Post-Charleston, Hollywood’s Complex Relationship With Gun Violence Is More Fraught Than Ever

In Alan Clarke’s Elephant (1989), a series of vignettes observe gun-toting killers lurking the streets, fields, factories and housing estates of Northern Ireland during The Troubles as they hunt down and murder their opposition in cold blood. At only 39 minutes long, Clarke’s film is virtually absent of dialogue or plot, relying on the escalating blunt brutality of its action to demand audiences sit up and ask: ‘When will it stop?’

14 years later in Gus Van Sant’s own Elephant (2003), the otherwise mundane world of an American high school full of students chirping about sex, shopping, sport, and weekend party plans is violently interrupted by two boys wielding assault rifles and opening fire. Van Sant was not only inspired by the title of Clarke’s film, but its visual style too, as the camera silently glides through the school halls and grounds before portraying the bloody climax with a discomforting coldness that doesn’t revel in exploitative violence, but has the appearance of reality.

The title for each film comes from the idiom ‘the elephant in the room’, an obvious problem or issue that people choose to ignore. Both Clarke’s and Van Sant’s films serve as brutal anti-gun tracts, yet proved controversial at the times of their release, because the taboo nature of the subject hit too close to home for some.

While many films examine the consequences of violence through their text, such as David Cronenberg’s A History of Violence (2005), films that are blatantly anti-gun are rare. Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver (1976) is commonly misread as glamourising its material, certainly not helped by decades of Scorsese films set to the soundtrack of gunshots, but the ease with which Robert DeNiro’s Travis Bickle comes to possess an army of guns remains shocking all these years later. Then there’s Home Room (2002) about the suspicion and repercussions of a school shooting on a lone survivor, American Gun (2005), about a group of people affected by weapons, Dark Matter (2007) about a university shooting that mirrored that of Virginia Tech, and the upcoming Requiem for the Dead: American Spring 2014, which introduces itself to audiences with the words: “Every spring in America more than 8,000 people are shot and killed.”

The latter, a documentary premiering on HBO this week, is timely given America mourns yet another massacre, this time inside an historic church in South Carolina. The incident resulted in an eruption of thinkpieces about “finally” doing something about guns, the definition of domestic terrorism and the disparity between the treatment of a white mass murderer and those of petty criminals of colour. It had President Obama saying that “as a nation we must confront the ravages of gun violence” and bemoaning the fact that “this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries,” and left John Stewart jokeless. The reaction from the liberal internet was predominantly swift and smart, just like it was after the ‘Batman’ shootings or the Sandy Hook massacre, but those in positions of power aren’t likely to read that part of the internet. Meanwhile, nothing has changed and American politicians are still voting against gun reforms (that is, unless they’re promoting the presence of more guns).

Hollywood has a unique place in all of this and has long used its influence and power to attempt social change, normalising taboo topics through representation and awareness. The Boys in the Band (1970) was the first film from Hollywood to put homosexuality in the foreground of its drama, while two decades later Philadelphia (1993) was a significant milestone for advancing the discussion of HIV/AIDS after the political silence of the 1980s. The evolving cultural debate around divorce was given a healthy cinematic kick after Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) won the Academy Award for Best Picture and was the highest grossing film of the year. And, of course, ‘very special episodes’ have been commonplace on television for decades exploring topics as diverse as abortion, paedophilia, and Jessie Spano’s so scary drug addiction.

Yet on the topic of gun violence, the film industry as a whole remains alarmingly quiet. While some titles filter through the arthouse, it’s hard going for any film on the subject to grab attention. Van Sant’s Elephant was awarded the prestigious Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, but was ignored by industry award bodies in 2003. Even a show set entirely in the public school system, the teacher soap opera Boston Public, barely scratched the surface of the topic. And, yes, that is a gun-wielding high-schooler Chris Evans at the end of that link.

And although, a year before Elephant, Michael Moore received a standing ovation upon winning the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature for undoubtedly the most high-profile and successful film to tackle the issue of gun violence then and since, Bowling for Columbine (2002), he was booed and cheered in equal measure when he used his speech not to help inspire change in gun laws, but to condemn the invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush.

In the mainstream, it’s no better. Drew Barrymore was adamant that the Charlie’s Angels (2000) adaptation she produced and starred in be devoid of guns, and earlier this year Liam Neeson spoke out against the “disgrace” of America’s gun culture despite the film he was marketing, Taken 3 (2015), being rife with it. PARA USA, the gun manufacturer that provided weapons for Neeson’s film, criticised him for “cultural and factual ignorance.” Hypocritically, the MPAA (America’s film rating body) have restrictions on blood and even the direction of guns being pointed at audiences in film marketing materials, yet a 2013 study found that gun violence had tripled since 1985 in teen and youth-friendly films.

Just like how Hollywood studios eventually figured out there were financial gains to be found in gay audiences or African-American and Latino audiences, as well as women, it’s all about money. Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper was the highest-grossing film of 2014 in America, closely followed by gun-heavy Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. What studio wants to bite the hand that throws money at them?

America was founded by white settlement on gun violence, and the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” are written in their constitution. Former Prime Minister John Howard was right in 2013 when he wrote in the New York Times that “Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities,” that “Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States,” and that “Australia… does not have a Bill of Rights [and] no constitutional right to bear arms.”

Sadly, the unlikely prospect of change, plus the added incentive of a 24/7 news cycle giving each and every wannabe martyr a platform, another large-scale gun rampage in America is now virtually inevitable. Is it possible for actors and filmmakers to make a stand against films that glorify gun violence? Perhaps, but even Jim Carrey had to back down after he took a stand. Could our superhero-obsessed culture handle an adaptation of the Archie comic in which the protagonist dies heroically taking a bullet for a pro-gun control friend? In whatever guise it happens, we need another Elephant. Third time’s a charm.

–

Glenn Dunks is a freelance writer from Melbourne. He also works as an editor and a film festival programmer while tweeting too much @glenndunks.