Dear FRONTLINE:
Your treatment was interesting and you presented what seemed like a
very thorough analysis of Chapman the person. In your attempt to be
"even-handed," however, you offended me very much--lots of others, I
assume--with your excessive "understanding" of the troubled individual. The
product of your overemphasis on Chapman's "misalignment" is the suggestion
that he was in fact driven batty by Lennon's falsity, fakery, pretence. You
demonstrate so much sympathy with him that there's no room for the
conclusion that he was paranoid, schizophrenic, psychopathic in some
combination or other. I don't know whether you offered your (underline)
position about whether Lennon was in fact what Chapman believed him to be,
but in retrospect I have to say that I don't recall that you did. The
effect of your feeling for Chapman was so massive that I don't recall either
whether you said what his sentence was, whether the official statement was
that he was insane, and whether you subscribed to that conclusion. You were
also so non-judgmental that you couldn't spare a statement about how access
to guns produced the tragedy, misapplying the principle of "distance"
between commentator and topic.
Now that I think of it--a half hour after the program--it's a poor
trade-off that you made: the dispassionate reportage on the one hand and a
position on important social and moral points on the other. I believe that
John Lennon was everything that he appeared to be: pacifist, iconoclastic
about social fakery and dubious popular sentiments. And I'm not convinced
that you share such a position. A few direct statements about Chapman's
monomania and insanity would have been better than soothing his
ex-girlfriend and other friends. I understand that you don't want to be
shrill about it, but overemphasis on his identification with Holden
Caulfield can also be an evasion of the point that he was a total nut. And
in fact, giving him as much of the stage as you did--i.e. his statements,
recorded and reported--and allowing as much time for the apparent logic of
his reasoning and rationalization for the murder produced a skewed picture
of the affair. After all, he certainly sounded forthright and sensible,
didn't he? But that's not how juries are supposed to function, and you do
tend to claim that there's a right side and a wrong side to the things you
report on in Frontline.
I hope you will see that I am not condemning your production, even
though I am challenging your emphases and focal points.
Sincerely,
C.P.
Dear FRONTLINE:
I just wanted to say that I agree with the Police - Chapman did
what he did because of the choices he made as an individual-
whether he thought he was TOTO or Holden really is of no
consequence- he chose to buy a gun- he chose to learn how to
use it. The law does not punish you for what you think about
it punishes you because you are responsible as an individual
for what you do. I do not want to live in a country where
works of fiction might be censored because some unbalanced
individual decides to rationalize his outrageous behavior
and evade his own personal responsibility. Your program
has reinforced what I had believed since December of 1980:
Chapman is a "Nut". In the words of Forrest Gump:
"Stupid is as Stupid Does".
Keep up the good work.
D.P.
Buffalo, NY
Dear FRONTLINE:
Just one viewer's 2 cents' worth . . .
Thanks for providing me with long-overdue validation about the role of the
writer Shames in the killing of John Lennon. I remember how appalled I was
when I read his sarcastic piece in Esquire, in which there was a sing-song
caption under a picture of a cow ("Old John Lennon had a farm, and on it he
had cows that went for $250,000"). I thought, "This writer is irresponsible
and dangerous--trying to goad the reader into thinking that John, whose life
was his own, has sold out." Then, in the attempt to pound his cynicism
further home like so many nails in a coffin, he ended the piece with a
judgment about how Lennon's regular use of an immersion tank for meditation
was akin to watertight proof that John was courting death. I wanted to write
to Shames then, thinking, "all some wacko out there needs is to hear this,
just a few words of this twisted sort, to fuel his own twisted agenda." And
I felt then, even before the assassination, that Shames' name fit him well.
I almost wrote and told him so.
Now that I know from your piece on Chapman that he did indeed read Shames'
article (which I've always wondered) and that Shames has indeed had to face
the fact (calling it a possibility) that he played a role in taking a human
life (a public admission I've always thought was due but unlikely), I will
always feel that a name could not be more fitting than this writer's name
(note that it is plural).
Thanks for welcoming e-mails from viewers, Frontline. I've been wanting to
get this off my chest for 16 years.
Best wishes,
V. K.
Washington, DC
Dear FRONTLINE:
I realize the Chapman segment is from 1988, but felt compelled to voice
my disgust over the airing of "his side of the story". Who gives a damn what
went on in his psychotic mind. All that matters is that a great musical
artist is dead, and he did it. J.D. Salinger didn't do it, he did. He's not
even fit to live, much less be heard on TV. I like Frontline, but hate that
program.
Sincerely,
A.B.
New York, NY
Dear Frontline,
With rare exception, assassins, overwhelmed with their own failure in
life, seek to murder someone who has over achieved in their life. To
even think that Chapman had anything other than glorification in the
cowardly act of killing John Lennon was nullified by his comment that
"the Beatles changed the world, now I've changed them."
Now you have lifted this vermin to a status he sought in the first
place. I had hoped that he would live and die in prison without this
outlandish stretch of motive and mystification of personality
D.H.S.
Atlanta, Georgia.
Dear Frontline,
I am an avid watcher of your series and am generally impressed by
your in-depth, muti-facetted coverage of issues. I was kind of bothered
by your recent piece on "The Man Who Shot John Lennon". The overall
presentation was ambivalent and tended to buy into the desires of this
murderous, misguided flake. People who grew up with Chapman said the
usual "Yeah, he was a nice guy..." and "Boy, was I surprised that he
shot John Lennon...", etc. When presenting the point of view of Chapman,
you presented his testimony/statements in the context of his own warped
reasoning, stating that his intentions were to "end an era of phoniness"
and become immortalized by becoming the personification of "the Catcher
in the Rye" for John Lennon. By presenting Chapman in this light, there
is an implied identification with Chapman's definition of himself, and
through this broadcast, he has truly immortalized himself in this context.
I feel that in doing so, Frontline has in fact elevated Chapman's
status from that of an obscure deranged gunman to that of a tragic
anti-hero, an elevation that could be used as justification by other
twisted loners for similar despicable acts of violence. In the piece on Lee
Harvey Oswald, no such attempt was made to enter his psyche in such a way
or represent him in a similar light. The viewpoint espoused by the one
psychiatrist (psychologist?) who stated that most people are constantly
identifying with characters in books or movies, yet do not commit such acts
is of extreme importance. I can understand Frontline's drive to be as
complete in their coverage of an issue as possible, but to represent a
murderer in the context of his own ravings tends to romanticize a banal,
blatantly reprehensible act of violence. Following the execution of
those involved in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, a statesman noted
"Let us here their names no more". I feel that this is a much healthier
attitude for our society to adopt in the aftermath of an assassination
than the present attitude of instantaneous bestowal of celebrity status.
Thanks for Listening,
Dr. M.S.P.
To: FRONTLINE
I'm puzzled by your recent program on Chapman. What was the point? Seems to
me that all you did was elevate his own particular psychosis to the level of
literary analysis. While it (sorry to say) makes for boring television, the
real tragedy is that some other disturbed individual might well be encouraged
by such programming, seeing in it the possibility of presenting his/her own
life story to a mass audience.
Sincerely,
R.R.
To: FRONTLINE
What a one-sided point of view for a documentary. I'm amazed that you could
find so many freaks that claimed what a gentle, kind individual Chapman was.
How about presented people for the defense of John Lennon. I'd like to know
who funded this film, the Christian Right Coalition. The two statements at
the beginning of the film that clearly were incongruous deductions were 1)
Mark Chapman had a profound change in his personality when he started
playing Beatles music with the profound change of taking drugs. What so
profound about playing Beatles music and what does that have anything to do
with drugs? 2) After taking LSD Mark started hearing voices that told him
what to do. So the conclusion that you are drawing is if you take drugs the
drugs may tell you to go shoot John Lennon. Give me a break, the guy was a
maniac-depressive that needed help and found his identty in Holden Caulfield.
We've all tried LSD and we've all read The Catcher In The Rye and neither
one of those elements made me want to go out and shoot someone.
You presented him as a victim of art, he was no victim, he was a hard,
cold-blooded murderer. John Lennon songs stood for peace, love and
compassion. Art won't make you kill someone unless your mentally unstable.
With your doctumentary you give Mark Chapman exactly what he wanted, to
become famous. Wake up PBS and come back over to a more liberal point of
view. And if you don't I won't be watching.
Sincerely,
C.K.
From: A.A.G.
To: FRONTLINE
By accident I found your show on Chapman, and stirred memories of doom that
encompassed me when I first heard about the murder of John Lennon. Immediately,
my perception of the assassin was biased. A sick man who is proud to have
"changed them [The Beatles]," by murdering John, demonstrated to me that he
deserves no pity, certainly not mine.
In the same vein that he thought of those he did not like as "dead," that
individual has effectively died in the eyes of the world. Ironically, he died
when he killed Lennon. Interesting that he signed as John Lennon (almost
graphologically correct!) when he left Hawaii to perpetrate his premeditated
crime. Any attempt at making him seen as a victim of a warped mind that adopted
a fictional protagonist to give reason to his existence, is at the least
presumptuous, and to the most insulting.
As Prosecutor Diaz said, he chose to behave the way he did. The current New
Age approach of toxic families while growing up, or any other therapeutic
fallacies, have given the populace that righteous view that make them quick to
judge anyone according to the fad of the day. And your show appears to try to
make Chapman a victim of destiny, some pawn of an strange series of situations
that led him to kill. I think this follows the murderer's mind that tries to
make himself the victim, therefore not really guilty. And then, the indictment
of "Catcher in the Rye,"as if it was the murderer's bible (Hinkley had it
also!!) is most gruesome. That the book is weird, well, that may be right. But
to make it an anthem to save children from phoniness, and murdering in its
name, well, that is far too much.
Anyway, it infuriated me, and as such, your show was effective. Let Chapman
die in prison, and may the world be rid of the killer of an era, a cultural
influence, a legend. Chapman represents our scientific, technological society:
all myths, legends and folklore have to be assassinated so that Man can live
"better," and fall off the cliff into the bottom of alienation, insignificance
and dreadful existence: everyone carrying the name Nemo (Nothing!).
Thank you.
Dear Frontline,
Your program about Mark Chapman's life and his reasons for murdering John
Lennon was a highly informative piece of journalism that gave great insight
into the mind of an insane killer. It is also one of the best arguments I
have seen in recent years for capital punishment.
It is bad enough that a human being was senselessly slain due to Chapman's
twisted inability to separate fiction from reality. It is even worse to
think that precisely because of his insanity, he will live out the rest of
his life at taxpayer expense, never being punished in any meaningful way.
He sought attention and celebrity through violence, and while the human
life he extinguished will never be rekindled, his will continue - no doubt
with a sense of fulfillment. It's a shame he wasn't arrested with a bag of
marijuana in his pocket: at least then they would have sent him to jail.
If a person is so depressed that they wish to end their own life, that is
their choice and their right. When their depression leads them to end the
life of another, they are guilty of murder - and _that_ should be the
foremost concern of the law in setting punishment.
Somehow my faith in the wisdom and righteousness of American justice isn't
bolstered by this case.
Sincerely,
J.D.G.
From: L.D.
To: FRONTLINE
Excellent history of the events leading to the death of John Lennon. To think
that Chapman did it for publicity and that he 'chose' to identify with Holden
Caulfield is just stupid and highly psychologically unsophisticated. Chapman
was a very disturbed young man with a serious depression and an obsession
with the morality of the character in the book. He saw Lennon as a turncoat
because Lennon stopped being a little boy, grew up and became a conservative
middle aged man. Chapman could not handle that because he also wanted to be
just like his ideal of Lennon. Since he could no longer identify with
Lennon, he identified with Caulfield and punished Lennon for letting him
down. The murder was done out of a serious psychological disturbance.
Leonard Diamond, Ph.D., Clinical, Forensic Psychologist in private practice
in Camarillo, California for thirty years.
To: FRONTLINE
I cannot believe that you just gave Mr. Chapman what he wanted, which he
summed up in his final statement--to paraphrase: The Beatles were the
biggest cultural phenomenon of our time--they changed the world and so, in
turn, did Mr Chapman. You trivialize the death of John Lennon by letting his
killer attempt to help us understand him and his actions. I will most likely
choose not to watch your program in the future because of this choice in
programming.
Thank you,
R.M.P.
From: A.G.S.E.
To: FRONTLINE
Just finished watching the above. The
writer/producer/director/editor are to be congratulated on bringing
into being the essence of the era, the motive, the substantiating
factors that bring fate and coincidence together. Memorable TV and
story line. But don't let us make "Catcher in the Rye" the heavy for
Lennon and Reagan. There are plenty of us Hold Caufield fans who
just said how did that author seem to know the pain? Most of us
didn't take to a gun.
To: FRONTLINE
Your chronicle of Mark David Chapman's descent into his own madness was
compelling and in true Frontline style--no sensationalist recreations,
sedate, complete interviews, and without bias.
I was moved by the fact that the report left me without hatred toward
someone I've never known who killed someone I have greatly admired and yet
also have never known. Instead, interviews with Chapman's former acquaintances
showed me that he was "dead" (in his once-used sense of the word) and that
a broken mind killed John Lennon.
And yet, I cannot help but wonder what things would be like today if
Chapman had succeeded in his attempt to take a life in 1977 (his own),
thereby preventing his taking of a life in 1980.
M.B.W.
From: N.K.
To: FRONTLINE
Thank you for airing the story about Mark David Chapman. Although it's been
15 years since the death of John Lennon, I find that in some ways I'm still
mourning his loss. While in some ways this story helped to understand things
a bit more clearly, it also raises some other questions which may never be
answered.
Dear Frontline,
I watched the Frontline special on Mark David Champman last night on WGBH.
I was 8 years old when Lennon was killed, and couldn't figure what the fuss
was over--I had no idea what a "Beatle" meant to anybody. Your show was
excellent--the thoroughness of the examination of Chapman, his life, and the
relevance of Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye" to the events was impressive. As
I grew up and found out just what the Beatles were, and what John Lennon meant,
I realized I probably would never fully comprehend what Chapman did or why,
because I had missed the understanding at the time of the assassination. But
I now feel, after seeing your tightly constructed and cogent Frontline piece,
that I have a better view of what happended, removed from the tabloid
journalism, unfounded rumors, and charged emotions that surely clouded the
issues at the time. Congratulations, and thank you.
S.H.