US hubris has real-world consequences

US hubris has real-world consequences

The Interview is based on a deeply-flawed conceit rooted in American exceptionalism: that a film about the killing a leader for the fun of it is funny as long as the target is unpopular and foreign.

Such a cinematic hit job may or may not boost box-office sales, but one thing is sure — it speaks volumes about America's increasingly out-of-control culture of violence.

Look at the violence associated with America today: kids shot by cops, civilians cut down by drones, a gun industry selling tools of murder with impunity and an international arms trade to match.

The US has a brutal prison system swollen with violent offenders that is now the largest archipelago of incarceration in the world.

Look at the mindless school shootings and heart-breaking acts of terror and a foreign policy that calls for endless war and provokes political kidnapping, suicide bombs and videotaped murders in retaliation.

America has lost its course; America has lost its compass. It's the violence, stupid.

The Interview may be a joke of a film, but the escalating war of words between anti-Kim detractors and the pro-Kim hackers is deadly serious.

Despite the predictable, petulant cries of "caving in", Sony Japan in its own subtle, understated way, belatedly said "no" to its decadent, derelict Hollywood division.

There are things far worse than taking simple precautions in the face of a threat, and that includes doubling down on the bad behaviour that created the conflict in the first place.

Is it really worth calling for revenge and beating the drums of war to justify an exercise in bad taste?

What core principles are at stake? Does a commitment to free speech mean that anything goes, that values have no value? Does Hollywood not have pieties of its own, topics it won't touch?

Is it right to indulge, in fantasy, as in foreign policy, in the bloody destruction of people beyond our borders?

Does respect for diversity go out the door when the US border is crossed, in accord with NSA policy of exploiting the privacy of foreigners? Is racism and prejudice okay outside the US zone of influence?

It might also be mentioned that there's nothing funny about journalists doing hit jobs, either.

That was the tragic case in Afghanistan when al-Qaeda rival Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated by a camera crew on Sept 9, 2001, as a precursor to the attacks of 9/11.

President John F Kennedy poignantly pointed out how wrong it was for the US to sanction the overthrow and killing of Ngo Dinh Diem on Nov 2, 1963.

The US is a country that lost four presidents and dozens of civil rights leaders to assassination, not to mention the ongoing epidemic of violence on the streets.

Is it not preposterous that a film depicting the targeted killing of a living person for kicks should be hailed by the US president and trumped up by political commentators as a precious product that deserves the widest release possible?

Garbage is still garbage, and hate is still hate, even if the bad guys are bad.

Hollywood is political, and like US politicians, it takes great care not to offend powerful US constituencies, partly out of fear of pushback but also because the industry is not devoid of decency and there is a sporting sense of what's right and wrong.

As the list of countries that the world's sole superpower does not control or maintain significant influence in shrinks, the shortlist of Hollywood villains gets shorter.

Even Cuba, itself the historic target of attempted US hit jobs, is looking friendly now.

And China, even before it became a coveted film market in its own right, was too powerful and self-protective to go up against.

So, what do you do on a level playing field full of strong people? Kick the dog?

That seems to be Hollywood's attitude to little North Korea.

It's odious enough, isolated enough, and, until recently, regarded as impotent enough to bear the brunt of trade in hatred and personified evil.

In Japan, as the US, the Pyongyang regime is slyly vilified as a proxy for untouchable China.

As a vestige of the losing camp in the Cold War, it's a useful villain and foil for US triumphalism.

Why, if it weren't for North Korea, there'd be no one to kick around anymore.

Well, we'll always have the Nazis.

Central casting can breathe a sigh of relief that Hitler's foot soldiers, safely sequestered in a horrific chapter of the past, are beyond redemption and will always be available for backlot bad guys and stock villains.

To state the obvious, it should be stressed that what the hackers did to Sony was utterly wrong.

The hack was devastating and raises issues of internet privacy and digital security that will be addressed for years to come.

Then the Sony hackers lost their "lulz" and turned a technically impressive attack into something beyond the pale.

They followed up with a threat of violence directed against movie theatres, and the implausible but chilling invocation of 9-11.

That's the kind of hatred the controversial film was trading in.

American TV news is on the story, exploding with indignation.

But this kind of over-reacting to withdrawal of the film, which President Obama contributed to with some flippant words chiding Sony in a press conference, will ironically lead to an even greater erosion of free expression and privacy.

Who do you call when the hackers strike?

The FBI and NSA have already come running to the rescue.

But with all of this hullabaloo, where's the reflection?

Where's the cultural humility and self-questioning?

Who in the US talk show circuit has the courage to go against the anti-North Korean stampede and xenophobic catcalls for war to acknowledge that America has a problem in the way it tolerates and glorifies violence?

Even with free speech as a most cherished national value, there are lines best not crossed.

The classic example starts with yelling fire in a movie theatre.

But as the unhappy saga of The Interview all too clearly demonstrates, needlessly incendiary movies are not in good taste.

And sometimes they result in real-world violence.


Philip J Cunningham is a media researcher covering Asian politics.

Philip J Cunningham

Media researcher

Philip J Cunningham is a media researcher covering Asian politics. He is the author of Tiananmen Moon.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (6)