Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

[chance1]

I actually saw this on Morning Joe this week - Joe S. thinks that Hollywood filmmakers and videogame manufacturers, much like the NRA, are interested ONLY in money and refuse to take any responsibility for violence in our society

This interview is interesting in that Tarantino, who is a fabulously successful film maker, refuses to address the issue - he transparently says "this is a commercial for the movie" and "I'm here to sell my movie"

"I'm shutting you down" he says to the interviewer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/...an-guru-murthy

[xbuzzerx]

Entertainment is right to ignore an implication that they have a social responsibility to mold art around an unproven belief that mentally unstable people experience that art and then go and emulate it in real life.

Even if they did do that, mental illness is still the problem, not a movie or a videogame.

By the way-- they have these same movies and videogames in Japan... Iceland.... and everywhere else.
The term "they are refusing to take responsibility" implies they have responsibility or that any link has ever been proven between violence in entertainment and violence in real life.

[Rolyo85]

Exactly. There is no responsibility to be taken. Art is not propaganda, so it should never answer to political or even social needs, though it always works with them.

[chance1]

more "nuance" I presume

two things:

1 - his behavior is/was jerky - obnoxious, etc. - but i guess he had a right to be? because he's a liberal film maker?

2 - the idea that extreme violence in movies is NOT to be discussed - that film makers do not a responsibility to society - as does everyone - is selective and absurd

Logic dictates that desensitization is a major problem - and uber violent films are certainly not the answer - and worthy of discussion

vs.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE GUNS

people - PEOPLE - make decisions

to commit a crime
to fire a gun
to make a particular kind of movie or videogame

I find offensive that those who are extreme gun controllers and demonize the other side turn a blind eye to "entertainment" that is clearly not helping

[crimsonpaine]

I saw parts of that interview on the news. It was a bad interview. He should have answered the questions as honestly as he could, but instead he came off like a jerk.

I don't necessarily believe there is a link between movies, video games and violence, mainly because I have always been able to distinguish between fantasy and reality. But that's just me, there are people out there who can't separate between the two.

I find it hypocritical for those Hollywood stars to make that video preaching against guns and gun violence when they star in movies that glorify guns and violence.

[xbuzzerx]

more "nuance" I presume

two things:

1 - his behavior is/was jerky - obnoxious, etc. - but i guess he had a right to be? because he's a liberal film maker?

2 - the idea that extreme violence in movies is NOT to be discussed - that film makers do not a responsibility to society - as does everyone - is selective and absurd

Logic dictates that desensitization is a major problem - and uber violent films are certainly not the answer - and worthy of discussion

vs.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE GUNS

people - PEOPLE - make decisions

to commit a crime
to fire a gun
to make a particular kind of movie or videogame

I find offensive that those who are extreme gun controllers and demonize the other side turn a blind eye to "entertainment" that is clearly not helping

What do you mean "clearly not helping."

As I already pointed out, this violent entertainment is in every country without a major homicide problem. Like Japan.

You're not substantiating your supposition at all. That's all it is, supposition.

[Rolyo85]

Again with the behavior.

Can anyone please direct me to a quote of a single time when a liberal has complained of a conservative's "behavior"? No, we attack the opinions they express...

The moment you start "debating" extreme violence in movies, you start on the road of censorship - this is ok to show, and this isn't. Censorship is the death of art.

[CowboyBob]

If you can't dell the difference between a scripted film and real-life gun violence, then maybe you shouldn't own a gun.

[Rolyo85]

What buzzer said. And you are factually wrong. The Boner to Reid thing was indeed about the language used. There was no opinion stated, no problem discussed, no situation unfolding. It was a politician telling another politician to fuck himself in plain sight. That WAS the story there. So yeah, no lies. Sorry. Check the running commentary and focus on the subject.

[sixthson]

Wasn't John Hinckley Jr's assassination attempt on President Reagan at least in part blamed on the influence of the violent move Taxi Driver that he watched repeatedly before the attack?

[xbuzzerx]

Wasn't John Hinckley Jr's assassination attempt on President Reagan at least in part blamed on the influence of the violent move Taxi Driver that he watched repeatedly before the attack?

I'm unaware of any violent crime within the living memory of my lifetime that wasn't blamed on TV, movies or videogames. If anything it's been almost the first answer in the media, particularly when the crime is committed by a younger person, as many of the more recent high profile shootings have been.

There's still no evidence of a link, though, and they still play these same games and watch these same violent shows in countries like Japan.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Wasn't John Hinckley Jr's assassination attempt on President Reagan at least in part blamed on the influence of the violent move Taxi Driver that he watched repeatedly before the attack?

The only connection between Hinckley and Taxi Driver was that he was obsessed with Jodie Foster, who played the teenage prostitute in the film. He didn't shave his hair into a mohawk, nor did he yell "You talkin' to me!?" when he shot Reagan and James Brady. It was all a plot to get Jodie's attention. (Considering that Ms. Foster prefers tacos over hot dogs, Johnny Boy went to great lengths to no avail)

[MisterMajestic]

Ok, firstly. Quentin Tarrantino, from the little of what i have seen of him, IS quite obnoxious. He has a talent for film-making though, nobody with a shrewd mind should be under the misguided belief that being talented equates to being nice. I can't understand music fanatics for this reason.

No...He is not obnoxious. Quentin is very down to earth and animated when he talks. He got upset during that particular interview and he didnt get up and walk away, he simply told the interviewer he wasnt going to answer the question and to move on.

Quentin didnt go overseas to talk about Gun control in America or anywhere else. He was there to sell his movie to the same crowd of Movie-goers that RUSHED to the Theatres to see 007 KILL many people with Guns...

[Laufey]

Chicken or the egg.

I think violent personalities simply seek violent material more than most people. This might be mistaken as the material making them more violent.

If someone kills someone wearing a Scream mask I won't believe for a second that he hadn't done it if the movie had never been made. He would have just done it without the Scream mask (a different theme).

[sixthson]

Chicken or the egg.

I think violent personalities simply seek violent material more than most people. This might be mistaken as the material making them more violent.

If someone kills someone wearing a Scream mask I won't believe for a second that he hadn't done it if the movie had never been made. He would have just done it without the Scream mask (a different theme).

The info at google said he felt he had a connection with the protagonist in the movie, whose character was based on the man who tried to assassinate George Wallace. His obsession for Foster came after watching the movie 15 times in a row.

[Laufey]

Okay. He would have obsessed over something else had he not seen the movie.

There were obsessive killers before the time of movies.

[xbuzzerx]

The info at google said he felt he had a connection with the protagonist in the movie, whose character was based on the man who tried to assassinate George Wallace. His obsession for Foster came after watching the movie 15 times in a row.

So is the movie or his obivous mental illness to blame?

Seriously if you go down that road then we better not make any movie, ever, because someone out there can't make the mental break between it and reality. That's where this line of thinking goes.

[White Eagle]

Quentin Tarantino did the right thing. That interviewer was just trying to make his show go up in ratings, as QT said.
Anything else is censorship.

[sixthson]

So is the movie or his obivous mental illness to blame?

Seriously if you go down that road then we better not make any movie, ever, because someone out there can't make the mental break between it and reality. That's where this line of thinking goes.

I agree, it is the mental illness. You argue the movie had no part in it, the NRA argues it's not the guns, it's the person. Same diff.

[JayHawk]

I can see the 'logic' of desensitization of murder being an effective tool to hone effective killers. Read a book called "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society." ... that book proves through quantitative evidence that desensitizing can result in higher kill ratios with lower psychological effects.

The book is based on SLA Marshall's studies from World War II, which proposed that contrary to popular perception,[1] the majority of soldiers in war do not ever fire their weapons and that this is due to an innate resistance to killing. Based on Marshall's studies the military instituted training measures to break down this resistance[citation needed] and successfully raised soldier's firing rates to over ninety percent during the war in Vietnam.

So I can easily see how repetitive single shooter games could make for a more efficient killer. It is a proven and demonstrated fact.

YET it is equally difficult to understand how all these same movies and games are in every other western nation and they have remarkably lower death rates EVEN when you factor in their preference for knives and such that they have access to since guns aren't available.

Considering both it is easy to see why the main solution involves mental health and reduced immediate capacity to kill. (i.e. lower ammo on hand or in magazines.)

If the Phelps clan passes constitutional muster then so do our creative ventures in media. What is more to discuss?

[sixthson]

Hardly. A movie doesn't provide the means to commit a crime.

And porn does not make you commit masturbation, but it sure does give you incentive. Either way, the person is responsible.

[Laufey]

I agree, it is the mental illness. You argue the movie had no part in it, the NRA argues it's not the guns, it's the person. Same diff.

Yes because we have people running around cutting people's throats with those sharp DVD's

[xbuzzerx]

And porn does not make you commit masturbation, but it sure does give you incentive. Either way, the person is responsible.

So if we all get together in a big circle and agree that very unstable, mentally ill people are to blame for the things they do with a gun in an unhealthy state of mind... the fact that Quentin made movies and the fact that the individual had easy access to firepower are equal factors?

I don't think so. You can carry out a public lethal killing spree without ever seeing a violent movie. You can't do it without firepower.

[chance1]

I googled it and there's as much research that suggests violent content increases aggressiveness as not

yet no one wants to believe that - prob because it doesn't fit the narrative - GUNS are the ONLY problem - take away the guns and we're ok

but wait, they also want increased mental health help

I agree with both btw

but the idea that violent media absolutely does not impact the situation is ....... just partisan wanting

the idea that movie makers or tv show makers ARE NOT responsible for the content they create

is wrong

i think some anti gunners just want it to be about guns and the idea that something else is involved - ruins their fight

i don't think it's one thing

i think 32 oz. sodas for kids are bad - makes them fat - should their parents be responsible ? sure ..... are they? clearly not
u want the kids to keep getting fat? and getting diabetes? and dying ..... and going to the doctor so you thru your taxes can pay for ?

don't think so

as for quentin tarantino - fuck him - he was an asshole to the interviewer - not being cool - just being an asshole - "this is a commercial"

[Rolyo85]

1. Nobody is saying guns are the only problem. They are the most dangerous MEANS though, which is what normal people are talking about.

2. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether violent art could be related to violent behavior. Art defines culture but is just as much defined by it. Art just is, and there is nothing to be done about it, other than go the way of One Million Moms and try and pull the sponsorship under the feet of every tv show you dislike.

[maxpowr9]

As a gamer since kindergarten (played Sonic 2 when I was 5), violent video games do not make people more violent. The same would be said about movie or else there would be a bunch of teenagers running around with chainsaws.

Corny hates when I bring him up but he does a pretty good stereotype of what your typical "aggressive" nut is like when they play violent video games...

Zero Punctuation: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 Review

[xbuzzerx]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

Chance-- sometimes, the shooter played violent videogames.

So did a lot of his victims.

It's not causal, as others have said there have been gun murders and people who go crazy and climb a bell tower since before Lethal Weapon and before first person shooter games. All those influences are also present in cultures with almost no homicide probelm to speak of compared to us.

Barking up the wrong tree. Look at something that's actually different between us and people without large spree shootings. Like availability of guns.

[chance1]

As a gamer since kindergarten (played Sonic 2 when I was 5), violent video games do not make people more violent. The same would be said about movie or else there would be a bunch of teenagers running around with chainsaws.

Corny hates when I bring him up but he does a pretty good stereotype of what your typical "aggressive" nut is like when they play violent video games...

Zero Punctuation: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 Review

thanks for clearing that up Dr. Max

[Rolyo85]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

You don't get it, do you. You can't censor art. The moment you do, you've entered into fascism, where you dictate what art can and can't portray. It's YES or NO thing. Don't try to tell me what I support and what I don't support. I don't want to restrict the Westboro scumbags' right to free speech, just the venue where they express it. Free speech is just as absolute as freedom of expression for art. They are in fact exactly the same thing.

[chance1]

You don't get it, do you. You can't censor art. The moment you do, you've entered into fascism, where you dictate what art can and can't portray. It's YES or NO thing. Don't try to tell me what I support and what I don't support. I don't want to restrict the Westboro scumbags' right to free speech, just the venue where they express it. Free speech is just as absolute as freedom of expression for art. They are in fact exactly the same thing.

so art is more important than people's lives ?

really ?

i'm not talking about censorship - like a painting that is anti christian - there was some exhibit that had the virgin mary with feces on it i think - i think it sucks - and it's insensitive - but i don't think it should be censored

but violent movies that might cause increased real life violence? i guess my first thought is how can a guy like quentin tarantino NOT take that seriously ? isn't he an american first ? doesn't he respect life ? doesn't he make enough money ?

he's a very talented guy and maybe he's just taking the head because of the timing of Django and his comments but it is a very worthy discussion

and frankly "art" is too freely tossed around - a piece of shit snuff movie is not art

[xbuzzerx]

so art is more important than people's lives ?

really ?

You haven't shown any links or causality or any hard evidence of any connection whatsoever other than your pure supposition.

[star-warrior]

As a kid, I watched Tom and Jerry, Elmer Fudd and Marvin the Martian shooting or trying to shoot Daffey Duck, Bugs Bunney, sword shenanigans in He-Man, Ren and Stimpy and their horrendous life together, the Itchy and Scratchy show in the Simpsons, Popeye's fisticuffs, shoot outs in cowboys and indians etc.

The point being, violence portrayed in celluloid is ficticious, a screen representation, and it starts at an early age. At least all that is passive, for the viewer that is.

Now we have video games the user's free will enters into the mix, you take up the fictious role of the combatant say in Manhunt, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat etc. and participate in the decisions of pulling the trigger or actioning upon some device in the game that wounds or maims or kills.

I'm not condoning the violence, but asking Tarantino to make representation about the role of violence and its impact on society I think is looking for an easy target to whine about when he refuses to talk about it.

[borg69unimatrix]

Barking up the wrong tree. Those same movies are released in Europe and they don't increase crime. America has a problem with guns... not movies and videos games.

America has a problem with "no child left behind", no loser sport events, not being able to spank, and generally teaching kids there are no consequences for their behavior and actions in what is STILL a "dog eat dog" world. They grow up with no rules and then are turned out on the streets at 18 with no skills or desire to make it on their own and support themselves, and have a sense of entitlement and expect everything to be handed to them.

[Rolyo85]

so art is more important than people's lives ?

really ?

i'm not talking about censorship - like a painting that is anti christian - there was some exhibit that had the virgin mary with feces on it i think - i think it sucks - and it's insensitive - but i don't think it should be censored

but violent movies that might cause increased real life violence? i guess my first thought is how can a guy like quentin tarantino NOT take that seriously ? isn't he an american first ? doesn't he respect life ? doesn't he make enough money ?

he's a very talented guy and maybe he's just taking the head because of the timing of Django and his comments but it is a very worthy discussion

and frankly "art" is too freely tossed around - a piece of shit snuff movie is not art

You say "that's not censorship" and then say nothing to explain how is it different from censorship.

Also, you're not an art critic, you don't get to decide what's art and what isn't.

Also, we are yet to hear how "may" is incentive enough to start censoring movies. Where does that end? How many other things we will forbid because they are "less important" than human lives? You know what saves lives best? Putting people in stasis in nice padded coffins. No danger at all then.

[chance1]

[Text: Removed]

And your "where does this end" sounds like survivalists talking about their guns

[Rolyo85]

[Quoted Text: Removed]

Are you going to explain this, or do I just report you for trying to bully me based on nationality?

And "where does it end" is a legitimate question, because art isn't quantifiable, it is not a law that you can read and evaluate. Who decides what's ok and what isn't? What "MAY" cause violence and what may not?

[maxpowr9]

Passion of the Christ is a snuff film yet how many people complain about that?

All about context.

[xbuzzerx]

As a kid, I watched Tom and Jerry, Elmer Fudd and Marvin the Martian shooting or trying to shoot Daffey Duck, Bugs Bunney, sword shenanigans in He-Man, Ren and Stimpy and their horrendous life together, the Itchy and Scratchy show in the Simpsons, Popeye's fisticuffs, shoot outs in cowboys and indians etc.

The point being, violence portrayed in celluloid is ficticious, a screen representation, and it starts at an early age. At least all that is passive, for the viewer that is.

Now we have video games the user's free will enters into the mix, you take up the fictious role of the combatant say in Manhunt, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat etc. and participate in the decisions of pulling the trigger or actioning upon some device in the game that wounds or maims or kills.

I'm not condoning the violence, but asking Tarantino to make representation about the role of violence and its impact on society I think is looking for an easy target to whine about when he refuses to talk about it.

The only real evidence we have to look at beyond supposition are the studies done about the reluctance to shoot comparing WWII combatants with modern day combatants that Jayhawk alluded to. I've seen those studies, and he's correct that 60+ years ago, people were more hesitant to kill. However we're talking about a desensitization that has affected everyone virtually equally. Look at what horror films have to do to get any reaction today and compare them to Psycho.

It still doesn't explain, or predict, who is going to have mental problems, snap, and kill people. It doesn't cause it and there's no factual evidence to show that it does. As I pointed out earlier-- we can point out these shooters saw movies or videogames that everyone else who didn't go on a shooting rampage saw as well.

I don't see how just sitting here saying "well it MIGHT be contributing.. somehow" is remotely useful when the clear and present problem we can actually touch is mental health + accessibility of guns. Nor do I think Quentin toning down his movies would change a thing, it's not going to make a mentally unhealthy person healthy or take the gun out of his hand.

[star-warrior]

It's still fantasy however, and most gamers know that very well.

So is the movies. I suspect a few movie goers will have an inkling that might be so.

[maxpowr9]

Gaming does teach a lesson in a sense... you either win or lose. There aren't any games (at least to my knowledge) you don't lose or win in.

Speaking of which... Tropico 4 makes me want to become a dictator of a small island and amass a huge swiss bank account... I'll have to get back to you guys in a few years when I fleece some poor island.

You don't win "Two Decades of Dignity". You just do a little better each time.

God I miss classic Family Guy.

[xbuzzerx]

Gaming does teach a lesson in a sense... you either win or lose. There aren't any games (at least to my knowledge) you don't lose or win in.

Speaking of which... Tropico 4 makes me want to become a dictator of a small island and amass a huge swiss bank account... I'll have to get back to you guys in a few years when I fleece some poor island.

You don't win "Two Decades of Dignity". You just do a little better each time.

God I miss classic Family Guy.

Touching on the (off-topic) little segue here about the blue ribbon society that Borg brought up... I agree with you, Giancarlo, that true competitive gaming teaches you about winning and losing. It's simply reality that you're going to lose and there's going to be a better player.

But for like the 99% of the market that aren't competition-minded players who can handle it-- most just ragequit the instant they aren't getting an easy win, and accuse you of being a Korean macro cheater with no life in a gaming sweatshop or something because you're better than they are.

So blue ribbon society is definitely still there too.

[maxpowr9]

Touching on the (off-topic) little segue here about the blue ribbon society that Borg brought up... I agree with you, Giancarlo, that true competitive gaming teaches you about winning and losing. It's simply reality that you're going to lose and there's going to be a better player.

But for like the 99% of the market that aren't competition-minded players who can handle it-- most just ragequit the instant they aren't getting an easy win, and accuse you of being a Korean macro cheater with no life in a gaming sweatshop or something because you're better than they are.

So blue ribbon society is definitely still there too.

Just watch out for those Brazilians...MORDE ES #1!

[chance1]

Are you going to explain this, or do I just report you for trying to bully me based on nationality?

And "where does it end" is a legitimate question, because art isn't quantifiable, it is not a law that you can read and evaluate. Who decides what's ok and what isn't? What "MAY" cause violence and what may not?

are you serious ? bullying? I'm bullying you ?

you really do yourself a disservice when you flail like that

you talked about where does it end ....... etc. you referenced padded coffins

we're in america

and your blather about "what's next .... where does it end" is "survivalist-esque" - suggesting an outcome - in their case they need their guns to protect themselves against the govt.

[Text: Removed]

so report away

[Kulindahr]

Barking up the wrong tree. Those same movies are released in Europe and they don't increase crime. America has a problem with guns... not movies and videos games.

No, America has a problem with 'winning' at any cost. I haven't found a study on the subject, but my bet is that if one was done, the result would plainly show that far more Americans than anyone else believe that violence is a legitimate solution to some problems.

[Laufey]

No, America has a problem with 'winning' at any cost. I haven't found a study on the subject, but my bet is that if one was done, the result would plainly show that far more Americans than anyone else believe that violence is a legitimate solution to some problems.

I'd say the main reason is the class conflicts.

For the richest country in the world the low-class can have it pretty shitty. When you feel like your society is unfair, even to the point of feeling like a 2nd class citizen... then you are more likely to break the rules to get yours.

In Europe, well western-Europe at least, most countries take better care of the poor and lower-class than the US.

[Kulindahr]

Gaming does teach a lesson in a sense... you either win or lose. There aren't any games (at least to my knowledge) you don't lose or win in.

Speaking of which... Tropico 4 makes me want to become a dictator of a small island and amass a huge swiss bank account... I'll have to get back to you guys in a few years when I fleece some poor island.

I knew a psychologist who worked with kids mostly. He made use of video games and role-playing games especially to help them learn on thing: to succeed, you have to work at it. Secondarily, he used them to teach that in order to succeed, doing it all by yourself generally comes in second to working together with others.

People used to claim that playing Dungeons and Dragons caused kids to lose touch with reality, neglecting it and so doing worse in school, etc. But as a long-time Game Master I knew that was totally bogus, because the kids I had as players ended up doing better in school, especially in problem-solving skills and getting along with others. It's the same with violent movies: solid research has shown that they are more likely to reduce the desire for violence than to increase it. As with the fantasy games, the ones who act out in the fashion of the subject material are those already tending in that direction -- the rest of us grasp that it's fantasy/fiction.

[Kulindahr]

I'd say the main reason is the class conflicts.

For the richest country in the world the low-class can have it pretty shitty. When you feel like your society is unfair, even to the point of feeling like a 2nd class citizen... then you are more likely to break the rules to get yours.

In Europe, well western-Europe at least, most countries take better care of the poor and lower-class than the US.

Class conflict is an impetus, but it does not cause violence -- history and modern events provide plenty of examples to show that class conflict need not result in violence; it merely does when that's already a preferred form of "fixing" things.

[Kulindahr]

As to the initial post....

Good for Tarentino. He should have resorted to sarcasm, though, rather than being pissy. Something like, "Are you mistaking me for a professor of sociology?" would have hit the mark nicely. Why? Because his job has nothing to do with figuring out whether his movies "cause" people to be violent (or anything else).

Or he could have calmly said, "If you want to discuss that, I'm sure there are sociology professors who could actually do the topic justive".

[xbuzzerx]

I knew a psychologist who worked with kids mostly. He made use of video games and role-playing games especially to help them learn on thing: to succeed, you have to work at it. Secondarily, he used them to teach that in order to succeed, doing it all by yourself generally comes in second to working together with others.

People used to claim that playing Dungeons and Dragons caused kids to lose touch with reality, neglecting it and so doing worse in school, etc. But as a long-time Game Master I knew that was totally bogus, because the kids I had as players ended up doing better in school, especially in problem-solving skills and getting along with others. It's the same with violent movies: solid research has shown that they are more likely to reduce the desire for violence than to increase it. As with the fantasy games, the ones who act out in the fashion of the subject material are those already tending in that direction -- the rest of us grasp that it's fantasy/fiction.

I totally agree. I know people sorta treat gaming in general as just sorta like a geeky side-hobby, but, gaming's pretty sophisticated nowadays, and tabletop gaming always was sophisticated and required teamwork and problem solving. Modern games tend to focus on small teams... 4, 5 people on a team. It's much more about teamwork than about what you do as an individual in so many games. Much like the things people are always saying are virtues gained out of playing a sport.

In fact I'm sure even the non-gamers here have probably heard the reputation that Koreans and Asians in general have as being like... "ridiculously good at gaming." Of course in some regards it's a stereotype and it's not universally true in every type of game. However, one game dev who had designed games both for US and Asian market releases had a comment about the playtesting process and the differences he noticed in reactions to game design between the two markets.

Americans were much more resistant to the notion of needing others to accomplish a goal together... and would avoid doing it unless it was absolutely necessary.

By comparison, Asians culturally had a much friendlier grasp of a collectivist sort of approach.

I'm sure he took some heat for saying that, but I also think you could probably get many or most American gamers to agree if you asked them-- Americans hate working together, and generally are stubborn and difficult about it. If it's at all possible for them to do something solo instead, they'll generally prefer to do it that way. Even if it decreases the chances of the team winning, or hurts the team overall.

[Just_Believe18]

chance, you have correlation, but not causation. The fact is all American films are exported to global film markets in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. and none of them even come close to the mass shooting gun violence we have here in the United States. Pick a different symptom. You're not scoring points here.