Boycott Chapter 27

http://www.boycottchapter27.org/

There's a movie coming out about Mark David Chapman and the killing of John Lennon. This group wants people to boycott the movie.

Wonder if any of them were upset that radio stations in the 60s boycotted the Beatles, or that some stations refused to play "Imagine" in the 70s?

 

The killer who shall not be named is a patsy programmed by the government to kill John Lennon. Make that movie. It's already a damn good book, even if you don't believe it.

 

Haven't the other Beatles refused to say his name, on the grounds that at least part of his motivation for killing Lennon was fame?

If so, I'd say a boycott is appropriate.

 

hondo --
What is your point exactly?
That anyone who ever supported a boycott anywhere should support a boycott everywhere, even on issues with which they disagree? Or that boycotts are bad per se?

 

There have been movies made about the assassinations of both Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King, Lincoln and Nasser. These are historical events, as was the assassination of Lennon. I'm all for anyone's right to boycott or not spend their money on anything. But I find it amusing that of all of the movies made about political assassinations, this is the one time I've heard of people who revered or honored the figure in question calling for a boycott on a depiction of the event on a movie screen. What, is John Lennon's memory that sacred? And where is the evidence that Mark David Chapman is making any money off this? Also, if these people are worried about the "fame" involved, Chapman, unfortunately, sealed his memory when he pulled the trigger. No amount of weeping and wailing is going to change that. John Wilkes Booth. Lee Harvey Oswald. John Hinckley, etc. Criminals and murderers are remembered. That doesn't tarnish the memory or legacy of the people they killed.

 

I agree with most of that, but I think a lot of people -- and media outlets -- went along with the remaining Beatles request.

You don't hear his name nearly as much as you do other assassins of famous people, that's for sure.

 

As I said, I have no problem with a boycott. You're within your rights not to see the movie. But if you notice on the Boycott Chapter 27 web site, there's a poll for visitors to the site. The options are to "educate people before seeing this film," "it's okay to make money off John Lennon's death," (a loaded questions if there ever was one), and "This film must be stopped."
The latter is going much further than a boycott. That's censorship.

 

The Beatles' reactions are understandable, but there is no evidence Chapman killed Lennon for the fame, at least not in the books, newspaper accounts and court records I've read.

 

By the way, I don't recall Jacqueline Kennedy requesting that anyone in the media refrain from writing the words Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

hondo --

Which has nothing to do with anything, as far as I can figure. But thanks for the random comment.

TM --

Which begs the honest question: Why did he kill him?

 

Who knows? Why does any nut job do what he or she does?

 

FOr one, he thought Lennon had become a phony sell-out. And he fashioned himself a Holden Caufield type and should take care of one of his heroes. At least that's what I've read, and I consider myself a pretty big Beatles fan/history buff.

Plus, he was just bat-shit crazy. I have the People Magazine with a pic of Chapman on the cover, he just has the crazy eyes look.