The Washington Post bills Ann Hornaday's essay on movies today ("I don't know where this national discussion will wind up," is her unproductive conclusion) on the front page of its website like so: "Have audiences had enough of guns, violence and blood at the movies? After the Newtown tragedy, will screen violence still be considered entertainment?"
Perhaps this rhetorical question would be better phrased as, "After the Newtown tragedy, and the Virginia Tech massacre, and the 2006 Amish school shooting, and the Columbine massacre, and the Kent State shootings, and the 1966 University of Texas sniper shootings, and the 1968 Orangeburg police shootings, and the thousands of violent deaths attributable to street gang warfare in American cities dating back to the 19th century, and the thousands of violent deaths of Americans in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Somalia, and Vietnam, and Korea, and in WWII, and in WWI, and in the Philippines, and in the Spanish-American War, and in the Civil War, and in the Mexican-American War, and in the War of 1812, and in the war against the Barbary pirates, and in the Revolutionary War, will violence, a staple of popular artworks since antiquity, enthusiastically embraced by the ancient Greeks and by artists and writers in all of the world's major religious traditions and societies, not to mention by crowds who have enjoyed it firsthand since the days of the Roman gladiators, still be considered entertainment?"
Yes.