reaction to a reaction
So I was looking around on the internet today and I clicked on a headline on www.moviecitynews.com about Don Murphy and something about how he was going to boycott Sundance this year because they were screening a movie called CHAPTER 27. This film stars Jared Leto and is about Mark David Chapman.
here is a link to his site...
Don Murphy blog
here is what he wrote, followed by the response that I posted.
I'm Not Going To Sundance
http://www.indiewire.com/ots/2006/1...ty_07_su_1.html
"Chapter 27"/ USA, Director and Screenwriter: Jarrett Schaefer
A terrifying glimpse into the deranged mind of A FUCKING ASSHOLE KILLER WHO DID IT FOR FAME during his days in NYC prior to the murder of John Lennon, which is played out through his obsession with JD Salinger's classic novel 'The Catcher in the Rye'. World Premiere.
-----------------------
I addressed this before-
THIS DICK KILLED A GENIUS AND AN ICON FOR FAME AND ATTENTION.
THESE ASSHOLES MADE THIS MOVIE WHICH WILL GIVE HIM WHAT HE WANTED.
THAT IS THEIR RIGHT.
SUNDANCE IS SCREENING THIS SURE TO BE PIECE OF SHIT.
THAT IS THEIR RIGHT.
I AM NOT GOING TO SUNDANCE THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF THAT.
THAT IS MY RIGHT.
IT IS MY MOST FERVENT HOPE THAT OTHER PEOPLE IN HOLLYWOOD EXERCISE THAT RIGHT AS WELL.
After reading that declaration of contempt for the film that has not been seen, I was moved to "join" his blog so that I could make a comment. Maybe I got suckered into a fight, but what can you do. The other thing that bothered me was the response from his readers joining him in his contempt, asking for an address to send hate mail, blasting the filmmaker and the festival, and standing on their moral high ground all without having actually seen the film.
HERE IS MY RESPONSE...
before everyone decides to bash the filmmaker for this film, is anyone going to bother to give the film the benefit of the doubt or just condemn it based on a 3 line description on a festival website page. why jump to conclusions and not wait and see for yourself if the film is disrespectful or if it glorifies Chapman in the first place. just because he is the center of the film doesn't mean that he is a hero or that he is being portrayed in a positive manner.
i have not seen the film or read the script, but i would do one or the other before condemning the ones involved in the film's production or distribution. "chapter 27" might be in bad taste. it might glorify mark david chapman for killing a music legend for only the purpose of fame, but if you have not seen it or read it, don't send hate mail or slam a film festival because it is being shown. it might be a thought provoking, responsible, well made film.
my only point is that i wish people were not so narrow minded and quick to judge. everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but please make it based on more than just speculation and assumption.
and mister Murphy...
if you are going to include the synopsis of the film from the Sundance page, please do not editorialize it. here is the portion of the synopsis from the announcement released today:
"Chapter 27"/ USA, Director and Screenwriter: Jarrett Schaefer
A terrifying glimpse into the deranged mind of Mark David Chapman during his days in NYC prior to the murder of John Lennon, which is played out through his obsession with JD Salinger's classic novel 'The Catcher in the Rye'. World Premiere.
there is nothing in this synopsis that would lead me to believe that this movie at all glorifies chapman or what he did. if you are worried that a film being made will make him famous i have some news. he already is famous and he is famous for the terrible crime that he committed. the name "mark david chapman" is known for one thing and one thing only, the murder of John Lennon.
SO....
Also keep in mind that Don Murphy is the man that produced NATURAL BORN KILLERS and BULLY...
While I like both of these movies, they were both blasted for their violence and BULLY is a story of a real life murder of a teenager. Why is it okay to make a movie about real people that killed a teenager and it is not okay to make a movie about a man that killed a great musician? Is it only because Lennon was famous and the teenager wasn't?
What do you think?
Is his claim valid?
Did I just overreact like a fool?
What is your take on this film that is already stirring up more "buzz" than I ever thought it would?
here is a link to his site...here is what he wrote, followed by the response that I posted.
I'm Not Going To Sundance
http://www.indiewire.com/ots/2006/1...ty_07_su_1.html
"Chapter 27"/ USA, Director and Screenwriter: Jarrett Schaefer
A terrifying glimpse into the deranged mind of A FUCKING ASSHOLE KILLER WHO DID IT FOR FAME during his days in NYC prior to the murder of John Lennon, which is played out through his obsession with JD Salinger's classic novel 'The Catcher in the Rye'. World Premiere.
-----------------------
I addressed this before-
THIS DICK KILLED A GENIUS AND AN ICON FOR FAME AND ATTENTION.
THESE ASSHOLES MADE THIS MOVIE WHICH WILL GIVE HIM WHAT HE WANTED.
THAT IS THEIR RIGHT.
SUNDANCE IS SCREENING THIS SURE TO BE PIECE OF SHIT.
THAT IS THEIR RIGHT.
I AM NOT GOING TO SUNDANCE THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF THAT.
THAT IS MY RIGHT.
IT IS MY MOST FERVENT HOPE THAT OTHER PEOPLE IN HOLLYWOOD EXERCISE THAT RIGHT AS WELL.
After reading that declaration of contempt for the film that has not been seen, I was moved to "join" his blog so that I could make a comment. Maybe I got suckered into a fight, but what can you do. The other thing that bothered me was the response from his readers joining him in his contempt, asking for an address to send hate mail, blasting the filmmaker and the festival, and standing on their moral high ground all without having actually seen the film. HERE IS MY RESPONSE...
before everyone decides to bash the filmmaker for this film, is anyone going to bother to give the film the benefit of the doubt or just condemn it based on a 3 line description on a festival website page. why jump to conclusions and not wait and see for yourself if the film is disrespectful or if it glorifies Chapman in the first place. just because he is the center of the film doesn't mean that he is a hero or that he is being portrayed in a positive manner.
i have not seen the film or read the script, but i would do one or the other before condemning the ones involved in the film's production or distribution. "chapter 27" might be in bad taste. it might glorify mark david chapman for killing a music legend for only the purpose of fame, but if you have not seen it or read it, don't send hate mail or slam a film festival because it is being shown. it might be a thought provoking, responsible, well made film.
my only point is that i wish people were not so narrow minded and quick to judge. everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but please make it based on more than just speculation and assumption.
and mister Murphy...
if you are going to include the synopsis of the film from the Sundance page, please do not editorialize it. here is the portion of the synopsis from the announcement released today:
"Chapter 27"/ USA, Director and Screenwriter: Jarrett Schaefer
A terrifying glimpse into the deranged mind of Mark David Chapman during his days in NYC prior to the murder of John Lennon, which is played out through his obsession with JD Salinger's classic novel 'The Catcher in the Rye'. World Premiere.
there is nothing in this synopsis that would lead me to believe that this movie at all glorifies chapman or what he did. if you are worried that a film being made will make him famous i have some news. he already is famous and he is famous for the terrible crime that he committed. the name "mark david chapman" is known for one thing and one thing only, the murder of John Lennon.
SO....Also keep in mind that Don Murphy is the man that produced NATURAL BORN KILLERS and BULLY...
While I like both of these movies, they were both blasted for their violence and BULLY is a story of a real life murder of a teenager. Why is it okay to make a movie about real people that killed a teenager and it is not okay to make a movie about a man that killed a great musician? Is it only because Lennon was famous and the teenager wasn't?
What do you think?
Is his claim valid?
Did I just overreact like a fool?
What is your take on this film that is already stirring up more "buzz" than I ever thought it would?
posted by Humby | 9:34 PM
8 Comments:
the point is the filth killed in order to gain fame
Murphy made that clear you just cannot read
The film can exist but he is right
The movie could make the killer look like the devil himself, but it would still give him the attention he wanted. And on that principle alone, making this movie is a terrible thing to do.
"the point is the filth killed in order to gain fame
Murphy made that clear you just cannot read
The film can exist but he is right"
I found this post interesting, so i will address it one point at a time...
first...
i know that chapman aka "the filth" killed in order to gain fame. HE SUCCEEDED. however wrong that may be, it is true. making a movie about that will not change it. what it might (and i stress the word might) is raise some interesting questions and possibly shed some light on why.
second...
"Murphy made that clear you just cannot read"
this one simply made me laugh. i understand what Murphy is saying. i can read. what i am saying is that he should maybe go to the trouble of reading or seeing the film BEFORE condemning it. that is all. OR... are you saying that Murphy made it clear that i couldn't read? if you are going to slam someone for not being able to read, the least you can do is write it in a manner that is not vague and ambiguous.
and lastly...
i know that the film can exist. it DOES exist for better or for worse. i am not saying that it is in good taste or that it is a good movie. of course Murphy has the right to not want to see the film for whatever reason he chooses or to not go to Sundance. Just please have some information on something besides a three line synopsis before you bash it and call for a boycott.
This reminds me of when THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST came out and a majority of the christian population called for a boycott of the film because they heard that Jesus had sex in it. not that they had seen the film and actually found it offensive, but that they were told that it was offensive.
Whilst I can understand his passion, I have to that screed is well-intentioned but at best misguided ... If it were written after seeing the movie, and the movie did somehow glorify the act of this cowardly scumbag maggot, then coming out against it would be laudatory .. however, to do so sight unseen is, in my opinion, simply wrong
you are all so spasstic
He is not INTERESTED in whether the film is good or bad or glorifies the killer
His clear point is that ANYONE WHO CONTRIBUTES TO THE CELEBRITY OF LENNON'S KILLER is filth.
There is not much to discuss about that. Unless your name is Humby
So, you're saying, he is already famous so now it doesn't matter if they make a movie to add to that fame? Listen, I'm a monotheist and if the killer was dead I wouldn't expect the killer to get to enjoy his fame, but it's the PRINCIPLE that makes it wrong to give this more attention, regardless of what fame he already as or whether he is benefitting from it. It's wrong no matter what. The reality is he is in a prison somewhere, for his own protection, and this film will yet again offer some vindication for his crime.
I don't see what the movie can contain that will make that problem go away. Can you think of anything? As long as it plays in a theatre, it gives him the attention he wanted. For the filmmakers to know that he wanted fame and to make a movie out of it is deplorable.
So - those people defending Murphy's stance are calling for censorship. Now I understand, I guess. I do have some questions though. Who do we consecrate to decide which stories are worthy of being portrayed? Does the censorship extend to other venues - like photography, painting, literature, poetry and, oh my, free speech. WHO DECIDES??? I think the movie BULLY was a terrible choice of subject since it motivated copycat attacks. BAN IT - and Mr Murphy as the producer. Wait - let's blacklist him BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE was based on 2 crazies who killed to get famous. BAN IT !!! Micael Moore goes on the blacklist too.
This is a huge can of worms to open Mr Murphy. Are you sure you want to open it?
visit us to read more:
www.boycottchapter27.org
Thanks
Post a Comment
<< Home