Hollywood has been depicting armed men on the cinema screen for years, who heroically save people and the world from evil forces. But it is clear that the truth is something else. On the screen, this man walks alone at night, a stranger with a dark past who purposefully takes out his Winchester gun from his pocket to punish the city's criminals. Or the always-armed, rough-and-tumble cop who's emotionally divorced from his wife and has a kid he only sees a few times a year, but saves a building with everyone in it from terrorists who've taken them hostage. Gives. Or he is a former assassin who is quiet and forced to resume his work against his will now that the bad guys have been found again. He's a hero, a savior, a knight with protection who's a little damaged.
This is the basis of Hollywood storytelling; The good gunman.
When Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, first used the phrase, it was in 2012, a week after the shooting of twenty-six people at Sandy Hook Elementary School. "The only thing that can stop a bad gunman is a good gunman," he said. And this word exploded like a ball. Many have debunked this statement by pointing out that the deadliest mass shootings, such as the shooting in Yuvaldi, Texas, where more than twenty-one people were killed, these gunmen, for example, were well present but could not have prevented the tragedy in any way. criticized And the statistics and more information that are available about this show that in the shooting attacks in America, these good armed men did nothing.
John Wayne in the 1969 film True Grit
However, the term that LaPierre Used, remained. Because it is an attractive scenario. It is romantic. The evidence shows that those who own guns in America generally have an image of the good gunman in their minds and see themselves in that image. All those who live in America feel helpless in the face of a shooting incident and there is practically nothing they can do; But some people resort to gun ownership to feel a little bit more in control of the situation.
Jennifer Carlson, an American sociologist in 2018, said in an interview with Vox: "Not aggressive criminals ("wolves"). in the term of gun culture) and not passive victims (sheep), those who carry guns see themselves as brave men who, according to morality, must engage in heroic violence where necessary. This moral belief of protecting one's fellow man actually redefines the social desirability of men in their families.
In other words, for many gun-bearers, who are often men, carrying a gun is a way of conforming to that heroic ideal. Is. Carlson came to this conclusion by researching the state of Michigan, where economic stagnation, crime and corruption had created a powerful clandestine gun culture. For many of the men Carlson spoke to, carrying a gun was a way to fight the corruption they saw around them.
"Against the backdrop of socioeconomic decline, the gun becomes a powerful tool," Carlson says. Through it, a person can prove himself as a special person, a dutiful father, or even a committed member of society. Indeed, the gun gives these men the opportunity to redefine their individual values in relation to what it means to be a good man, and to transform a deadly tool from a taboo, a forbidden act of violence, into a duty of proper citizenship.>
Obviously, this image must have come from somewhere. And we all know where it comes from.
Clint Eastwood in the movie "Dirty Harry" (1971)
Following the mass shooting in Yuvaldi and countless other shooting tragedies that have occurred in America, Hollywood veterans in an open letter asked Hollywood to find a solution to to moderate or end this disaster, and not to cause the crisis. The letter stated that Hollywood should try to be vigilant in depicting gun violence on screen and to show safe ways of using guns in movies. For example, show armed people on the cinema screen in the correct way to lock the trigger of the gun so that children cannot use it, limit the form of using the gun on the screen and look for an alternative to it.
Robert The campaign was initiated by Bowers Disney and Christy Callahan, two activists who run the Brady Coalition Against Gun Violence. In an interview with Vox, Disney, who is the executive director of the group's affairs, said that portraying the correct behavior in relation to the use of guns on the screen Cinema can have a great impact, beyond imagination, on the state of society, and social activists have succeeded in persuading screenwriters to reconsider the image they presented of social issues in the past.
Disney says, Screenwriters advocating for seat belts, addressing teen pregnancy, and smoking cessation are just a few examples of safe behaviors being portrayed on screen that have led to positive cultural change. We have already received messages from TV show writers who have changed a scene in response to our campaign. The exciting thing about all of this is that these writers are taking advantage of this opportunity to actually be more creative in the way they tell their stories."
All Hollywood movies are full of weapons that just see it as an object and The debate over Hollywood and its depiction of gun violence has sometimes been pushed to silly edges. But it should be noted that these stories, which Hollywood has given to audiences worldwide for almost its entire life, have always focused on the good guy with a gun in his hand. Because it is a very good plot for the plot. Our action heroes on the silver screen have often been good, honest men with guns, often times outside the system.
These aren't cops; Men are severely repressed, the ones who live on the margins. In Western films from Stagecoach to True Grit, these heroes have often been outsiders, men who don't belong, a little mysterious, a little dangerous, whose moral boundaries transcend the moral boundaries of society and seem more righteous. . These were John Wayne, Gary Cooper and Jimmy Stewart.
In the big blockbusters of the Reagan era and after, these heroes were often the ones who took the lead instead of the weaker ones, those who could not defend themselves and their rights. And they shielded their chests, because usually they were supposed to do so, that is, it was their legal duty to defend the rights of the weak, they themselves were so weak or incompetent that they could not fulfill their duty properly. These heroes were Silver Stallone or Arnold Schwarzenegger or Steven Seagal or Liam Neeson. or that they were not men at all; Melina was "Total Recall" who saved the male hero (this movie has two versions; one from 1990 and the other from 2012, the first one was played by Arnold Schwarzenegger and the second one by Colin Farrell.) or Marian "Raiders of the Lost Ark" who advance and save Indiana Jones.
Sniper Bucky Barnes, a fictional superhero character in the comic books of Marvel Comics
Even the wide-ranging superhero movies of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Comics, which are the current biggest money makers of the Hollywood movie industry are and have room for countless superhero and powerful men and women, they are rooted in the same old tradition of Hollywood. In these movies, some good guys have guns and others have superpowers instead. But the hidden recurring theme, and the attraction is the same. Weapons give ordinary people superhuman power; And so, it creates the impression that you just need to pick up a gun and then you can be Captain America or Black Widow or Iron Man or Deadpool.
And this good guy with a gun isn't even necessary. Be a hero (or in some cases, of course, be a man). Remember How many times you've seen a movie where the villain takes aim at the hero, ready to knock him down, and then, when the gunshots ring out, the villain falls to the ground? From "From Captain America: The First Avenger" to "Under Siege" to "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", the recurring theme is the same. Our hero is saved by a comrade, a friend, an acquaintance, even the enemy of his enemy, and of course his weapon. This is an old recurring theme precisely because, narratively, it adds elements of suspense, surprise, and catharsis to the story.
These stories are told in a way that encourages us to Let's identify with these good men with guns in their hands; They save the world from evil. So when we find ourselves in a similar situation in real life, we naturally tend to imagine ourselves instead of the heroes in the countless movies we've seen since childhood, and not the victims.
Of course, these stories. They are not the only reason we accept this romanticized image, nor do they bear the burden of American society's efforts to curb gun violence. After all, Hollywood has been exporting its movies to the world for decades, with very mixed results. The ease of access to guns in the United States and the culture that shaped it has taken, is the product of a set of separate factors that include culture, law, and politics.
But this does not mean that films have not and do not have any influence. All you have to do is tell people a story consistently enough for them to fully believe it.
All of the measures suggested in the open letter to Hollywood seem reasonable, even if they are conservative. But even changing the way weapons are presented on the screen will be a challenge. As The Hollywood Reporter has fully reported, the portrayal of guns in movies has steadily increased over the years, leading to a lucrative relationship between gun manufacturers and Hollywood.
Realistic gunplay in Movies also present an economic issue. The American Association for the Classification of Motion Pictures tends to distinguish between PG-13 (films that may contain scenes or content inappropriate for children under the age of thirteen) and R (films not suitable for those seventeen and under) rather than based on the amount of violence involved. From using guns in a movie to draw a line based on How bloody they are, and PG-13 movies are far more successful at the box office than R-rated movies. Therefore, the studios have a special interest in not showing the blood and dismembered bodies that are the natural result of shooting. This means that we are often watching a fictionalized and refined portrayal of guns, rather than the reality that might cause a good guy with a gun to hesitate when faced with a similar situation in real life.
What we almost never see in these movies is what we know can and must happen in real life when a gun is used; In the movies, the good guy comes with a gun and nothing happens. That's why in the Yuvaldi shooting, the "good guys"which are the police herestand at a distance, and just watch, and, just the opposite of what they should do in a situation like this, no one does anything to solve the case until that there will be a huge bloodshed.
And there is a simple reason why movies are like this. Movies are fun. And it's definitely not a tragedy. It is not true either. No one wants to turn on the TV and watch such a tragic story. No one wants to believe that such a disaster has happened.
So what should we do? Pandora's box has been opened here. You cannot turn back a hundred years of cinema history. Erasing guns from Hollywood history would be both anti-art and counter-productive and harmful. Also, banning its showing in movies and on the cinema screen will not be very logical. Guns exist in the real world. And it brings tragedy, and there are many of them. If we're going to tell the story honestly, it has to be the gun.
But like everything else in movies, it's not the subject that matters; It's How you portray it that matters. We now know that it is nothing more than a fantasy to consider guns as the solution to all problems, the successful solution to all problems. This can be a dangerous fantasy. This fantasy instills the belief in those who feel the world is spinning out of control, only to assume the identity of a gun-toting bodyguard, only to end up with the same fate depicted in the movies. It does not earn them. This story, however charming and romantic, can prevent us from finding real, fundamental solutions.
Source: vox</ p>