The blogosphere's fuming over Mike White's op-ed piece in yesterday's Times, in which the writer/co-star of "Chuck and Buck" and "School of Rock" basically says: "Yeah, I got off on crappy horror movies when I was young, but that doesn't make me the Virginia Tech killer, but maybe if I'd been wired differently it would have, so we in Hollywood should feel guilty about that and maybe pause for a brief moment of moral introspection before squirting more fake blood on the actress's breast."
In other words, this is a very muddled op-ed that wants to scold the entertainment industry (White's word choice, not mine) but is too timid to. At least the filmmaker acknowledges what everyone knows but no one in Hollywood dare admit: that movies influence behavior and that violent movies influence violent behavior. Anyone with children knows this to be true. (I know it to be true: When I was seven years old, I watched a "Leave it to Beaver" episode where the Beav backs his parents' car into the street, turned off the TV, went outside, and did the exact same thing. Which wasn't really violent behavior, but, uh, it could have been.)
Feebly calling for filmmakers to think twice isn't going to change things. Nor is government censorship. A ratings system better than the gutless wonder the late Jack Valenti spent his lifetime noisily defending would probably help. So would parents who actually pay attention to what their children watch, and maybe even talk to them about it. (White admits his folks had no idea he was watching crud-classics like "Terror Train".)
The bottom line (which is all the film industry respects and understands anyway) is this: Take away the demand and you'll take away the supply. But that requires individual solutions -- meaning you and me -- not mass ones.
Oh, and there still isn't any real proof that Seung-Hui Cho saw "Oldboy." Which makes the whole discussion moot.
