![\"The-Interview-movie\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/9\/2014\/12\/The-Interview-movie.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve found the entire\u00a0Interview<\/em>\u00a0cancelation fiasco deeply disturbing. It\u2019s one story if Sony faced a vague threat and canceled the movie in a panic, a cancellation that would also have the collateral effect of perhaps appeasing the hackers and preventing the further release of damaging e-mails. But the collapse of will here was far more systematic. It wasn\u2019t just Sony. Every major theater chain pulled out. Major online streaming services indicated they wouldn\u2019t run it. Another studio, Paramount, canceled the small-scale screenings of an entirely separate film,\u00a0Team America:\u00a0World Police<\/em>,\u00a0<\/em>a movie that\u2019s been viewed countless times in theaters and online without incident.<\/p>\n Particularly disheartening is the fact that the cancellation came from corporations that have gained enormous market share precisely because they\u2019re very, very good at determining what the American consumer wants. Was this corporate cowardice, or were the corporations reacting to years of accumulated information and experience about the American movie-goer? I think it\u2019s a combination of both.<\/p>\n Regarding corporate cowardice, the irony is that we\u2019re talking about an industry that routinely applauds itself for \u201cspeaking truth to power\u201d or for it\u2019s own \u201ccourage\u201d when it makes films that their fellow progressives love but might anger a few people in Tennessee and Alabama. It\u2019s not courage when you seek the acclaim of your peers at the expense of the feelings and mores of people who will do no more than publicly criticize your product. So, now, in the face of a miniscule \u201creal\u201d threat, we see the stuff Sony and Paramount are made of. And it is weak stuff indeed.<\/p>\n But that\u2019s only part of the story. Unrepresentative tweets and Internet comments to the contrary, I think to the extent that people were even aware of the threats, they would be more likely to steer away from the movie (and theaters that showed it) than they would be to defiantly attend. The\u00a0Wall Street Journal\u2019s<\/em>\u00a0James Taranto\u00a0is exactly right<\/a>\u00a0(and he quotes NRO\u2019s own Charles Cooke):<\/p>\n Given the choice between the risk of a ruinous loss and even the certainty of a small one, most people will opt for the latter; thinkers from Blaise Pascal to Daniel Kahneman have recognized as much. And with few theaters willing to screen the film, Sony could hardly be expected to release it on schedule\u2014though one suspects the studio\u2019s execs were relieved to have the excuse.<\/p>\n There is of course another injury here\u2014to America\u2019s character as \u201ca resolute and free people,\u201d as National Review\u2019s Charles Cooke puts it. But that loss is an abstract and diffuse one, not the sort of thing for which ordinary people risk life or livelihood except in conditions of emergency.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Free speech may be a value people broadly support, but they also take it completely for granted, giving it zero thought in their daily lives. If they hear about a terrorist threat at a movie theater, their first thought is not necessarily, \u201cI\u2019ll go to the movie as an act of defiance,\u201d it\u2019s more like, \u201cLet\u2019s go out to eat instead.\u201d A critical mass of Americans are not necessarily going to see the meaning and purpose of enduring even the slightest risk for a raunchy comedy.<\/p>\n But here\u2019s the problem: Timidity is habit-forming. Most people like to think of themselves as the kind of person who will do the right thing when the stakes are high, but we can go through most of life without encountering truly high-stakes challenges to our courage and integrity. Instead, we tend to do the easy thing again and again, blissfully unaware that each easy step erodes just a bit more of our character. As I raise my three kids, I think often of Luke 16:10: \u201cOne who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much.\u201d Sony took the easy out, and so did a host of other companies.<\/p>\n The right response to North Korea\u2019s vague threats (and, let\u2019s be honest, when is North Korea\u00a0not making threats?) was easy: Beef up police presence at theaters to show that we take protecting our citizens seriously, donate a portion of the movie\u2019s proceeds to humanitarian relief for North Koreans fleeing oppression, and celebrate our liberty in a small but meaningful way by seeing a movie \u2014 if you can stomach the raunch \u2014 that features the one thing that irritates self-proclaimed god-kings the most, pure mockery.<\/p>\n But if the right thing was easy, Sony and a host of other companies saw capitulation as easier still. That\u2019s certainly dispiriting, but the thought that they might be accurately reading their customer base is the most dispiriting thought of all.<\/p>\n Read more on the\u00a0<\/i><\/strong>Patheos Faith and Family Channel<\/i><\/b><\/a>\u00a0and follow\u00a0<\/i><\/strong>David on Twitter<\/i><\/b><\/a>.<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n