The Killing of America

source: The Killing of America

This documentary is about violence in America up to 1981. It was intended for a Japanese audience. There's lots of violent footage, some not readily seen anywhere else. If that's what you're looking for this is a good movie for you. But it doesn't really make a statement other than America might be more violet in 1981 than ever before. I say might because we're not sure why or by how much. There are some messed up people out there. That's what this shows you, example after example...over and over and over again. Newspaper coverage used to be as graphic as this movie. In the 1950's newspapers often included gruesome pictures of mangled injuries from auto accidents. Generally, 90% of the population are well-meaning. The other 10% are ill-intentioned or desperate enough to commit horrible things. This movie is about those 10%.

Even though 'The Killing of America' wants to state a peaceful message, it has a dubious way of getting its point across, lacking logic and thoroughness. Of course, a lot of the statistics may be real, but more than anything else they show (partly) how a 'new' society, after two world wars, is beginning to face its limitations and problems concerning its enormous growth, high speed development and radical cultural changes... and several serial killers portrayed here never even used a gun! But beyond that, restrictions on American gun laws would certainly have mý blessing... Back to 'T.K.o.A.', because beyond its failing as a documentary, it offers an intriguing series of archival footage pertaining to all kinds of 'modern' violence in America, from about the early sixties up to the early eighties. It starts right off the bat with the brutal street killing of a black suspect by some cops, and does not flinch at showing gore or seedy images that many will find offensive - some ninety minutes of assassinations, snipers, riots, war, mass-suicide and serial killers are then still to come... As a documentary: 3 out of 10. As a historic document: 9 out of 10. Which brings it to an average of 6 out of 10, since I find it hard to prioritize in this case...

This is most definitely one of the great obscure documentary films, one of the most chilling and engrossing I've ever seen. It's tremendous that YouTube and other corners of the internet have brought it to so many more people than were able to see it in the 1980's. It not only spotlights the well-known killers/maniacs of the 60's through the early 80's, like Charlie Manson, Ted Bundy, Jim Jones and John Gacy, but also gives time to things like James Hoskins' 1980 hostage-taking at the Cleveland TV station, Anthony Kiritsis' bizarre hostage-taking of Richard Hall in 1977, and other things which aren't widely remembered today. The whole concept of the film, which holds that violence in America had increased largely since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, is compelling, if maybe a bit inaccurate. It refers to the 1950's as having been a more innocent time, of "big cars, big everything", but also accurately acknowledges that "not everyone could get a share of the dream" (i.e. African-Americans). The only drawback to this view is that the 50's weren't anywhere near as "wholesome" or "innocent" as many people have been led to believe. It was a time of ugly, repressive social structures and ugly Cold-War politics, with a complacent, prosperous appearance that was not entirely fictitious, but which masked a lot of nasty things going on beneath the surface. "The Killing of America" would have been and even better and more explosive film if they'd have spent a little bit more time on the inaccurate ideas that had already developed by then about the 1950's, an era which is still naively idealized by many Republicans who are hell-bent on holding back social progress for non-white people, LGBTQ folks, and women. All in all, I would love to see a modern-day follow-up, which would be made along the same lines as the original, and cover the many killers and violent phenomena of the past third of a century in America since the original "Killing of America" was made. "Night Stalker" Richard Ramirez; Jeff Dahmer; the seemingly sudden emergence in the late 90's of school-shooters like Klebold and Harris (being as the original mentions, among other young murderers, San Diego high-school-aged sniper Brenda Ann Spencer); the September 11 attacks, the resultant partially irrational hysteria over the "new terrorist threat" in America, and the Iraq War; and finally winding up with the mass shooting epidemic that has generated so much well-founded debate about gun control in the 2010's, not to mention the police killings of unarmed people of color that have garnered so much attention recently. It'd be awesome to hear the original English narrator return for this hypothetical sequel, although I have a strong suspicion that he's now dead. In my view, aided by the constant hectoring of ultraconservative hawks and the new, radical right-wing National Rifle Association, the problem of out-of-control gun violence in particular hasn't gotten THAT much better since the early 80's. The whole tone of the original "Killing of America" was that society was declining then due to all this violence, which was driven home by the English-language narrator's somber, sinister voice. I can only imagine how much darker all of the comparatively recent violent events I mentioned above would seem if they were recounted by that same deep, ominous voice-over.

This is a very brilliant documentary of the american way. From the very beginning there is a sense of doom. The combination of raw footage and matter of fact narration makes this intense and extremely tense. We are never given a breather, it is non-stop violence and trauma. There is an incredible interview with a serial killer in his jail cell towards the end of the film, a guy who slept with the heads of his female victims. By the end of the film I was very numb - it's really powerful stuff. 10/10

I first saw this movie as a young teenager in about 1984. Back then I never really got the seriousness of what "Killing of America" was trying to do. In many cases I found myself watching it just to see scenes of violence like it was any random horror movie. Subsequent views have had a polarising effect considering how I once viewed the same footage. Killing of America, is a shockumentary, nothing more nothing less. It's role is not to delve into why the violence is happening or what is turning middle America against itself. I don't believe any movie or documentary can successfully do that, given that there are simply too many factors for why such violence exists. For the film to generate the shocks that it does, even where the extreme violence is 50 years ago, is powerful in itself. The reasons of why Charles Whitman decided to climb the university tower and just open fire on random strangers is never explored, but the fact that it happened, seemingly without any real provocation should be enough to make people stop and question. The reasons why Robert Smith entered a beauty college and callously slaughtered 5 people, one of them a 3 year old, are never revealed, only stating that he "wanted to get known". That is the real nature of this film. It's appeal is in its straightforwardness. The narration doesn't focus on gender or on race. There are crimes of white on black violence, just as much as black on white violence. However the undertone of how easily accessible guns are to people who obviously can't handle them and shouldn't be anywhere near them is evident throughout. The random almost inexplicable assassination of Martin Luther King who just wanted peace, to the equally bizarre assassination of Robert Kennedy by Sirhan Sirhan who claimed he didn't remember doing it. There's footage of a police officer explaining how a shotgun can easily be purchased in any store or supermarket and also footage of alleged gun reforms that just don't go far enough, so the Killing of America is predominantly about gun violence, but again it's role is not to explain why the violence exists, but the fact that it does exist and that it's almost becoming acceptable due to how commonplace it is. Yes there are a few anachronisms in the film, but these center around the use of numbers and statistics. It's unlikely that all this violence had a turning point in 1963, however one has to think that that date was chosen due to how traumatised America and most of the world was when Kennedy was assassinated, more so than ever before. Kennedy was not the first U.S president to be assassinated; Abraham Lincoln anyone? The 1960's was not the first decade of serial killings either, given that the Charles Starkweather case happened in the late 50's and Bonnie & Clyde were way back in the 30's, but the 60's seemed to be the decade where so much happened in a relatively short span of time, from race riots, excessive almost daily violence, and an ongoing war both political and actual. Overall this is a powerful film that achieves what it sets out to do. Much in the same way images of cancer are put on cigarette packs in some countries, this film is meant to be an in your face account of just how far and how fast society is sliding and continues to do so in the present day. It leaves out the psychological analysis of why and just presents the evidence as bleak as it is. If you can manage to locate a copy buy it and keep it.

The Killing of America (1981) *** (out of 4) This documentary highlights the violent culture that has overtaken America. Throughout the running time we see a number of stories dealing with mass murderers, sexual assaults, sniper attacks and various other crimes. Narrator Chuck Riley talks about everything from political assassinations (the Kennedy's) to Jonestown to the Manson murders. Throughout the film we see how America is slowly becoming undone due to violence. THE KILLING OF America was released in American theaters for a couple weeks before it pretty much disappeared from this country. The film was made for the Japan market where it was a huge hit and it was also released there in a much longer version with even more stories. As it stands, the film remains a fairly well-made look at a violent culture and unlike the FACES OF DEATH series, this film here takes real footage to show what violence is doing. This film certainly has a message to get across. A lot of the blame is put on the fact that it's very easy to get a gun and we see what happens when madmen get their hands on an easy weapon. There's some interview footage with some of the mass murderers that are show (including Robert Kennedy's murderer) and we also see some trial footage to Ted Bundy. The John Lennon murder is looked at as are the stories of John Wayne Gacy, John Hinckley and Jim Jones among others. The FACES OF DEATH series was pure exploitation to the cheapest level. I wouldn't call this film exploitation since it's main goal was to obviously scare people into hoping for better laws to protect people. The film manages to be entertaining as long as you can put up with the violence of the story.

Laughably gratuitous violence, and not laughable in the slightest. Watching this made me depressed for the state of mankind and modern America, yet it was so weirdly fascinating that I couldn't turn it off either. Do we really need to see (well shot, clear footage of) endless close ups of close range gun shot head wounds, fresh blood pouring out of the hole and all? Followed by a bit where the director will cut in a replay of the very same gunshot wound being inflicted, as if it wasn't already seared on your retinas, but ZOOMED IN this time and slowed down,, while his voice drones on inviting you to "look closely" at some detail? The murders/perpetrators/incidents don't really have anything to do with one another and the only reason to bundle them up in a package like this is to for the sake of selling to people (like me?) who love watching cult documentaries or shocking footage of a confronting nature. There is a vague attempt at some token analysis, but it wears off very rapidly and just shows murder after murder with no context. There is a banal attempt to appeal to higher morals near the end, asking the viewer to aspire to a future with more hope and less murders basically, which was the funniest moment in the film. Coz this film does nothing to move us forward toward that goal. I'm simply left in a vaguely disturbed state after watching it; those images still flashing before my eyes. I need a rom com stat.

If you think the United States is in bad shape today, perhaps you should check out this film, made well beyond the news bubble and the 24/7 headline cycle. The 1970's were bleak. If you thought mass shooters were because of video games or that we just suddenly became a more violent society, sit through this movie. It's brutal. It will assault you. It will take your name. It will own you. Director Sheldon Renan suffered from depression for a year after he finished this film, as was editor Lee Percy. Even the John Lennon vigil at the end, added at the request of Japanese producers to help the movie end on a positive note, had people shoot at one another. That ending is somehow even more downbeat than anything else, after a movie where Sirhan Sirhan cries about killing RFK and you see more of the Zapruder film than you knew existed. How destroyed was Renan? He went on to write the screenplay for 1990's Lambada. The voice of this film is incredible and it comes from Chuck Riley, who did the voiceovers for these trailers: The Godfather, Child's Play 2, Die Hard and many more. The writing comes from Leonard Schrader, brother of Taxi Driver writer Paul, who was inspired to do this movie after writing a film called Hollow Point for Roger Corman. As he researched that movie, he met so many hitmen and spent so much time with them, he learned exactly how killers planned and executed hits. There's even a one-on-one interview with Edmund Kemper, where he calmly discusses killing his mother and young women. That said - the goal of this film isn't Mondo Cane exploitation. According to a New Republic article, it wanted to erase the line between killers and the audience. Renan said Schrader "wanted to turn the audience into murderers. He wanted viewers to recognize that in themselves, ostensibly so that they would do something about it." As they worked on the film, Reagan and Lennon were both shot. Things did not get better. Things are bad now. So often I use film to hide from reality, but this movie makes you face it. There is a lot here I never knew about, like Tony Kiritsis, an Indiana man who held a mortgage broker hostage while hosting a press conference in the most polite manner possible. Of course, he also had a shotgun wired to the man's head that was ready to go off if he was shot by the police. Some feel that this movie glamorizes the killers. I would refute that and say that it makes you see the senselessness of their action. As the former president of a Zen meditation center, Renan gave them a forum because he believed that "you just have to feel compassion for everybody - you just do. I do, anyway. For me, it was a journey into the depths to try to get some understanding." This is a movie that I think everyone should watch. It's sobering. It's maddening. And it approaches art.

Let's see...I guess I will start at the beginning. I heard this film was really good. I saw excerpts online and I read these reviews, and assumed it had some depth. My girlfriend really wanted to see it. I found it in about five minutes online and purchased it. Then it showed up. This has plenty of real footage. However, it has almost no analysis. I know guns kill people. I have seen the effects (not in person thankfully). I am very much in favor of some gun control. I don't need more proof. This film is a time capsule of a certain time period (amazingly that period is 1982 or rather the early, early eighties), however, violence has been a part of this country from day one and has never abated. Ever. It is here to stay, and it is truly American. For these people to say it started on November 22, 1963 (even though according to this film it may have started in the fifties) is a ridiculous statement by the filmmakers. As a history major, I could choose a random date and say that violence in America started there, and be right on the money. H Rapp Brown is right, "Violence IS as American as apple pie." For the record I am a bigger fan of apple pie. Are there messed up people living in the world who will use violence? Yes. Is this right or wrong? I'm not so sure. It really depends upon the situation. I also think that the race aspect was eliminated from the film. It is touched upon, but never delved into. That would have made this film much better. A lot of things would have made this film much better. Let me make this clear: THERE IS VERY LITTLE ANALYSIS OF THE VIOLENCE COMMITTED WITHIN THIS FILM. This film is much closer to Faces of Death, than a sociological look at violence. Basically, this is not a very good film, which is also filled with inaccuracies which are too dull to name. Have fun!!