One small point about John Kasich’s brag that he tried to bully Blockbuster video into banning FARGO — he specifies that it was the word-chipper scene that caused him and his wife to eject the film, “right there in the middle.”
People have already waxed eloquent about his arrogance in believing that his personal revulsion for the film entitled him to try to bully the store into removing it from the shelves. I could say much the same thing and I could defend FARGO as a terrific and highly moral film in no way ironic about the protagonist’s decency.
But I only want to talk about his comprehension of it.
Let us unpack this, for a second.
The wood-chipper scene is not “in the middle.” It is a few minutes from the end. By that point Frances McDormand’s noble lady sheriff has been on screen, the protagonist of record, for more than an hour. Moreover, the wood-chipper moment is from her point of view; she stops at the house in the course of her investigation, finds the body of the woman these guys kidnapped, hears a loud noise in the back, and comes upon the scene, seconds before shooting and apprehending the bad guy played by Peter Stormare.
So John Kasich claims that he watched the whole movie, complete with this likeable, decent lady sheriff investigating a crime, complete with her approach to this horrific sight, probably complete with her pulling her weapon and telling him to freeze, and was so blind to context that he turned off the film in high moral dudgeon just as even the most clueless moviegoer should have been able to see that justice was about to be served, and order was about to be restored.
Thinking about it, you know what I conclude?
He might have seen it. But I think there’s a strong chance that he didn’t; that he heard about the notorious wood-chipper scene from opponents of film violence and chose to use it as an example of the kind of pop culture he would oppose. I would say, at least fifty percent. I think he just knows of FARGO as the movie with the wood-chipper scene, and it’s only an accident that he chose it for condemnation, instead of some movie of similar notoriety.
Comment By: Greg Cox
April 4th, 2016 at 11:18 am
Sounds about right.
Comment By: Josh Olson
April 4th, 2016 at 11:18 am
Yeah, I had the exact same thought when I heard that. The instant he said “in the middle,” I knew he was making it up.
The skit that follows is mildly amusing, but it’s a gas watching Buscemi read Kasich’s book in the beginning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqVrpFXXdB0#t=25
Comment By: Bruce Baugh
April 4th, 2016 at 11:18 am
A very common right-wing thing, apparently.
http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/04/03/davis-aurini-admits-he-never-actually-watched-any-of-anita-sarkeesians-videos/
Comment By: Willow Polson
April 4th, 2016 at 12:18 pm
I keep forgetting about this site, thanks for the link.
Comment By: Bruce Baugh
April 4th, 2016 at 12:18 pm
Glad to help, if help is what it is. 🙂
Comment By: Ann Crimmins
April 4th, 2016 at 11:18 am
This sounds like the mentality of a student’s father when he filed suit against me and the school system for teaching To Kill a Mockingbird. His reason was that on two pages he found the words “hell” and “damn.” Not a word about the plot revolving around an accused interracial rape or anything like that. When I collected the books at the end of the unit, that kid was the one who didn’t return a copy. I took great pleasure in charging the father for the lost book. Did dad ever read the book, even in part? Not a chance.
Comment By: Jennifer Lynn Schillig
April 4th, 2016 at 2:18 pm
Shades of people who want to ban Catcher in the Rye because it contains the F-word…in a passage where Holden realizes he CAN’T shield his younger sister from all the F-words in the world.
Also, read Ray Bradbury’s afterword on one of his editions of Fahrenheit 451. The first edition was censored of all the nasty evil swear words like “hell” and “damn” and “Jesus Christ.” (Seems almost G-rated now.) So a book that spoke out against censorship…was censored.
Oh, and get this…there have been complaints about the Grimm version of Little Red Riding Hood. Because of the violence? Because the whole thing can be read as a seduction/rape allegory? No. Because Little Red brings wine to her grandmother, who is described as feeling better after she’s drunk a little of it.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
April 4th, 2016 at 12:18 pm
I once found a book in a school library, a novel in part based on race, and saw that one grim soul had used an itty bitty teeny tiny pen to give every lower-case b, every time the writer wrote “black,” to an upper case B, as in “Black.” The odds that the reader reacted at all to the story, the tone, anything else in the prose? Zilch. But it was amusing to think of the effort put into it.
Comment By: Debra Wallace Day
April 4th, 2016 at 1:18 pm
The wood chipper was just a means to dispose of a body. The murders were more disturbing to anyone who actually watched the movie.
Comment By: Craven Sean
April 4th, 2016 at 4:17 pm
I was going to say, after the treatment of living victims, the woodchipper wasn’t a shock moment — more a form of punctuation.
Comment By: Chris Barkley
April 4th, 2016 at 5:18 pm
Yes, my govennor is QUITE A PILL, isn’t he?
Comment By: Darren Lausa
April 4th, 2016 at 10:18 pm
More like a cyanide capsule
Comment By: Linda Hepden
April 4th, 2016 at 5:18 pm
Attempting to dispose of a body by using a woodchipper is not a Hollywood invention – it happened in real life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Helle_Crafts
Comment By: Linda Hepden
April 4th, 2016 at 5:18 pm
So Kasich is objecting to a real life murder…. Smart move, sir.