I watched The
Interview last night. It’s a silly movie with a ridiculous plot, but it’s
funny in a way that only dark humor can be. I had decided that I wanted to
watch it long before the controversy began over the movie. (I wouldn’t call it
a film. That’s a highbrow word used to define art-house/Oscar contenders.) I
like Seth Rogan and James Franco. Always have ever since their Freaks and Geeks days. I enjoyed Pineapple Express and This is the End. So I was looking
forward to spending my Christmas day in a movie theater enjoying the two of
them being ridiculous together. That’s it. I had no political agenda, and I didn’t
assume the movie had one either.
Now, I’m not going to bother analyzing or deconstructing the
free thought issues or the geo-political ramifications of Sony buckling under
to hackers who may or may not have been acting on behalf of the North Korean
government. Rather, I’m going to answer an annoying meme which has been riding
coattail on the political discussion associated with Sony’s decision to yank
the movie from most movie theaters. That meme being that the film crossed some
imaginary line by making a joke of the assassination of a living political
leader.
Did it cross a line because it was a comedy about murdering
somebody? If so, then a lot of American movies have crossed that line over the
years: Arsenic and Old lace, The Trouble
with Harry, Throw Mama from the Train; and some of them were about true
stories where actual people were either murdered or attempts were made: I Love You to Death, The Positively True
Adventures of the Alleged Texas Cheerleader-Murdering Mom, Fargo, Bernie. Comedies
about death and suffering are as old as comedy itself. Humour noir can be found
in the writing of Voltaire (Candide,)
Edgar Allen Poe (The Cask of Amontillado,)
even as far back as Aristophanes (The
Frogs.)
So what line does The
Interview actually cross? Did it cross a line because it suggests that governments
make assassination attempts on foreign dignitaries? Because it is not the
first movie to make that claim: Inglourious
Basterds (American service men attempt to assassinate Hitler,) Assassination Attempt (Germany conspires
to kill FDR, Churchill, and Stalin,) JFK
(movie which posits that the Kennedy murder was a giant intergovernmental plot
and cover-up.) Or is it simply wrong to spoof the leaders of foreign governments? Because that has been done before as well by everyone from the Three Stooges to Charlie Chaplain to Dan Aykroyd and Chevy Chase.
Perhaps it crossed a line because it suggests that the
American government utilizes celebrities and other non-government persons to do
its dirty work. If so, somebody should have told George Clooney he was off base
when he made Confessions of a Dangerous
Mind. And nobody better ever make a movie about the 1960 plot to kill
Castro where the CIA asked for mob boss Sam Giancano’s help. And speaking of celebrity spies, Mata Hari anyone?
Or maybe it crossed a line because since 1976 it has been
American policy that we do not assassinate foreign leaders. “Yeah, right,” said
Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Hugo Chavez.
Was it line-crossing because Kim Jong-Un is a living person,
and it’s wrong to make a comedy movie about a real person’s fictional death? If
so, this is the second time Rogan and Franco have made that gaffe. In This is the End Michael Cera playing
Michael Cera is impaled by a light post, Rhianna as Rhianna falls into an
abyss, and Jonah Hill as Jonah Hill is engulfed in flames among others. Other
movies where actual living persons are fictionally killed include Bill Murray
in Zombieland, and Alec Baldwin in Team America: World Police. There was
also a film made in 2006 in Britain about the fictional assassination of then
living and acting US President George W. Bush. The film was called Death of a President, and it pissed off
a lot of people, but nobody tried to ban it, and it got little attention
because – frankly – it wasn’t that good a movie.
The bottom line is that The
Interview doesn’t really break any new ground nor does it flout any
unfloutable taboos. It’s satire and it’s
a black comedy, and whether it’s a good or bad movie doesn’t really matter. They
had a right to make it, and we have a right to watch it. Good taste, bad taste,
appropriate or not, that’s a personal matter for individuals to decide for
themselves.