Edmonton filmmaker turns Dexter-inspired killer!

Reminds me of something Alfred Hitchcock said when someone claimed they were inspired to commit a crime by 'Psycho.'
(paraphrasing)

'I am responsible to my audience, but not for my audience.'
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Reminds me of something Alfred Hitchcock said when someone claimed they were inspired to commit a crime by 'Psycho.'
(paraphrasing)

'I am responsible to my audience, but not for my audience.'
Click to expand...

Yeah, that sounds philosophically correct, but I'm sorry, if you are a feeling human being I'd imagine you'd experience SOME guilt, even if you are not at all culpable.
 
No, I would not experience any guilt. Sorrow, maybe, but not guilt. There is nothing you can do about the lunatics in this world. There is no sense in feeling guilty for something they do as a result of your work. You have no control over that.
 
mjjason said:
No, I would not experience any guilt. Sorrow, maybe, but not guilt. There is nothing you can do about the lunatics in this world. There is no sense in feeling guilty for something they do as a result of your work. You have no control over that.
Click to expand...

I still don't buy it. You'd feel some, even if it were fleeting. If I bought a gun, and someone broke into my house and shot my daughter with it, I'd feel guilt about having the gun in the house in the first place.
 
Here's what someone who had first hand experience with this subject said, Stephen King, with regard to his book Rage, which was about a school shooter and had been linked to numerous school shootings--

"I also recognize the fact that a novel such as Rage may act as an accelerant on a troubled mind; one cannot divorce the presence of my book in that kid's locker from what he did any more than one can divorce the gruesome sex-murders committed by Ted Bundy from his extensive collection of bondage-oriented porno magazines. To argue free speech in the face of such an obvious linkage (or to suggest that others may obtain a catharsis from such material which allows them to be atrocious only in their fantasies) seems to me immoral. That such stories, video games (Harris was fond of a violent computer-shootout game called Doom), or photographic scenarios will exist no matter what--that they will be obtainable under the counter if not over it--begs the question. The point is that I don't want to be a part of it. Once I knew what had happened, I pulled the ejection-seat lever on that particular piece of work. I withdrew Rage, and I did it with relief rather than regret."
 
The show "Dexter" is based of a novel series called "Darkly Dreaming Dexter", by the author Jeff Lindsay. It looks like this guy didn't realize that, because there's no mention of it in the article... but either way, put me in the category of not feeling guilt for someone else's actions. It might fukk with the emotions a bit, but I don't see guilt as being part of the scenario.
 
I just read about this. Crazy stuff.

How is this like Dexter? It didn't mention anything about the person he murdered being a criminal or anything. The guy was a fan of the show and he just happened to be a psycho.
 
In August, Twitchell - on his Facebook social networking site - referred to himself in the third person, saying "Mark has way too much in common with Dexter Morgan." Another said, "Mark is set to evil."
Click to expand...

Ok, that's completely unfair! I am assuming they are talking about his status... and you can't make your status into the first person.

I know the guy is crazy but there is no need to bend facts. He HAD to refer to himself in the third person.

I guess it's not that much crazier versus the alternative : "I have way too much in common with Dexter Morgan" or "I am set to evil"
 
I would feel guilt but I'm an ex-Catholic so that comes with the territory. But seriously my question is this, if not for the Dexter TV show (which I haven't seen) what other excuse would this person have for snapping? I'm just glad this didn't happen in America. We have a huge victimization problem. No one is ever to blame for their actions. So laws and such are made that will never be effective. I wonder is it like this in Canada too? So what, if any, new ineffective laws will come from this that will hinder Canadian filmmakers in their process. Indie Filmmakers = artist = problem to society because we're "not like them". I'm sure someone will point out that this guy was an indy filmmaker and that was part of the problem. Someone will surely say society lets too many people make films or something stupid like that. Call me paranoid.

-Nate
 
Just to be clear, I think an artist has a right to express himself however he wants and can't be responsible for the actions of mentally diseased people. Manson says he was inspired to kill by the Beatles White Album, which has no violent messages. I'm just saying if I created something that inspired someone to murder another person in a way depicted in my art, I would feel like crap for a while, even if that is in no way logical...With regards to Canada, they are a pretty liberal nation, especially by American standards, so I don't think any laws will be passed, although Alberta is the most conservative province.
 
The guy was mentally twisted to start. Blaming or saying the film/music/newspaper/stop sign/God caused him to do it is ludicrous. If I was one of the producers of "Dexter" I would say, "Wow, that guy was a freak." Simple as that. We saw this with music not too long ago, ala Marilyn Manson.

The guy was unbalanced to start, and if it wasn't "Dexter", it would of been "Family Guy" or the "Simpsons". Heck, producer's of soap operas should be ashamed they are causing all that infidelity out there. :laugh:

I watch "Family Guy" all the time, and I don't try to imitate the characters, giggity-giggity, oh yeah!

No, the people from "Dexter" have nothing to be ashamed or upset about, other than people are drawing these kinds of conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top