What Did You Do in the War on Terrorism, Daddy?

The Interview debacle isn't over, and it's pretty bizarre

By the time you read this piece, it will be a week since Sony canceled the release of James Franco and Seth Rogen's comedy The Interview. And then news broke Tuesday that the The Interview will screen on Christmas after all, just in limited release. When I got this assignment, I thought it may be a little after-the-fact to publish something so late, but this story's inherent weirdness has given it a life beyond the 24-hours news cycle. So…thank you, North Korea?

And also: Just what the fuck is going on? As someone who's followed the movie biz for years—either working in it, writing about it or idly observing it on Twitter—I can say that even this cold-hearted cynic never saw this coming. That is to say I never would have predicted a major motion picture studio would cancel a Christmas Day release at the behest of its corporate muckety mucks or terrorists (or both).

Refresher: Rogen and Evan Goldberg directed a comedy starring Rogen and Franco as a couple of TV guys (one an on-air personality, the other behind the scenes) who are tasked by the CIA with killing North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un. Someone hacked Sony and released all kinds of embarrassing secrets. Then a group calling itself the Guardians of Peace said they'd throw down all sorts of violence on any theater that showed The Interview. Lots of theater chains bailed, and Sony cancelled the release.

For those who are screaming that this is terrorism at its worst, that's simply not true. Terrorism at its worst is, say, flying planes into buildings and killing 3,000 people. Let's have some perspective.

Still, the threat against Sony is indeed terrorism—the GOP (ha) wanted Sony to be fearful that it would bomb some theaters (or shoot people or release poison gas or whatever). Sony appeared to be fearful. End of The Interview. That's how terrorism works.

But—and this is a guess—Sony didn't cancel The Interview's release out of the kindness of its heart. Sony likely doesn't care whether moviegoers are harmed by violence; they care about what violence against ticket buyers means: lawsuits, and lots of them.

In the end, it's all about money. After all, Sony is a for-profit company, and what would it rather deal with? A financial loss because of the limited release, or the permanent financial losses—and permanently tarnished reputation—of a dead punter and the lawsuit his family files in federal court? The cynic in me understands exactly where Sony—and all the movie theaters that backed out of showing The Interview—is coming from. It's hard to release movies that people will see if all the people who would see it are dead.

As for what this means for any dickhead who wants to hack a network and threaten a corporation, who can say? Did Sony set a dangerous precedent? Yes, but Sony isn't a government with endless resources to fight cyber attacks. What are the bigwigs supposed to do? Let it die? Or, as a means of preventing physical attacks, release The Interview on 50 screens and hire armed security for each location (actually—that's not a bad idea; think about how many sellout screenings that could lead to)?

As of this writing, Rogen, Franco and Goldberg took to social media about the rescheduled Christmas release. But the story won't end there. The FBI claims North Korea is behind the Sony cyber attacks—this is a country that's more of a threat to its own people than anyone else, by the way—and last week Obama said, more or less, that Sony acted like wimps. What does Sony's latest change of plans say about the company as a whole?

And all this brouhaha is over a movie with a not bad, if callous, premise about fictitiously assassinating the real leader of a real country that—in the trailer, anyway—has two jokes about Seth Rogen's ass. But only Nixon could go to China, and only a comedy with ass jokes and assassination attempts could spawn a debate about censorship, capitalism and terrorism. Maybe.

Letters to the Editor

Mail letters to PO Box 4910 Santa Fe, NM 87502 or email them to editor[at]sfreporter.com. Letters (no more than 200 words) should refer to specific articles in the Reporter. Letters will be edited for space and clarity.

We also welcome you to follow SFR on social media (on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter) and comment there. You can also email specific staff members from our contact page.