments. So, are the qualitative judgement of a bunch of people whose judgments on such matters we cannot verify. Would you walk up to a random person on the street and as if the new Batman movie is appropriate for your kids? That's what you're doing if you rely on the MPAA's ratings. The MPAA would argue that they use criteria to take some of the subjectivity out of it, but a quick look at the guide for the ratings system will show you that in place of subjectivity, they've inserted arbitrariness.
Video games suffer from from much of the same problem under the ESRB's rating system. While the descriptors are again helpful, the rating itself is nearly useless. All one needs to do is compare the Halo games to the Grand Theft Auto games. One has been all over the news (though, mostly Fox) because of the things you could do: killing policemen, patronizing prostitutes, killing prostitutes, buying, selling and using drugs, driving drunk and the list goes on. In Halo, faceless space marines defend the world from alien invaders. Unlike Grand Theft Auto, there's no cursing, no drugs, no alcohol, no blood, the violence is cartoonish rather than graphic, and there is not a prostitute to be found. The fact that these games are given the same "M" (mature) rating shows you what a joke the system is.
While the discriptors in the movie and game rating systems can be helpful, the actual ratings are arbitrary and inconsistent. Anybody who wants to know what's really going on in a movie or game would be well served to look beyond what the ESRB and MPAA are providing you, because they're not giving you much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)