'Film School Rejects' Attacks with Double Barrel of Hypocrisy

Responding critically to my piece from Monday where I call out certain Hollywood types for their breathtaking hypocrisy in laying blame for Saturday’s Tucson tragedy at the feet of Sarah Palin, a political cross-hairs map, and right-wing rhetoric, Film School Rejects’ Cole Abaius — in an article self-seriously titled “A Common Sense Reminder Not To Indict Movies For Real World Acts of Violence,” writes:

I have to believe that [Nolte] doesn’t seriously advocate the kind of censorship that he’s invoking here. It’s convenient to point a finger at movies, even when there don’t seem to be any movies around readily available to make your point for you. Should he hold those whom he quoted to the fire? Absolutely. He should press them for a burden of proof for their claims, but he should leave movies and a call for outrage at them out of it.

First off, does this look as though there weren’t movies “readily around” for me to make my point with…?

Comparing a political map even I wasn’t aware of until this weekend and NO SOCIALISM signs held by small children to this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this…?

…and those links were just off the top of my head. The bigger point, though, is this whole…

I have to believe that [Nolte] doesn’t seriously advocate the kind of censorship that he’s invoking here.

Obviously that little Reading Is Fundamental truck never made its way into certain neighborhoods, because what I wrote in my piece isn’t at all unclear about whether or not I’m “advocating” for any kind of censorship or “call[ing] for outrage” against movies:

If we’re going to go down the absurd road of pinning responsibility for real-life violence on political speech and images, let the games begin here…

Exactly what part of my calling the whole notion that images and speech create real-life violence “absurd” is confusing? My point about the hypocrisy of those who work in the same industry responsible for a decade of multi-million dollar films debasing the American government, daring to blame Tucson on political speech and images, didn’t confuse anyone else, including the Hollywood Reporter. So…

I’m not sure if this is a willful attempt on FSR’s part to smear Big Hollywood as advocates of censorship or if they really can’t get their minds around the difference between calling someone out on their rank hypocrisy and calling for censorship. Regardless, what is especially hilarious is that FSR is the same film site that openly cheered and encouraged cinema censorship — the same film site that just a few weeks ago defended and applauded the attack on Ron Howard’s “The Dilemma” over a joke about electric cars being “gay.” FSR’s Landon Palmer:

The line was unintelligibly defended by Howard, Vince Vaughn, and numerous web commentators who think that a joke too lazy and immature for anybody over 13 to find funny is the same thing as South Park-style take-no-prisoners satire. It’s lazy comedy, and the reaction to it is further evidence that we as a culture have shifted from our Eddie Murphy Delirious days: homophobes, not homosexuals, are now the subject of derisive humor. As The Kids Are All Right and Modern Family have shown, you can have great comedy about homosexuals without making fun of homosexuality.

So let it be written, so let it be done: No more making fun of homosexuality!

Now, let us quickly return to today’s FSR piece responding to me, which closes with this little snark:

[I]n the mean time, can we just leave movies (and books, and video games, and music, and theater) out of it?

Thanks. It’s appreciated.

So I guess that what FSR really means is that we should leave movies out of it unless FSR doesn’t want to leave movies out of it — movies like, say, “The Dilemma.”

Call it the Newspeak Hollywood Production Code.