The eyes of the demon, The Conjuring 2
Last Saturday night, I served as the “adult aged person” allowing my 8th grade daughter and her BF to see The Conjuring 2. Truth be told they served as my ticket to see this horror film as well. I have loved horror films ever since I began sneaking into them at various grind houses in Chicago when I was in the 8th grade. That one of my daughters finds them intriguing as well is a bonus I hadn’t counted on. Having an ally in this dark pursuit is irresistible. When she asks, “Dad, will you take me to see The Conjuring 2?” we both know the answer.
For the record, The Conjuring 2, is a beautifully produced, at times ridiculous, but also legitimately scary horror movie about demonic possession. That it’s “based on true events” make it even more compelling.
And then this. On the car ride home my daughter asks me if demons and the devil really exist. Rather than abruptly saying “Don’t be silly, sweetheart it’s only a movie” I truly ponder her question. I take it seriously. “Well,” I reply, “if you believe in the Christian God then you have to be open-minded that evil exists in this world and that it has a face.”
If one exists does the other?
Save for the radio, the remainder of the car ride is silent, perhaps the gravity of my answer weighing it down. Was that too heavy a statement, especially for two young girls to bear? I don’t know.
Later that evening, after the girls are in bed (not sleeping, their lights on) I go into my office and turn on the computer. There, I quickly learn about the mass shooting in Florida – the worst ever in US history. A lone gunman entered a gay nightclub firing a barrage of bullets into the dancing throngs, killing scores of innocent people enjoying their Saturday night. The next day his identity and photograph would be posted everywhere. Soon after, the terrorist group, ISIS, would take credit for his gruesome and deadly act.
The eyes of a demon? Omar Mateen, mass murderer.
Again, I think about what I told my daughter “that evil exists in the world and that it has a face.” I stand by my answer. Demons exist. It’s not only a movie.
Publicity stunt, onerous mistake or both?
By now you’ve seen the new cover of Rolling Stone magazine, featuring the photographic portrait of Boston bombing terrorist, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
Look again. It’s not just a picture of the killer but a kind of brooding, sexy one. The kind this magazine has been putting on its covers for decades. He looks more like a member of Maroon 5 than a despicable murderer of innocent people. The indie scruff of beard. The Jim Morrison hair. Are those bedroom eyes?
My god, they’re treating him just like a rock star.
My jaw drops at the audacity of it. It’s like a bit out of Oliver Stone’s controversial film, Natural Born Killers, where two killers become celebrities. But that was satire. A statement about society’s fascination with fame, our gullibility for people with much charisma and zero morals. Fiction. Until now…
Of course, I’m not going to buy the magazine. Ergo, I’m not going to read the article. But I’ll guess what the editors were thinking: super provocative image equals scary amounts of buzz. Sigh. Is Rolling stone so hard up for relevancy it would stoop to glorifying a cowardly terrorist to move its product? Apparently.
I can hear the brave editor now: “We are an icon of the sub-culture. Our mission is to stir the pot. We start brave conversations about challenging topics.” Or maybe he points to Time magazine’s consideration of Osama Bin Laden for “Man of the Year.” Or the New Yorker’s controversial cover featuring Barack Obama fist pumping his gun-toting wife. There are other such examples.
But I say bullshit. Time ultimately did not choose Bin Laden, dismissing him as a “garden variety terrorist.” The New Yorker’s cover was, in my opinion, legitimate satire. I would also argue they have poetic license. By showing the right wing’s fantasy of the Obama’s they were demonstrating its ludicrousness.
The Rolling Stone cover is wrong. Calling it “too soon” is too small an accusation. It’s worse than that. Rolling Stone covers are iconic for one thing: glorifying rock stars and celebrities. While they have featured controversial figures before, this portrait crosses the line. Not because of who Tsarnaev is, or even for what he did, but because of the romantic way he is being portrayed.
They want to do a story on him, fine. But if they’re going to put him on the cover don’t portray him as a lovely man. He is anything but.
Flash mob?
Like most of you I spent this week considering the horrific events in Boston. We watched the 24/7 news feed. Talked to our co-workers. Lessoned our children. We took part in yet another big, heavy conversation. It’s a sick and sweet thing, observing our nation coming together over something terrible. Alas, it has become all too common.
Or has it?
In reality, these public displays of cowardly violence are fairly infrequent, at least compared to violence in general. At the Boston Marathon a bunch of people were maimed and three people died, including a child. Terrible yes. But this sort of thing happens almost every day in every big city in every country in the world. We barely even notice. Case in point, the day after the Boston tragedy Syria unloaded arsenal on vague revolutionary targets killing dozens of innocents. The story was on page four of my local paper.
What makes the ‘Boston Bombings’ so different? Was it the public stage? The parade of innocent bystanders? The media? Or was it the fact that it occurred in America, where senseless violence isn’t supposed to happen? (Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary or moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado.)
Whatever the differences, a brazen act of terrorism has much in common with successful modern marketing, doesn’t it? Not to come off as insensitive, but wasn’t the ‘Boston Bombing’ basically event marketing with a viral component? A flash mob, literally and figuratively.
Marketing…
Terrorism…
The bombers knew the finish line of this iconic race would have countless spectators. With iPhones. That meant not only plenty of victims but even more survivors, who would film, post and Tweet.
The perpetrators are many bad things but they are not arbitrary. They know blowing up innocent people at a major sporting event creates epic, horrifying drama, the kind that trends on Twitter and clogs all other media: locally, nationally and globally.
The concept of killing innocent people is no longer enough. The vile act needs to be integrated with other pieces in order to go viral and give these merchants of evil the awareness they crave.
Too soon for a discussion like this? Perhaps. Or am I late? Consider another perspective from this VP of public relations: http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/op-ed-when-tragedy-strikes-silence-is-golden_b47174
The Happy Soul Industry
The Last Generation
Gods of Advertising 