Licensed to Kill (1997) User Reviews

Remorse?

[dove_504 · 8/10 · 28 May 2013]

One of the common themes in this movie is the question of remorse. Of the men being interviewed, very few showed any type of remorse for taking the life of another human being(s). Most of these murderers made what seemed to be excuses for their crimes. Alcohol, being abused as a child, and self-defense seemed to be the common answers for why they chose to shoot, stab, and kill these individuals. While these excuses did exist there seemed to be a much deeper driven force that led to such crimes. This was the hate, judgment and prejudice that most of these men admitted they possessed. These men possessed homonegativity, and most explained by the values that they held against gay men. Sheriff Dallas, a man who claims he targeted gay men only because they were easy targets and not because of homonegativity, still showed little remorse. When referring to the incident where he shot the man he explained how his intent was not to kill, rather that the bullet was responsible for his crime. Kenneth Train was the only exception of all the men interviewed. However, he was remorseful for killing four people at a restaurant who were most likely not gay. If his victims were gay men, there might not have been any remorse on his behalf. From my perspective as a viewer even though Train showed remorse for his victims he held the strongest Value Expression of homonegativity. He undermined gay men as humans; he believed that they weakened America as a nation. Such evidence proved that Train showed the strongest homonegativity of all the men interviewed. 11080553

Analyzing Jeffery Swinford's value expression

[shawdakota · 6/10 · 27 May 2013]

11118084

In Licensed to Kill there is a reoccurring theme that suggests that gay man need to be punished for being gay "because it says so in the bible". Jeffery Swinford tells Arthur Dong that what is written in the bible is morally right and has been drilled into their heads from a young age so they carry these beliefs with them through their lives. Jeffery Swinford refers to a specific quote from the bible, taken from Leviticus, to justify his actions. The quote states that a man whom has sexual relations with another man, as he would with a woman, should be put to death, which, in Jeffery Swinford's eyes, tells him that he did the right thing by killing a gay man. Jeffery Swinford was using extreme homonegativity to express his personal values. However, through out the whole movie, the many quotes about love in the bible are never mentioned. Never do any of the people in the movie quote any verses from the bible that focus on acceptance of others and fair treatment. The focus is instead on the quotes that put people who are different to death, thus Jeffery Swinford is being a "buffet Christian" in the sense that he is picking and choosing what he wants to believe in the bible and what parts he would rather disregard so that scripture acts in his favor. According to the bible, idolatry, adultery, murder, slander are all things gravely contrary to the love we owe God and, because of Him, our neighbor. By killing a man, Jeffery Swinford has committed a moral sin and, according to the bible, "suffered spiritual death". If Jeffery Swinford were actually "living by the bible" he would never put himself at risk of spiritual death and separating himself from god by committing murder.

A Review for 227

[dap315 · 8/10 · 27 May 2013]

11107951 Arthur Dong's documentary License to Kill offers the interested viewer an excellent opportunity to be informed about both the nature and motivations behind hate crimes which target sexual minorities -specifically gay men. Throughout the film, Dong introduces us to several convicted perpetrators of hate crime. The criminals presented are all male, and have been convicted with murder. The victims of all but one individual interviewed were gay males. The motivations behind these vicious hate crimes are varied, but a significant proportion of the criminals involved attempted to mitigate their actions by claiming some religious significance. This religious attribution is evident of "Old school homonegativity". Old school homonegativity states that negative actions taken against gay men and lesbian women are the result of religious beliefs, myths, or a strict adherence to perceived normality. Thus, these may be seen as chief motivations in the perpetuation of these anti-gay hate crimes. Many of the men Dong spoke with indicated that they saw gay men as weak and therefore, easy targets. According to theories concerned with hegemonic masculinity, the masculinity of gay men is seen as being on par with femininity and a destabilizing force against which dominant masculinity aggresses. The perception of gay men as weak and easy targets is likely an external expression of this aggressive attitude taken on by those who wish to reinforce -consciously or unconsciously- the socially dominant idea of masculinity while subverting those viewpoints which seek to challenge it. Dong's film highlights the negative effects of ignorance and the devastating outcomes which can result. I would recommend this film to anyone wishing to gain knowledge related to gay hate crime as well as those wishing to understand the social ramifications of hate crime in general.

Arthur Dong's PrizeWinning Dcoumentary of Convicted Anti-Gay Killers

[md_dc · 19 September 2006]

Director & writer of a startling documentary, Arthur Dong, does great research of anti-gay hate crime murderers; some of whom are currently on US death rows: Donald Aldrich (Killer); Corey Burley (Killer); Raymond Childs (Killer); William Cross (Killer); Kenneth French (Killer); Jay Johnson (Killer); Jeffrey Swinford (Killer).

Award winner of 2 prestigious Sundance Film Festival awards, the Directors & the Filmmakers Trophies, Arthur Dong has become more renowned since producing "Licensed to Kill." His documentary goes beyond the pale of simple-minded media headlines (that miss hundreds of brutal anti-gay hate crimes in the US each year) of anti-gay murders by scrutinizing the killers themselves. To no one's surprise, many claim they feel 'licensed' by preachers they've heard to do "God's work": murder gays. While others claim they's been violently &/or sexually abused as children (usually by their own straight, white fathers-97% of the time).

In 1977, gaybashers attacked filmmaker Arthur Dong. Perhaps this event led to his personal reason for filming face-to-face cell block interviews with murderers convicted & sentenced to death for killing gay men. Cutting to the chase, Dong asks on-point, "Why did you do it?" These death row inmates use the typical variety of lame excuses: 1) The number 1 reason is the 'God told me to' anti-gay hate-crime defense party line. Considering what key televangelists the late Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, J.D. Kennedy, Pat Robertson et al, publicly instigate through their anti-gay sexually obsessed 'sermons', it's no wonder blaming God for murdering gays is hate-criminals' top ranked sense of being 'licensed to kill' by US anti-gay sexual supremacists.

2) Claims they are justified to kill gays as protection from his murder victim's sexual advances is the number 2 gay murderers' defense party line. This popular excuse among lawyers is known as the "gay panic" defense. Apparently, anti-gay murderers don't know how to say the easy word, "No," & walk away, if a same-gender person flirts with them! Instead they go ballistic & kill. Note: this is specific to anti-gay men who murder gay men & has nothing to do with women.

3) The claim that 'I am a victim of child abuse who fears losing my manhood', is the number 3 most likely excuse these murderers & their defense lawyers use. Sometimes law enforcers collaborate with this defense.

4) The 'homeboys' depraved mentality that stalks for "easy prey' excuse; straight men who go out of their way to guess & stalk men they perceive are gay; pretend to be gay themselves & pick up gay men; then, kill them for sport.

5) The 'I don't want gays in the military with me' excuse. These unfortunate soldiers have no clue they're already serving with thousands of gay, lesbian, bisexual & transgender people in the US & other nations' militaries! Many of the anti-gay murderers are delusional enough to believe they're righteously doing a murderous God's & a sexually-supremacist US government's authorized work by ridding the world of non-heterosexual people.

(See Dr. Gregory Herek's research on anti-gay hate crimes for more stats & do view this starling true (1997) film. It reveals how anti-gay murderers are victims of untruth: especially US neo-Christian-fundamentalist-supremacist politicized propaganda).

It's scary & intriguing that believing in this propaganda has already led to murders of many heterosexuals who were perceived to be gay!

Licensed to Kill a Great Educational Resource

[jroygillis · 9/10 · 21 April 2006]

The movie contains some fascinating interviews with men convicted of sexual orientation based hate crime murders. The director details the nature of their offenses and probes the motivations for their crimes. While some of the descriptions of the crimes are horrific, and the lack of remorse for their actions and lack of empathy for their victims expressed by some of the perpetrators is disturbing, the movie is engaging and revealing. The central theme of the movie as expressed in it title "Licensed to Kill" is well-developed throughout the course of the film as various individuals express their rationale as to why they believed it was "okay" to kill gay men. The film provides interesting insights into the motivations for sexual orientation bias crimes, and would be particularly useful for educational activities and classroom study.

Raw look at overt homonegativity

[cmouse1234 · 10/10 · 27 May 2013]

11037421 Licensed to Kill is a raw look at American homonegativity in the 90's. After being assaulted, Arthur Dong showed incredible bravery, having the courage to look these aggressors in the eyes and ask why; and the courage to listen to the responding lack of remorse, and in some cases pride, these individuals took from their crimes. Dong must be very strong to have been able to sit back and listen to these men spew disgust for gay men and excuses for their crimes when in reality there is no excuse for killing someone over their sexual orientation. The word "kill" written in a murder victim's blood is a potent image that epitomizes the hatred inherent in these acts. Reflecting on this image days later one still feels the blood-lust emanating from that wall. This appalling violence is seen in a more clandestine version through the story of William Kiley; after being brutally beaten by a teenager his neighbors did not phone the police but instead scorned Kiley for spraying his attacker with water. It is not hard for the viewer to connect the dots and consider how one lesser offense against a gay man can escalate into full blown murder. Comprehending how and why person would commit such offenses is beyond difficult but the film endeavors to show just that. Some of the men utilize vengeful Bible verses and myths of pedophilia to justify their crimes. Very few express remorse, other than being frustrated with the inconvenience of going to prison. Jeffrey Swinfold exemplifies this notion stating that his "taking care of" a gay man "is one less problem the world needs to deal with". The shocking yet fascinating overt homonegativity shown in this film leaves the viewer pondering what has changed in the 16 years since the films release. 11037421

A film about why some killers feel it is O.K. to kill gays.

[scribe · 15 April 2000]

This is a very intense film. It shows us killers up close and personal. Some of them show no remorse at all. Others show some, but all feel "disconnected" from their crimes. Most of them hate homosexuals, and that gives them the license to kill them without guilt or remorse. It makes you think twice about the morality of the Christian Right and other conservative organizations whose barrage of hatred against Gays has helped soothe the conscience of these killers. Not for the squeamish. It features gruesome crime scene footage.

11057693

[lkw428 · 29 May 2013]

Old-fashioned homonegativity is quite apparent in the film Licensed to Kill by director and writer Arthur Dong. Old-fashioned homonegativity is based upon the idea of moral objection in general to homosexuality and/or gay and lesbians as individuals. This includes religious objections, myths, and strict adherence to normality. Jeffrey Swinford exemplifies homonegativity based upon religious objections. He believes that whatever is written in the bible is right and this includes the fact that you should be put to death if you are gay. The most disturbing part about Jeffrey Swinford's interview was his complete lack of remorse and his belief that what he had done made one less problem in the world. Kenneth Jr. French exemplifies homonegativity based upon myths. He was a military man before he murdered four people by opening fire in a restaurant. Kenneth Jr. French says he was voicing his opinion about his disapproval of gays in the military. The myth he associated with his objection is the belief that gay men are weaker then heterosexual men. He was afraid that this would in turn make the military look weak. He regrets that he killed four people but will not apologize for his views towards gays. Jay Johnson exemplifies homonegativity based upon the strict adherence to normality. Jay Johnson is a gay man himself but did not like or accept the fact that he was gay. He felt that he was not normal and was disgusted by the thoughts and behaviours he was eliciting. The shame he was experiencing and his perception that being gay was not normal may have led him to murder the gay man in the park. These are only three examples of the old-fashioned negativity that is presented in the film. Also, many of the individuals exemplify multiple aspects of old-fashioned negativity.

Another 227 review

[emmers84 · 27 May 2013]

11098143 The film, Licensed to Kill, is illuminating in the sense that it offers perspective on the motivators for the homonegative behaviours evidenced in the film. One of the recurring themes amongst motivators for attacking gay men is the perception that gay men are weak individuals. By indicating that gay men are perceived as weak people, the attackers' perspectives place gay men in a subordinate position to straight men within the context of greater society. Due to this placement within a social hierarchy, it becomes unsurprising that gay men would become victims. What the film fails to concretely address is why the attackers feel that gay men are weak individuals. One can assume that this attribution of "weakness" may be due to the manner in which some gay men present their masculinity. The masculinity in question may not conform to the gender binaries present within our society, leading people to understand a gay man's masculinity as one that is compromised. A masculinity that is perceived as compromised may be inferred to be weak, which results in the negative social stigma gay men must navigate. However, this construct of why the attackers believe that gay men are weak is merely speculation, and the viewer would benefit from actual explanation from one of the interviewees within the film. Biblical explanations do not justify the "weakness" associated with gay men, and further clarification is needed. The director assumes the audience to realize that the association of gay men with "weakness" is inaccurate, and not grounded in any reality. Gay men are not naturally inferior in any tangible regard, having no inherent physical or emotional differences. Stereotypes have largely dictated the presumed difference that exits between gay men and the rest of straight society. The documentary remains engaging and worth viewing, regardless of the omission.