I was hoping I wouldn't even have to address this issue, but it now looks as if this lawsuit will actually
be going to court, and Oliver Stone himself will be giving a deposition in what stands to be a
landmark trial for freedom of speech issues and the discussion lately over filmmakers and their
responsibility when they depict violent images in their films.
As you have probably heard, two 18 year olds, Sarah Edmondson and her boyfriend Benjamin Darras, went on
a multi-state crime rampage n March of 1995, allegedly after dropping acid and watching Stone's 1994 film, NATURAL BORN
KILLERS. During this crime spree, Sarah shot and paralyzed a store clerk in Ponchatoula, Louisiana by
the name of Patsy Byers, and Benjamin killed cotton gin manager William Savage in Hernando, Mississippi.
The connection to NBK first came to light when well known author John Grisham, who was a personal friend of
Savage's, went public accusing Stone of being irresponsible in making the film, and claimed filmmakers
should be held accountable for their work when it incites violence. The lawsuit eventually took form though
from the family of Patsy Byers, who later died of cancer in 1997. They are using a "product liability"
claim in their lawsuit, alleging that Oliver Stone and Time Warner had incited these two teenagers to
commit the crime against Ms. Byers through the release of NATURAL BORN KILLERS. At first, the case
was dismissed and rightfully so in January 1997 on the grounds that the filmmakers and production company
were protected by the First Amendment. However, in May of 1998, the Intermediate Louisiana Court of Appeals
overturned the lower court decision, and thus the case returned to Amite, Louisiana and moved forward.
The attorneys for Byers's family have requested every single document related to the making of the film, as
they attempt to prove that Oliver Stone purposefully meant to incite violence by the making of this still
controversial film.
I want to first make it clear that I do not in any way condone the violence perpetrated by these two
teenagers. Because like I feel Oliver Stone was saying in NATURAL BORN KILLERS, I am sick and tired
of the senseless violence that is continuing to plague this country and this world. I feel nothing but
deep sorrow for the families of Patsy Byers and any others killed or injured by these teenagers, and
my sincerest condolences go out to these families. But what is solved by bringing a lawsuit against a
filmmaker? Oliver Stone did not pull the trigger against Patsy Byers ... those two teenagers did. And
that's where the blame must end. Does it really matter what influenced a person to kill? They did it,
plain and simple, and anyone who kills or attempts to kill another person is a complete and utter waste of
humanity, a person obviously fucked up, no longer a person with any rights, and deserves to get
the maximum punishment in return, death themselves. Swift and ugly death, not fifteen years after the fact
like what happens in our current system of justice and the handling of the death penalty. Money, time,
and energy would be better well served by these people trying to prosecute filmmakers and movie studios
in trying to execute convicted killers quicker and more often, perhaps serving as a better deterrent for
others to commit crime. They could also better serve the memory of their loved one by funding the placement
of more cops on the streets, and more importantly, analyze the real problem behind a person's motivation to
kill ... their parents, and what they did in the raising of a child who eventually grows up to commit murder.
I have grown so excessively tired of people continuing to make this argument, and it sickens me
to actually see a court case going forward that will attempt to fine Oliver Stone and Warner Bros.
for releasing a movie. Have people lost their minds? Lately in this country, when someone commits
a murder, the media and everyone else immediately starts to analyze "well, what influenced him to
do this? Who else can we blame?" How about blaming the murderers???? Or their parents????
Are people honestly trying to say that a filmmaker is somehow responsible for the shooting of a
convenience store clerk??? I am willing to bet you anything that all of these crimes which someone
tried to attribute to a film influencing them would have happened if the films had not been made.
It's way past time for people to realize that films like these are a reflection of society, and
crime and murder would continue to take place even if those films did not exist. I guarantee you
that those two teenagers would have ended up shooting somebody even if Stone hadn't made
NATURAL BORN KILLERS, so any attempt to try to blame the filmmakers for someone else's actions
killing someone is amazingly irresponsible and solves nothing except to move our country in a more
dangerous position of censoring free speech, which believe me, is one of the greatest freedoms
we have in America.
We learn our first basic values in youth, when our parents have complete control over us. This
explains why I can see a film like Natural Born Killers, clearly know that it is a film, and even more than
that, realize the message in the film, which has seemed to escape so many people, even to this day. I can
watch the movie, and yet I would never even think of picking up a gun and going on a multi-state
crime spree or even shooting someone because I thought it looked cool in the movie. On the contrary,
I was appalled by what these killers on screen were doing, which is precisely the point. I can
do that because my parents taught me right from wrong, and made me value human life. And I watched
many violent films and television shows growing up, and wow, somehow I never killed or attacked another
person. I grew up watching Arnold Schwarzenegger look amazingly cool in dark shades blowing people away
in the original Terminator, I thought Rick Deckard was cool blowing androids away in BladeRunner,
etc, etc. But what I did instead was that I played with my friends and acted out my adventures inspired
by these films with toy guns, and not one of the friends I played with would have ever picked up a real
gun thinking it was cool. Instead we shot at each other with play guns, and we knew
what a real gun could do, and I have to believe that came from
our influences in growing up ... good parents and good teachers. So I ask any of these people
trying to convict filmmakers for inciting violence to explain why I and millions of people watched
Natural Born Killers or any of these other violent films and did not go out and kill somebody? If
Oliver Stone was purposefully trying to incite violence, why didn't I or my friends immediately head out
and kill someone? Why wasn't there mass violence around the country right after opening night of the film?
I'll answer it for them ... because we have values, and the few that did commit violence did not, and
is it responsible to take the filmmakers to court because a couple of teenagers committed violence, which
they most likely would have committed even without the film?
From time to time, there has been a continuous argument by some that the violence in movies was partly
responsible for influencing some to commit violence. The argument happened when John Hinckley shot
Ronald Reagan, and said he was apparently inspired by the film TAXI DRIVER. Some wanted to blame
director Martin Scorsese and the producers responsible for making that film as being partially
responsible for that crime. Numerous other violent films over time have been accused of inspiring
copycat crimes. But ever since the tragic murders at Columbine High School in Colorado, there's been
an even stronger movement in this country to try to place blame for the country's violence on the
hands of filmmakers, and Stone's NATURAL BORN KILLERS, made in 1994, is still one of the primary films
cited as a film that glorifies violence, and as such, they want to blame Stone and Warner Bros. for
crimes committed by people who say they were inspired to kill by that film.
Look, I know that films influence people. Motion
pictures are perhaps the most powerful art form for its ability to move people so emotionally. Another
Oliver Stone film, the masterpiece JFK, even caused a new government panel to make public more
documents that had been sealed in the JFK assassination case, and it even inspired a whole new generation
to investigate the case on their own. But saying a film has the power to make a person kill is quite
a stretch in my opinion. And it doesn't even matter if a film makes violence look cool, which I don't even
think Natural Born Killers did. I can think of many other lesser films that made violence
actually look like something fun. But I wouldn't even fault these films, because ultimately, there is
something extremely wrong in a person already if they kill someone, and any of these people who blame
something like a film for their crimes is a person looking for a scapegoat, another person to
blame, and already is a person who clearly do not possess the basic human values that life is precious,
and killing another person is simply wrong, and I place the blame for that primarily with the parents.
I am amazed why even five years after its release, Oliver Stone's film is the one that keeps getting attacked
as being a film that promotes and glorifies violence. Even back when it was released in 1994, some
critics and definitely a whole lot of moviegoers missed the entire point of this movie. Natural Born
Killers, which in my opinion was the best film released in 1994 and is definitely one of the best
films of the decade, is not a film that in any way glorifies violence. Let me try once again to explain
what this film is about and why the violence is displayed as it is. Oliver Stone was certainly not
attempting to incite violence with this film. Stone was attempting to make a film that made us
experience the true nature of violence, in order to see how absurd it is when the media makes killers
heroes. For example, we have a whole subculture in this country who worship Charles Manson, who somehow
think he's cool. But what if these people actually saw an actual film of the murders committed, and actually
saw Sharon Tate's pregnant stomach being stabbed repeatedly? I have a feeling they would feel quite differently
after Manson. How about those people that thought the O.J. case was some kind of fun diversion to watch
day in and day out? If they could actually see the crime scene or autopsy photographs of Nicole Brown
and Ron Goldman, I doubt they would think it such lightweight fare, and that was Stone's point and message
in the film. We have become a society who subsists on the tragedies that come across the airwaves ... and
even more horribly, we somehow end up making killers some kind of sick mythic heroes, and I believe that's
because we never really see the true reality of the horror they perpetrated. And that's why Stone
first made us witness the violence and be shocked by it, which is a rare thing to accomplish nowadays when
we tend to be so desensitized to violence. And then once we saw these truly horrific crimes, and see
how sick these two people were, then we could appreciate the absurdity of Robert Downey Jr.'s character,
a media person who revels in their crimes, and hopes to make himself successful on their popularity. We
see how the public responds to this media glorification, and the film is meant to show how wrong and sick it
is to make killers our heroes, and also to shed light on the real influences that make people kill, the
influences in childhood. We see Mickey's abuse by his father, and ultimately his father's suicide. We
see the sexual abuse by Mallory's father, albeit in absurdist circumstances (again to make a point), and
realize that those are the influences that warped Mickey and Mallory, and we get an even stronger message.
And the film is really a masterpiece of cinematic technique, mesmerizing us with a style that again serves
the message of the film ... that violence is sick, and that perhaps the media that glorifies that violence
is even sicker. THAT, my friends, is the purpose of Natural Born Killers, nothing more, nothing less,
and I sincerely hope that if this trial reaches a jury, that the jury will intelligently examine this
case carefully, because a very dangerous precedent will be set if they convict Stone and Time Warner
for the crime of inciting violence.
I take this issue extremely personally, because I am very passionate about film, and also very passionate about our First Amendment freedoms. And it angers me to no end when right wing conservatives and others try to censor what we have the freedom to watch or not watch. I wish they realized the true danger inherent in censoring a film or a book. The pattern will have begun, and pretty soon, we'll find walls up everywhere and eventually we will lose our precious freedoms. Violence is a plague in our country, and let's for once do something about it that will really make a difference. Let's stop with the irresponsible scapegoating trying to blame everybody but the killers for the crimes they commit. Let's stop trying to place the sins of the parents at the floor of those who had nothing to do with the crime. Let's start really solving the problem of crime and violence in this society, and stop trying once and for all to censor the truly powerful and magical art form that is the motion picture. That will remain my wish. Oliver Stone and Time Warner did not commit this crime. Why is this so hard for some people to comprehend? Those two teenagers did ... pure and simple. The best thing to happen in this trial against Oliver Stone is to dismiss it now, before we set a precedent that we will one day wish we hadn't.
Jason O'Brien
August 9, 1999
Additional Articles/Essays Submitted By Others: