Tag Archives: culture

Guns

The Gaiety Theatre became a church, then a parking lot. pinkmoose photo
The Gaiety Theatre became a church, then a parking lot.
pinkmoose photo

The game was derived directly from ‘the westerns’ we watched every Saturday afternoon at the Gaiety Theatre in downtown Grande Prairie, wherein the final act of every movie consisted of the good guy and bad guys (the baddies always outnumbered our hero) running around and shooting at one another. “Guns” we called it. “Let’s play guns!” we would shout, and soon we’d be lurking/sneaking around the immediate neighbourhood houses, blasting away at one another with toy weapons, inciting many an argument as to whether I had or had not “Got ya!” If indeed you were struck by an imaginary bullet, a dramatic tumble to the ground was required, followed by rapid expiration.

Let no one ever doubt the influential power of the ascendant mass medium of the day. As I’ve written elsewhere on this blog, I grew up without television, but those Saturday matinees were more than enough to have us pretending at the gun violence that is all too real in the adult world. Video games seem an even more powerful enactment of the gun fantasy that can grip children, but the difference may be marginal. I doubt that movies have lost much influence over young people today, and I further suspect that in the majority of Hollywood movies today at least one gun still appears. Check out how many of today’s movie ads or posters feature menacing men with guns, with those guns usually prominent in foreground. Sex sells, but so it seems do guns.

And of course the rest of the world, including those of us in Canada, looks with horror upon the pervasive, implacable gun culture in the U.S., wondering how it is that even the slaughter of twenty elementary school children isn’t enough to curb the ready availability of guns. Because, from a rational perspective, the facts are incontrovertible: more guns do not mean greater safety, quite the opposite. You are far more likely to die of a gunshot in the U.S. than you are in any other developed country. Roughly 90% of Americans own a gun. The next closest is Serbia at 58%. In Canada it’s about 30%. Australia 15%. Russia 9%. And a higher rate of mental illness does not mean greater gun violence. It’s pure and it’s simple: more guns mean more gun violence, more people being shot and killed.

But we are, by and large, not rational animals, and no amount of logical argument is going to convince members of the gun lobby that gun ownership should be restricted. It’s an emotional and psychological attachment that cannot be broken without causing increased resentment, anger, anxiety and a sense of humiliating diminution. Guns are fetishes to those who desire them, sacred objects that allow the owner to feel elevated in status, elevated to a position of greater independence and potency. After all a gun will allow you to induce fear in others.

And yes the American obsession with guns has historical roots, the revolution and the second amendment to the constitution and all that, but, as Michael Moore so brilliantly pointed out in this animated sequence in Bowling for Columbine, much more essentially it has to do with fear. People enamored of gun ownership feel threatened; without a gun they feel powerless in the face of threats from people they view as dangerously different from themselves. And nothing but nothing empowers like a gun.

You might think that people who love guns do not wish to play with them. Guns are not toys to these people, you might say; they are genuine tools used to protect their owners, mostly from all those other people out there who also own guns. But just down the road from where we live on Galiano is a shooting range. On quiet Sunday afternoons we invariably hear the sound of gunfire echoing through the trees, as gun aficionados shoot repeatedly at targets, trying to do exactly the same thing over and over again, hit the bull’s eye. Those people are indeed playing with their guns; they are recreating with their guns. Why? Because it makes them feel better.

Successful movie genres are manifestations of broadly felt inner conflicts; in the case of westerns those conflicts are around issues of freedom and oppression. And the western may still be the most successful of all movie genres, remaining dominant from the very birth of dramatic film (The Great Train Robbery, 1903), right through to the 1970s (McCabe and Mrs. Miller, 1971). The problem is that the western offered ‘gunplay’ as the answer to oppression, and therefore the suggestion that everyone should have a gun. But once everyone has a gun, everyone is afraid. And once you are afraid, no one is taking away your gun.

Foreign Culture Wars

When it comes to culture, Europeans think differently than many of us west of the Atlantic.  Just last month, European countries, led by France, unanimously endorsed the concept of ‘cultural exception’ in the current U.S.-European trade deal talks—meaning that cultural industries are exempted from full exposure to the free-trade winds that will blow through other industries under the new agreement.  It’s a position that in the U.S., with its mega-imagesscale cultural industries (Amazon and books, Hollywood and movies, ABC and Desperate Housewives, etc.), seems almost nonsensical.  For someone like the late Jack Valenti, Hollywood lobbyist extraordinaire, it’s simply a matter of cultural industries outside the U.S. failing to make competitive product.  He used words like “baloney,” “odious” and “a needless crutch”, for instance, when describing quotas on foreign television previously established by EU member states.

It’s a battle that Canada had to fight when negotiating its own free-trade deal with the U.S. back in the 80s.  At the time the Americans were keenly interested in gaining unfettered access to both the energy and cultural industries in Canada.  And, in the interest of context, it’s worth tracking back further, to the institution of ‘Canadian content’ regulations in the early 70s.  Prior to 1971, for instance, Canadian musicians heard on the radio were a thin and scattered bunch.  Following the imposition of the ‘Can-con’ rules, there was a veritable explosion of Canadian musical talent, from recording artists as diverse as Anne Murray and Steppenwolf.  (Although Anne may have won the day on most radio stations, prompting one wag to wonder whether AM was in fact her moniker.)  The digital revolution has since of course, negatively impacted the music industry as much as it has any trade anywhere, but, for a time, the pop music scene in Canada was never more robust.

In TV too, the original imposition of Canadian content rules quickly spawned a sizable industry that had previously been hardly present at all, and that continues as viable to this day.  There was an original mandate with government subsidies of the film and television industry to create product that was ‘culturally distinct’—stories would be ‘recognizably Canadian’—and with globalization that mandate has suffered (Is there anything genuinely recognizable as Canadian about a show like Rookie Blue?), causing one to wonder if the TV industry is still ‘cultural’ at all, but I digress.

The point is that cultural industries outside nation-state juggernauts like the U.S. and China have historically needed protection in order to flourish, if not survive.  What someone like Jack Valenti failed to recognize is that it takes the same ratio of talent within any pool to produce hits, regardless of place; therefore the Canadian or French pool has to be protected if it is to remain large enough to produce proportionately fewer hits, that is enough hits to survive.  Without that protection the industry will simply be overrun by the wildly larger numbers of both people and dollars emanating from the American cultural behemoth.

Which is exactly what has happened with the Canadian movie industry, where Can-con rules have never been applied.  (If you’re wondering why, perhaps it’s sufficient to say that Hollywood movie distribution contracts, back in the day, did not even recognize Canada as a separate territory.)  While the Canadian radio and television industries have evolved a reasonably sound business model, the same can’t be said about the indigenous movie industry in Canada.  It has been, and remains marginal; what I have described as an ‘ego-driven crap shoot’ where few people are employed, and audiences are meager.  (I’m referencing English-speaking Canada here; French Canadians actually go to see their own movies in considerable numbers.)

In Europe, French regulations delay the release of DVDs, in order to preserve movie houses.  German regulations force online book retailers to sell their product at list prices, in order to preserve bookstores.  Different thinking.

The internet of course arose in a ‘wild west’ American culture where any form of regulation was considered anathema.  In 2000, Yahoo! was sued in France after Nazi memorabilia was offered for sale on its auction site.  (It’s essentially illegal to sell such stuff in France in any venue.)  Yahoo! fought back, arguing “free speech,” that France could not rightly impose its laws on a U.S. company.  Yahoo! lost that case.

Vive la différence.