We can show a movie about killing Bush, but not the leader of Korea? We are letting Korea dictate/limit our freedom of speech/artistic expression?? Sony - where is your backbone?
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
Who are these people claiming the terrorists won? I saw Pineapple Express. Those stoned assholes are not funny. We all won.
I don't blame them for pulling it from theaters. This is a post James Holmes society and we aren't that far removed from it historically speaking.
Amen. I like seth rogan when he plays against normal people (like Zach and Miri make a porno. That's a totally acceptable movie.) But Rogan + Franco is just fucking dumb. THEY AREN'T FUNNY TOGETHER. They're just stupid. And boring. And stupid. did I say stupid?
I mean, this whole NK hackers insanity is a whole other level of crazy and I hate to bow to terrorism, or let fear win out over art in concept, but this movie looks stupid as fuck and it pains me to defend it in any way.
I hate this idea that we are "bowing to terrorism."
(A) No. We aren't. This was a business move that as far as I know has nothing to do with the whims of the US Government. This was a business move. There is no "we" but if there was it would be "we are bowing to capitalism."
(B) And generally if "we" were "bowing" so what? Why do we have to play the Yankee Doodle guns blazing America FUCK YEAH role all the time? Why can't we take a risk and make changes based on that risk and not have pseudo hyper masculine hand wringing about it? God. The whole American cowboy ethos when it comes to making American foreign policy is so fucking tired!!
I hate this idea that we are "bowing to terrorism."
(A) No. We aren't. This was a business move that as far as I know has nothing to do with the whims of the US Government. This was a business move. There is no "we" but if there was it would be "we are bowing to capitalism."
(B) And generally if "we" were "bowing" so what? Why do we have to play the Yankee Doodle guns blazing America FUCK YEAH role all the time? Why can't we take a risk and make changes based on that risk and not have pseudo hyper masculine hand wringing about it? God. The whole American cowboy ethos when it comes to making American foreign policy is so fucking tired!!
this is not a capitalist decision. Yes, the "we" in this case is actually "they", meaning Sony and various other involved businesses - but they aren't responding to market pressure, they're responding to violent threats. That's not capitalism. And I'm seriously side-eyeing your characterization of this as such.
And since you are right this isn't actually a government action on the US's part, I'm not sure why you're talking about our foreign policy. But if you want to, it's deeply fucked up that an outside government decides that they don't like a nominally artistic product in this country, where the freedom to create said product is one of our deeply held rights, and proceeds to embark on a campaign to suppress that freedom. I don't like it. I don't like it one fucking bit.
We can show a movie about killing Bush, but not the leader of Korea? We are letting Korea dictate/limit our freedom of speech/artistic expression??
You make no sense.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You know this. You are not that dumb.
How does this have nothing to do with freedom of speech? This movie was created in this country, where said freedom is protected. A different country, which does not respect that freedom, has problems with it - and has proceeded to do whatever they have to do in order to suppress that freedom. Explain to me how that's NOT a freedom of speech issue. It's not our government suppressing their rights so it doesn't count?
I hate this idea that we are "bowing to terrorism."
(A) No. We aren't. This was a business move that as far as I know has nothing to do with the whims of the US Government. This was a business move. There is no "we" but if there was it would be "we are bowing to capitalism."
(B) And generally if "we" were "bowing" so what? Why do we have to play the Yankee Doodle guns blazing America FUCK YEAH role all the time? Why can't we take a risk and make changes based on that risk and not have pseudo hyper masculine hand wringing about it? God. The whole American cowboy ethos when it comes to making American foreign policy is so fucking tired!!
this is not a capitalist decision. Yes, the "we" in this case is actually "they", meaning Sony and various other involved businesses - but they aren't responding to market pressure, they're responding to violent threats. That's not capitalism. And I'm seriously side-eyeing your characterization of this as such.
And since you are right this isn't actually a government action on the US's part, I'm not sure why you're talking about our foreign policy. But if you want to, it's deeply fucked up that an outside government decides that they don't like a nominally artistic product in this country, where the freedom to create said product is one of our deeply held rights, and proceeds to embark on a campaign to suppress that freedom. I don't like it. I don't like it one fucking bit.
STOP MAKING ME DEFEND THIS AWFUL MOVIE!
NO NO NO. This is TOTALLY a capitalistic move. The bottom line is that having this movie in theater houses with other movies was going to drive down ticket sales for those other movies.
I think I made it clear why I was talking about foreign policy GENERALLY in "(B)".
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You know this. You are not that dumb.
How does this have nothing to do with freedom of speech? This movie was created in this country, where said freedom is protected. A different country, which does not respect that freedom, has problems with it - and has proceeded to do whatever they have to do in order to suppress that freedom. Explain to me how that's NOT a freedom of speech issue. It's not our government suppressing their rights so it doesn't count?
Freedom of speech is ONLY implicated when the government is suppressing it. This is not a first amendment issue!
Sony pictures could also have said years ago "nah Rogan, we aren't making your picture because ew" and that's also not a freedom of speech issue, obviously.
this is not a capitalist decision. Yes, the "we" in this case is actually "they", meaning Sony and various other involved businesses - but they aren't responding to market pressure, they're responding to violent threats. That's not capitalism. And I'm seriously side-eyeing your characterization of this as such.
And since you are right this isn't actually a government action on the US's part, I'm not sure why you're talking about our foreign policy. But if you want to, it's deeply fucked up that an outside government decides that they don't like a nominally artistic product in this country, where the freedom to create said product is one of our deeply held rights, and proceeds to embark on a campaign to suppress that freedom. I don't like it. I don't like it one fucking bit.
STOP MAKING ME DEFEND THIS AWFUL MOVIE!
NO NO NO. This is TOTALLY a capitalistic move. The bottom line is that having this movie in theater houses with other movies was going to drive down ticket sales for those other movies.
I think I made it clear why I was talking about foreign policy GENERALLY in "(B)".
But the price pressure is in response to a DIRECT ATTACK BY A FOREIGN COUNTRY! How is that not a different category from the normal course of business decisions?
I am of course assuming that the reports that this really is directed by the gov't of NK are credible. I haven't the foggiest if that's true.
Who are these people claiming the terrorists won? I saw Pineapple Express. Those stoned assholes are not funny. We all won.
I don't blame them for pulling it from theaters. This is a post James Holmes society and we aren't that far removed from it historically speaking.
Amen. I like seth rogan when he plays against normal people (like Zach and Miri make a porno. That's a totally acceptable movie.) But Rogan + Franco is just fucking dumb. THEY AREN'T FUNNY TOGETHER. They're just stupid. And boring. And stupid. did I say stupid?
I mean, this whole NK hackers insanity is a whole other level of crazy and I hate to bow to terrorism, or let fear win out over art in concept, but this movie looks stupid as fuck and it pains me to defend it in any way.
WRONG.
This Is The End is hilarious and so fucking wrong, and the best part of it is that Franco basically plays himself and makes fun of himself.
Well, the real best part is the Backstreet Boys. But otherwise. Franco. And I generally find him and Seth Rogan not funny and obnoxious.
How does this have nothing to do with freedom of speech? This movie was created in this country, where said freedom is protected. A different country, which does not respect that freedom, has problems with it - and has proceeded to do whatever they have to do in order to suppress that freedom. Explain to me how that's NOT a freedom of speech issue. It's not our government suppressing their rights so it doesn't count?
Freedom of speech is ONLY implicated when the government is suppressing it. This is not a first amendment issue!
Sony pictures could also have said years ago "nah Rogan, we aren't making your picture because ew" and that's also not a freedom of speech issue, obviously.
I really want to fight about this because I'm itching for a good argument and this is a topic that is unlikely to get personal so it'd just be a good clean debate - but goddamnit I have to head out for field work for the rest of the day.
Blah.
Of course Sony could have made the decision to shelve the project for taste reasons, because it sucks, because it was a Tuesday and they like to pick a random thing to axe on Tuesdays - they could have decided damn near anything and it wouldn't have been a freedom of speech issue because they aren't our government. But when SOMEBODY ELSE'S government suppresses the freedoms of Americans while they are IN America - how in the world is that not something else entirely? So, not a first amendment issue - but damn, it's got to be something other than just, "yup, that's business!"
It's not like it was just bad press. Or places declaring they weren't going to show it because it's in lousy taste. Or protests. Or anything else that would have been clearly a business decision. They were attacked. Information was stolen. Threats have continued. This is not business as usual.
Now feel free to tell me how I'm wrong and I'll have to read it tomorrow.
Amen. I like seth rogan when he plays against normal people (like Zach and Miri make a porno. That's a totally acceptable movie.) But Rogan + Franco is just fucking dumb. THEY AREN'T FUNNY TOGETHER. They're just stupid. And boring. And stupid. did I say stupid?
I mean, this whole NK hackers insanity is a whole other level of crazy and I hate to bow to terrorism, or let fear win out over art in concept, but this movie looks stupid as fuck and it pains me to defend it in any way.
WRONG.
This Is The End is hilarious and so fucking wrong, and the best part of it is that Franco basically plays himself and makes fun of himself.
Well, the real best part is the Backstreet Boys. But otherwise. Franco. And I generally find him and Seth Rogan not funny and obnoxious.
That's an ensemble cast though, right? That fixes things. It's like how I can't fucking STAND ben stiller, but Mystery Men is fantastic.
Who are these people claiming the terrorists won? I saw Pineapple Express. Those stoned assholes are not funny. We all won.
I don't blame them for pulling it from theaters. This is a post James Holmes society and we aren't that far removed from it historically speaking.
Amen. I like seth rogan when he plays against normal people (like Zach and Miri make a porno. That's a totally acceptable movie.) But Rogan + Franco is just fucking dumb. THEY AREN'T FUNNY TOGETHER. They're just stupid. And boring. And stupid. did I say stupid?
I mean, this whole NK hackers insanity is a whole other level of crazy and I hate to bow to terrorism, or let fear win out over art in concept, but this movie looks stupid as fuck and it pains me to defend it in any way.
I liked Pineapple Express.
But I liked the pairing of Seth Rogen and Danny McBride better than Rogen + Franco.
NO NO NO. This is TOTALLY a capitalistic move. The bottom line is that having this movie in theater houses with other movies was going to drive down ticket sales for those other movies.
I think I made it clear why I was talking about foreign policy GENERALLY in "(B)".
But the price pressure is in response to a DIRECT ATTACK BY A FOREIGN COUNTRY! How is that not a different category from the normal course of business decisions?
I am of course assuming that the reports that this really is directed by the gov't of NK are credible. I haven't the foggiest if that's true.
There is no credible evidence that there was going to be any attack on any theaters because of this movie. Do we really think that sony pictures thinks NK has "sleeper cells" in the US waiting to go after Regal Cinemas? And they shelved the movie to protect the public safety from these terrorists? I don't think so.
this is not a capitalist decision. Yes, the "we" in this case is actually "they", meaning Sony and various other involved businesses - but they aren't responding to market pressure, they're responding to violent threats. That's not capitalism. And I'm seriously side-eyeing your characterization of this as such.
And since you are right this isn't actually a government action on the US's part, I'm not sure why you're talking about our foreign policy. But if you want to, it's deeply fucked up that an outside government decides that they don't like a nominally artistic product in this country, where the freedom to create said product is one of our deeply held rights, and proceeds to embark on a campaign to suppress that freedom. I don't like it. I don't like it one fucking bit.
STOP MAKING ME DEFEND THIS AWFUL MOVIE!
I would be shocked if the feds didn't go to Sony and say, "We're not telling you to pull it;we're just saying it would be better if that movie didn't run. Anywhere. At all. Ever. That's all we're saying."
No, DC is actually mad that sony "capitulated to a dictator."
I'm going to repeat this excerpt from the article I posted:
No matter what anyone says in public, I can promise you that this has already changed what people will or won't make, and it will be a long time before any studio allows any filmmaker to dabble in real-world politics. We've seen studios shrug off petitions and pickets and organized protests, but this was enough to make a studio pull their Christmas Day wide release, a movie that was set for thousands of screens, over the mere suggestion of something vague, something "bad." And by announcing that the tactic has worked, Sony has just handed a playbook to anyone else who decides that they want to censor the next film or TV show or album that they don't like. What's that? The new "Uncharted" game features bad guys from Iran? Well, now some Iranian hackers just have to publish some embarrassing internal e-mails and then they'll be able to bully Playstation into killing a major franchise, right?
NK wanted to kill this film, and they did. The didn't need credible threats, they didn't need nukes, they didn't need to actually do anything. They did it with hackers. And now anyone can. That's kind of fucking terrifying.
I'm going to repeat this excerpt from the article I posted:
No matter what anyone says in public, I can promise you that this has already changed what people will or won't make, and it will be a long time before any studio allows any filmmaker to dabble in real-world politics. We've seen studios shrug off petitions and pickets and organized protests, but this was enough to make a studio pull their Christmas Day wide release, a movie that was set for thousands of screens, over the mere suggestion of something vague, something "bad." And by announcing that the tactic has worked, Sony has just handed a playbook to anyone else who decides that they want to censor the next film or TV show or album that they don't like. What's that? The new "Uncharted" game features bad guys from Iran? Well, now some Iranian hackers just have to publish some embarrassing internal e-mails and then they'll be able to bully Playstation into killing a major franchise, right?
NK wanted to kill this film, and they did. The didn't need credible threats, they didn't need nukes, they didn't need to actually do anything. They did it with hackers. And now anyone can. That's kind of fucking terrifying.
It's not actually true they did nothing. They dismantled an entire company's IT infrastructure with malware that will cost anywhere from $150-$300 million. And it's one of the biggest hacks in history.
In recent months, the uproar over The Interview, a comedy about assassinating North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, has triggered an escalating set of reactions: retaliatory threats from North Korean officials; a sophisticated cyberattack on Sony Pictures, reportedly orchestrated by North Korea; a pledge by the hackers to physically attack theaters showing the film; and now, on Wednesday, Sony’s decision to cancel the movie’s December 25 release altogether, as movie-theater chains began backing out of screenings. The latest development is an act of craven self-censorship and appeasement—a troubling precedent by the Free World’s leading culture-makers. But rightful calls to defend freedom of expression and go ahead with the movie are also mixing with a far more dubious strain of thinking: that the film itself is a form of defiance against a dictatorial regime. It is not.
In The Interview, directed by the Canadian comics Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, a celebrity journalist (James Franco) and his producer (Rogen), tired of producing meaningless content, score a major scoop: an interview with Kim Jong Un (Randall Park). The CIA learns about the trip and recruits the two to kill the leader—a task that, judging from reports and leaked footage, someone eventually succeeds in doing.
Related Story
North Korea's Horrors, as Shown by One Defector's Drawings
The subject matter and backlash against it have prompted some to compare The Interview with Charlie Chaplin’s seminal The Great Dictator, a 1940 film that many believe courageously confronted a rising Hitler who had not yet openly challenged the United States. “As with Chaplin’s ballet with a globe, the hijinks of Rogen and Franco will also have a deadly serious subtext,” wrote Mark Davis at U.S. News & World Report. “Rogen, Franco and Sony Pictures are doing a brave thing. They are turning the weapon of ridicule on a regime that rests on the twin pillars of absolute worship of the Kim dynasty and sadism.” Rogen himself has thanked Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures, “for having the balls to make this movie.”
This film is not an act of courage. It is not a stand against totalitarianism, concentration camps, mass starvation, or state-sponsored terror. It is, based on what we know of the movie so far, simply a comedy, made by a group of talented actors, writers, and directors, and intended, like most comedies, to make money and earn laughs. The movie would perhaps have been better off with a fictitious dictator and regime; instead, it appears to serve up the latest in a long line of cheap and sometimes racism-tinged jokes, stretching from Team America: World Police to ongoing sketches on Saturday Night Live.
Humor can be a powerful tool for surviving in a closed society, and lampooning dictators can lend latent popular movements the confidence they need to challenge their oppressors. In Libya, dissidents heaped mockery on the Qaddafi family in the early stages of their Arab Spring revolution. In the Soviet Union, activists like Natan Sharansky employed dark humor to weather persecution and labor camps. In a “confrontation with evil,” Sharansky once observed, it is important “to take yourself and everything that’s happening very seriously, to understand that you are part of a very important historical process, and that’s why everything [that] you’ll say and do has tremendous importance for the future.” Nevertheless, he added, “it’s very important not to take anything seriously, to be able to laugh at everything, at the absurdity of this regime, at this KGB prison, and even at yourself.”
Yes, North Korea has long been ruled by an eccentric dynasty of portly dictators with bad haircuts. Yes, the propaganda the regime regularly trumpets to shore up its cult of personality is largely ridiculous. And yes, we on the outside know better, and can take comfort in pointing fingers and chuckling at the regime’s foibles.
But it takes no valor and costs precious little to joke about these things safely oceans away from North Korea’s reach. When a North Korean inmate in a political prison camp or a closely monitored Pyongyang apparatchik pokes fun at Kim Jong Un and the system he represents—that is an act of audacity. It very literally can cost the person’s life, and those of his or her family members. To pretend that punchlines from afar, even in the face of hollow North Korean threats, are righteous acts is nonsense.
It takes no valor and costs precious little to joke about these things oceans away from North Korea’s reach. What’s more, crowding the North Korea “story” with anecdotes of nutty behavior and amusing delusions may ironically benefit those in charge in Pyongyang. It serves to buffer and obscure the sheer evil of a regime that enslaves children and sentences entire families to death for crimes of thought, while building ski resorts, dolphinariums, and other luxury escapes for elites with funds that could feed its malnourished people for several years. How many people would have watched The Interview and concluded that they should do something to help change this odious regime and bring about human rights for North Koreans?
In Charlie Chaplin’s 1964 autobiography, the star discussed the backlash that he faced from Hollywood and the German and British governments when plans for The Great Dictator’s release were announced. He moved forward with the project despite these concerns, but years later suggested that he regretted that decision: “Had I known of the actual horrors of the German concentration camps, I could not have made The Great Dictator; I could not have made fun of the homicidal insanity of the Nazis.”
Kim Jong Un is human, too. I am sure he is, as executives and actors involved in The Interview tried to portray him, a “complex” and “multidimensional” man. But he and his barons are also representative of a singularly horrific system, one in which the scale and scope of suffering among 25 million North Koreans does not, as a recent United Nations inquiry noted, “have any parallel in the contemporary world.”
North Korea is not funny. It is hard to imagine a comparable comedy emerging about quirky Islamic State slavers or amusing and “complicated” genocidaires in the Central African Republic. The suffering in question is happening now, as I write.
The day will soon come when North Koreans are finally free, and liberated concentration camp survivors will have to learn that the world was more interested in the oddities of the oppressors than the torment of the oppressed.
The article I posted above goes along with a woman interviewed on NPR yesterday. She is North Korean and lives in the US and her sentiments were just that she is tired of Hollywood laughing at the horrors of NK. It doesn't help.
The article I posted above goes along with a woman interviewed on NPR yesterday. She is North Korean and lives in the US and her sentiments were just that she is tired of Hollywood laughing at the horrors of NK. It doesn't help.
This is the best argument I've seen. It's funny like the holocaust is funny. Which is like, you know, not funny.
Forgive me, but I don’t know the entire plot of the movie but it doesn’t seem that it’s portraying the treatment of the North Korean as funny. Obviously what they endure is horrific but that’s not the vibe I’m getting here.
Haven’t there been countless caricatures of Hitler over the years, but not the holocaust itself?
Hmmmm... maybe it's different because he's dead so no longer a threat? I don't know, but I am finding the argument that KJU isn't funny to be kind of persuasive. I wonder how many Americans really think of him as an evil dictator. Which, of course, he is.
What about Puty put though??
Sure, he’s not quite up to the benchmark of evil dictator but he’s no peach and arguably not funny but hot damn, we laugh at his ass all the time.