President Obama said that Sony Pictures Entertainment "made a mistake" by withdrawing The Interview from its Christmas Day release. I'm not sure I agree. Depending on some facts that are not in our possession, it might be a highly responsible action…or at the very least, a course of action in which they did not have much choice.
And I guess I should preface what I'm about to say with the reminder that I am not in favor of terrorists "winning" and that I'd like to think I have a fair amount of street cred as a defender of the First Amendment. I'm also not convinced this is really a First Amendment issue.
The First Amendment says our government can't stop free expression. It says nothing about other governments or parties which may be acting in accord with other governments. A couple of folks on the local news last night seemed to think we have some Constitutional right as Americans to see this movie. Well, no. Sony has the right to withdraw it and bury it and we have no "right" to see it. (Reportedly, some highly-placed folks at Sony were considering not releasing it even before the computer hacking occurred.)
To me, I don't see this as a First Amendment issue so much as an issue of criminal extortion. It's also an issue of the folks at Sony deciding what's best for the folks at Sony and for exhibitors deciding what's best for them.
Right now, I can think of two things I don't know and you probably don't know that might make a difference in how we view this whole matter…
- How good is this movie? I don't mean as Fine Art. I mean as something that will sell tickets.
Thursday night at the screening I attended, there was what we call an Industry Crowd, meaning the entertainment industry. I heard much talk about the whole matter and I kept hearing — this is the rumor mill speaking now — that everyone at Sony thought the film was awful and that they were just hoping to get it into theaters and make some bucks before reviews and word of mouth killed it. It's common knowledge the film's release was delayed from last August because Sony demanded changes.
I'm not suggesting that good films deserve to be defended and bad ones don't. But before the hacking and threats, Sony had the right to decide the film was a lox that wasn't worth releasing. Some execs at Sony felt that way; that the film shouldn't be released…or maybe wasn't worth the problems it might cause. (No one in the film business is dense enough to think a movie about assassinating a foreign leader couldn't possibly get anyone upset.) And they had the right to make that decision. I'm suggesting they still have that right. Which brings me to the other thing we don't know…
- How credible are the threats of "9/11 style terrorism" against theaters that show this film?
The Department of Homeland Security says they're not credible and they're probably right. Then again, someone at Sony probably assured the execs there that their computer system was unhackable.
Imagine you're the operator of a multi-screen cinema that was booked to show The Interview. You've heard there are threats of terrorism against any theater that shows this film. Even if it's only a 1% chance, do you still book the movie? And I'm thinking you're not even worried about someone bombing your theater. I'm thinking you're worried about people not coming to your theater, not even to see the other movies you're showing, if The Interview is also on the marquee.
You have a lot of great, potentially-lucrative movies opening on or around Christmas Day: Unbroken, Into the Woods, The Gambler, Big Eyes, Leviathan…plus recent releases like The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb and Annie. You don't need The Interview to sell tickets. Why risk even the teensy chance of violence or the greater risk of people deciding not to go to a movie where there's that teensy threat of terrorism?
On a purely financial basis, which is the only consideration in so many businesses today and not necessarily a wrong one in this matter, I understand the theaters bailing on it. I further understand Sony deciding that if not enough theaters are going to show it, maybe it doesn't make sense to let any show it…now. And I really understand them saying, "Look, let's take some time and figure out the best other way to exhibit this film."
Is this giving in to terrorists? Probably. We do that in this country. We cancel airline flights if there's even a vague threat. We evacuate buildings if there are suspicious packages. In a sense, the terrorists/hackers have already won this one. At least one movie — it was to be Steve Carrell's next — has been cancelled due to its anti-Korea theme. And you can pretty much bet that no one in Hollywood is green-lighting anything that involves showing Kim Jong-un's head exploding or which might even annoy him.
Also, cybersecurity experts are saying that just dealing with the computer hack will cost Sony upwards of $100 million and you can imagine what other businesses are suddenly spending to beef up their security. They're terrified it'll happen to them. Add all this up and it's not a bad victory for whoever decided to terrorize someone via computer. Even if The Interview does get released eventually, they'll have won a lot.
And experts are saying there are many other ways Sony can release The Interview. I'm wondering if the company will decide they're cost-effective. They may just seize on it as an opportunity to dump (and perhaps take tax write-offs on) a movie that some folks there didn't think should be released in the first place.
But you're saying — I can hear you — a crime has been committed. What about that? And if Sony did decide they wanted to give it a full release, what should be done? Well, let's forget for a moment that this is about a movie. Imagine foreign hackers break into the computer system of a big company in this country the size of Sony. Or even say it is Sony. They steal data, they publicize things that are embarrassing, they throw panic in all directions because they now have everyone's banking information, etc. Then instead of demanding that a movie be withdrawn or edited, they demand ten billion dollars to not use or disseminate that data. That's as likely to happen as what did happen.
What should be done in that case? I dunno. But whatever it is, I think that's what should be done in this case. Treat it as extortion, which is a very serious crime, not as an assault on our Free Speech. Sony should be free to decide on the disposition of The Interview based on whatever they think is best for their business.
It will not destroy the First Amendment if they decide it ain't worth it. Our Congress will still not be able to make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. But before we take up arms to defend its spirit in this case, let's see if the guys who financed this movie still think it's worth fighting for. Because I think it's quite likely they just want to cut their losses and get out before their kids' PlayStations get hacked. Or someone really gets assassinated.