In “The Hunt,” an unreleased $18M feature film, elitists hunt “deplorables” for sport. Given recent mass shootings, this horror movie is called “immoral,” sparking demands it never light up a darkened theater.
Consequently, the movie sits on a shelf waiting for a release date that might never come. In the meanwhile, the trailers are probably setting records. Are the trailers as inflammatory as the movie?
This is a very strange situation. Some people claim violent movies trigger violence in reality, others deny that — especially Hollywood people — but now, given real violence recently, a violent movie is being censored by Hollywood producers reacting to public pressure. They are self-censoring for reasons they don’t agree with, but doing it anyway because it’s politically correct?
Another weird aspect to all this: conservatives and Christians decrying the movie even though a theme running through it targets elitists hunting deplorables, Hillary Clinton’s designation for all things conservative and Christian. (She is certainly an elitist in search of a hunting license. Someone should write a screenplay revisiting “License to Kill,” with Hillary as the villain, or is that going too far?)
Speaking of going too far, this so-called pro-Trump movie is condemned by the President! He tweeted recently: “The movie… is made to inflame and cause chaos.” This is an odd statement considering the President has said there is power in provocation and chaos. Thus, one might think the President would be a fan of The Hunt!
Given the usual frantic push for gun control following any mass shooting perpetrated by a psycho white boy (all other mass shootings tend to be downplayed, you know,) one would think The Hunt would be celebrated and promoted by the gun control lobby. So far, crickets and frogs. Perhaps Antifa wants to defer gun control legislation until after the “revolution.”
The bottom line question should be: is this movie any more or less violent than others of its kind, like the 1932 feature, “The Most Dangerous Game,” depicting humans hunting humans?
Pick your poison. Back in 1995, Brad Pitt starred with Morgan Freeman in “Se7en,” one of the most nauseating horror flicks ever. That film was celebrated and nominated, not censored. We can all think about other horror-filled horrible productions with zero moral value, such as “Natural Born Killers,” a continuous blood bath blaming mass media for sexing up blood baths. (Did you catch that?!)
The truth is violence has always been a part of the human experience this side of The Fall. The truth is movies are part art form and part money machine. Making money takes precedence over art, and violence helps ensure profit. If a movie artfully and honestly presents violence profitably, it’s probably a blockbuster. To call for censorship based only on the fear of what might happen is to take all the risk out of life, all the adventure, and all the art.
One can understand deplorables calling for censorship. The movie depicts elites killing them. One can understand elitists calling for censorship. A deplorable in the movie sponsors a counter-hunt, and elitists die.
Was the movie made specifically to raise hell and create chaos as the President says? Of course not. The movie was made to make money, and to make a point, and that point might simply be: live by the rifle, die by the rifle—our politics are more lethal than the weapons.
Not such a bad moral imperative after all, but we may never know.