Connecting the VTech killer to "Oldboy"
So, for those who didn't know, Cho Seung-Hui sent a multimedia manifesto to NBC News in between the two attacks. In it, the manifesto contained writing, photos and videos. (It's all over the news).
One of the photos shows Cho holding up a hammer ready to strike.
Sound familiar?
How about now?
It's interesting how media has already begun speculating that the movie was perhaps what inspired Cho to go on his bloody rampage.
New York Times summarizes the film's plot as follows:
The film centers on a seemingly ordinary businessman, Dae-su (the terrific Choi Min-sik), who, after being mysteriously imprisoned, goes on an extensive, exhausting rampage, seeking answers and all manner of bloody revenge.
Just for the record, Dae-su did intend to take revenge on the man who imprisoned him, but in fact did not kill anyone in the entire film. (Tortured, sure, but kill? No. [The man he meets on the rooftop doesn't count - he was already in the act of committing suicide]) The only character that had a gun in the film was the antagonist himself. Never Oh Dae-su.
I can't say there aren't similarities to the killer and the movie, but to conclude that the film is what drove Cho to commit his horrible act is ludicrous. It's the whole "violence in popular media is a precursor to violence in real life" debate. Studies cannot correlate the two as, frankly, it's pretty damn near impossible to correlate. Several factors exist, such as genetics, home environment, brain chemistry/structure (Charles Whitman, the shooter of the 1966 University of Texas massacre had a tumour in his brain which could have pressed against his amygdala, potentially affecting his emotions).
After reading several articles about the incident, about Cho, and now his manifesto, if anyone is to blame, it's society.
One of the photos shows Cho holding up a hammer ready to strike.
Sound familiar?
How about now?
It's interesting how media has already begun speculating that the movie was perhaps what inspired Cho to go on his bloody rampage.
New York Times summarizes the film's plot as follows:
The film centers on a seemingly ordinary businessman, Dae-su (the terrific Choi Min-sik), who, after being mysteriously imprisoned, goes on an extensive, exhausting rampage, seeking answers and all manner of bloody revenge.
Just for the record, Dae-su did intend to take revenge on the man who imprisoned him, but in fact did not kill anyone in the entire film. (Tortured, sure, but kill? No. [The man he meets on the rooftop doesn't count - he was already in the act of committing suicide]) The only character that had a gun in the film was the antagonist himself. Never Oh Dae-su.
I can't say there aren't similarities to the killer and the movie, but to conclude that the film is what drove Cho to commit his horrible act is ludicrous. It's the whole "violence in popular media is a precursor to violence in real life" debate. Studies cannot correlate the two as, frankly, it's pretty damn near impossible to correlate. Several factors exist, such as genetics, home environment, brain chemistry/structure (Charles Whitman, the shooter of the 1966 University of Texas massacre had a tumour in his brain which could have pressed against his amygdala, potentially affecting his emotions).
After reading several articles about the incident, about Cho, and now his manifesto, if anyone is to blame, it's society.