Robert Rosen writes...
Howard,
Thank you for writing. First of all, let me say that I’m a free speech purist. I do not believe that any work of art should be censored for any reason. People should be able to see or read virtually anything they want, and make up their own minds about it.Though a boycott is not censorship per se, it comes mighty close. You’re trying to stop people from seeing “Chapter 27,” and punish the company that’s making it. As I said in my posting, it’s going to have the opposite effect; it always does. It’s going to make people want to see the film even more. Also, you don’t know that “Chapter 27” is going to glorify Lennon’s murder. You won’t know what it’s going to do until you see it. Again, as I said in my posting, if the film’s done well, it may “bring us to a deeper understanding” of Chapman’s insanity, and what caused it. That would be a good thing, a rare step in the right direction.On the other hand, “Chapter 27” may very well be a schlocky piece of exploitative dreck, and if that’s the case, I have every intention of saying so on this blog, and in any other newspaper or magazine that invites me to write about it. I might also point out that the last film I saw that somebody tried to boycott was Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ.” It was blasphemous, the “Christian” right said. How dare anybody show Jesus as a human being with sexual thoughts. As it turned out, I found the film inspiring. I walked out of the theatre wanting to be more like Jesus. And, of course, there was a picket line out front, a bunch of people carrying signs saying I was going straight to hell for watching a movie they obviously hadn’t seen. So, Howard, though I can’t support your boycott, I do respect your right to attempt a boycott. And I'd be happy to continue this debate.
Howard said...
Robert,
Allow me to begin this reply with an apology, I have found myself so enraged by the subject, that my emotions have been getting the best of me when discussing the topic. My initial post, while I still believe correct, should have been more politely worded.
As I see it, a boycott is almost the perfect opposite to censorship, as we are looking to educate the public with our viewpoint, a far cry from a government forcing its viewpoint on a people. And when you say that a boycott or action ALWAYS has the opposite effect, would that include the actions of men like Ghandi and Martin Luther King? (and believe me, I am in no way comparing myself to these heros) I'm sure you can imagine how "sexy" the trailers will be for this film. Wouldn't you prefer a well-educated public, rather than one blinded by sex appeal or mystery.
As far as my "assumptions" that this film will glorify a murderer, I have taken this viewpoint based on articles I have read, written by individuals who have read the screenplay first hand. One of which was entitled "Lennon Film Script: A New 'Springtime for Hitler'". I will be happy to supply you with the URL if you have not read the article ( or just google the title).Than I ask you, is there really wisdom to be gained by any further understanding the mind of a madman. To me it is difficult to believe that we can learn from a deranged murderer, will other psychopaths act in a similar fashion? After all, I would think the fact that one is insane would almost guarantee a thought process, which is not likely to be repeated.
A statement you made in your initial reply got me thinking, you may be contradicting yourself. You stated, "I have every intention of saying so on this blog, and in any other newspaper or magazine that invites me to write about it." Meaning that you have a vested interest in this film, you win either way, but if a financial success, your knowledge of the subject pays far better. Which led me to an interview in which you replied to a question with "His diaries are a vivid example of how money and fame are not going to solve your problems". Consider this when you dangle bait in front of people, seemingly encouraging them to see this film in the hopes of gaining "wisdom".I do look forward to future communications, as this debate will hopefully inspire people to think and remember the message that John wanted to spread around the world, rather than the action of the animal who took him from us.
Howard
.png){kind=small}
