BY
PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM
(Japan Times)
(Japan Times)

Is it worth beating the drums of war for an exercise in bad taste? What principles are at
stake? Is it not about free speech?
The
US is rightly proud of its tradition of free speech and Hollywood filmmaking.
But to put a lame, zany ill-conceived comedy film on the frontline of a trumped-up battle in defense of Western values is a bit like betting the bank on Bozo the
clown and refusing to back down. For one, it suggests the Hollywood mogul's Midas touch can do no wrong, when there's ample evidence of tone-deaf studio bungling and bad judgement. Sony's American branch inadvertently echoed the kind of one-sided righteousness invoked by defenders of the CIA’s indefensible torture record;
admit no wrong, for if we do it, it cannot be all that bad.
Hollywood
hardly holds the high moral ground on free speech issues either; it has a rich history of self-censorship,
pandering to vested interests and playing to power. Sony Executive Amy Pascal
is no exception; she vowed she would never work with Mel Gibson after his
intemperate drunken outburst about Jews, which he later apologized for, yet her
reputation now rests on her decision to green-light and promote a racist
film that takes cheap shots at Asian characters.
Free
speech runs the gamut from the principles of the founding fathers and other
lofty ideas all the way to hate speech, anti-Semitism and incitement of panic
or crime, and America, with its penchant for political correctness, is not the bastion of free speech it pretends to be. What's more, as Sony has learned, America's obsession with violence on the
screen, while couched in terms of artistic "freedom" is not without consequence, even if it's just a second-rate slacker
comedy looking for quick bucks and cheap laughs.
The
kill scene in Seth Rogan’s “The Interview,” in which an explosive projectile
strikes the leader of North Korea in the head and creates a fiery mess is not
only not art, but it constitutes a kind of hate speech which would be fiercely
contested if the object of the on-screen killing were the standing leader of
the US or an ally.
The
Sony hacks are unprecedented, but it is ludicrous to characterize them as an act of war, as suggested by radio shock jock Howard Stern, shock politician Newt Gingrich and other assorted knee-jerk rightists spoiling for a fight.
The financial damage to Sony is real, and mounting, and
the hack raises vexing issues of how to balance privacy and journalist’s right
to publish leaked documents and a host of other digital age conundrums that
will be discussed for years to come. But for Aaron Sorkin to cry "treason" and squelch discussion of leaked
material because it happens to be humiliating to him, or to argue that the hack is an act of war along the spurious lines that financial loss is equivalent to an act of terror is a good illustration of just how out of touch some of these Hollywood execs can be. If the Sony hack was an act of war because it involved monetary loss, one is left without words to describe the incomparably bigger shock that Wall Street inflicted
on the world in 2008. Or "Shock and Awe" for that matter.
The anonymous hackers warned moviegoers away from the theaters, an ugly development by any reckoning. Nobody likes to be told what
to do, but perhaps nowhere more so than in post-2001 America, where the
received political wisdom suggests that the US way of life is entirely
honorable and non-negotiable; Americans will continue to do what they please,
and will do so with a vengeance, all the more so for being told not to. The despicable threat of violence might even boost the film’s popularity in a perverse way. Bring it on.


But
therein lies the crux of the issue. Isn’t American society saturated with
enough violence already? Has US foreign policy not tweaked enough foes and
wreaked enough death and destruction abroad? Have the shoot first, ask
questions later tactics of US domestic policing and the horrid schoolyard
shootings and the violence of America’s vast prison archipelago become such an
integral part of the national DNA that it is normal to relax and celebrate the season
of light by scheduling a “feel-good” assassination comedy on Christmas Day? What was Amy Pascal thinking?
Morita
Akio, the legendary head of Sony, who built a world-class company from scratch
on principles of quality and prudence, thrift and innovation would be horrified
to see his legacy at risk due to a bloated, inane stoner picture. Morita
admired the United States and thought the US and Japan had a lot to teach each
other, but he also pointed out that American executives were ridiculously
overpaid and lacked an understanding of Asia. He stressed the need for Sony to build
bridges with neighboring countries in Asia, an important part of Sony’s core
electronics market.
The
Sony head office in Japan understands this, which is why Seth Rogen’s snuff comedy never had a serious chance at theatrical distribution in the Japan market,
or on the Asian mainland either. A film that depicts the killing of a living
leader for the shock value of it is simply too rude and crude for a country like Japan which had no police shooting deaths in a year when the US had over 400.
The
Pyongyang regime is unpopular with its neighbors, especially Tokyo, which has
seen citizens kidnapped from Japan’s shores by its erratic and tyrannical
neighbor, and even Beijing has been sufficiently annoyed by North Korea's bad behavior to look the other way when Chinese netizens made a music mash-up
making fun of a dancing Kim Jong-un. But a graphic cinematic kill crosses the line into stupid, gratuitous violence.
There’s
no magic fix for Sony in the face of its own lousy decision-making, but this
time but after extensive bungling Sony was right to say no. If its American branch chooses to release “Interview” at
some future date it would be prudent, and congruent with the best of the
Hollywood's creative tradition, to edit out the exploding head and work for laughs the old
fashioned way, by earning them.
Japan Times
The author has worked in film and TV in China and Japan since 1986.
The author has worked in film and TV in China and Japan since 1986.