FILM DIVIDES BUT CHOICE IS YOURS

IT’S been 25 years since one of Tasmania’s darkest days in recent history and we all still struggle with how to acknowledge and discuss the Port Arthur massacre. We know that the anniversaries of the tragedy are unimaginably painful for witnesses, victims and first responders.

In Tasmania, we’ve a mostly wellfollowed but unwritten rule not to mention the monster’s name and not to run photographs of him.

There are psychological theories that killers such as this enjoy the notoriety and given the hurt caused, no one has an interest in anything that might see the murderer enjoy a glimmer of joy.

It’s a norm that we’ve followed at the Mercury because we don’t want to cause more hurt to those who have endured enough. But often when we report on the massacre, people ask us not to and that’s a more challenging request to accept because it starts to become a question of censorship.

Newspapers often cover challenging stories that you’d prefer not to read over your cornflakes and, in some cases, journalists would prefer not to write.

But shining a light into dark areas is important. Often it’s the only way to effect change.

Learning from the past can make a brighter future. In the case of the Port Arthur massacre, out of that horror came sweeping gun law changes that made Australia a safer place.

As reported on page 4 of today’s Mercury, there has been much angst about the film Nitram and fear that it might sensationalise the massacre or contribute to the gunman’s “legacy”.

Creators of the movie, out of respect, filmed it in Geelong and have not focused on the massacre itself, rather the events leading up to. They too choose not to name the gunman.

Yesterday the State Cinema was expected to screen it, but did not. Later in the day it issued an open letter explaining that it would screen Nitram from October 14 in select sessions.

The movie theatre said it would not promote the film through advertising.

There will be people critical of the decision but ultimately it is the correct call.

No report, no story, no movie will ever give us the true reason Australia’s worst shooting occurred here in our peaceful state or will explain just what possessed the gunman to do the unthinkable. On the facts there is still no logical or satisfactory explanation. Does that mean we should never reflect on it? Or talk about it?

Those who do not wish to see the film – and many Tasmanians will not – don’t have to.

But censorship is a slippery slope and those who want to watch should be able to do so.