9/11 movies

[HOTWIFE]

This is bullshit. There are way too many people cashing in on 9/11. It makes me sick.

[Tzar]

what about all the WW2 movies? what about vietnam movies? are they any different because america wins?

[HOTWIFE]

Not at all. It's the same exact thing. And it's only been 5 yrs. It's just wrong in my opinion. It's all about the old mighty dollar.

[ET]

It must be hard to give these movies a bad rating if you're a critic. Then the whole OMG U HATE AMERICA thing kicks off and you're the next Mel Gibson.

[HOTWIFE]

It must be hard to give these movies a bad rating if you're a critic. Then the whole OMG U HATE AMERICA thing kicks off and you're the next Mel Gibson.
The Passion of the Christ was a lovely movie

[ET]

I meant the whole Anti-Semitic backlash thing. CHRISTIAN LOVE FOR ALL MEN OF EARTH!

[yeahwho]

I haven't seen any of these movies yet or the documentaries. When this actually happened I watched, listened and read everything of actual fact "9/11" for 3 months solid. And to this day the news keeps unfolding. It does seem odd that someone would need to re-identify with the horror we still live.

Reading the obituaries in the NYTimes after the collapse is/was incredibly more moving than a film for me.

Oliver Stone is a pretty smart guy, I'm thinking he wanted to this while he was still at the top of his form and the memory was real. Not for money. I'm sure this scenaro we're discussing was going through his head but he felt had to do it while the compulsion was there.

[Documad]

I'll see the Oliver Stone movie eventually because I like his stuff and it's got a good cast. It seems like the focus is on a few people who were trapped and then rescued. That seems like an odd vantage point because we all know that the far more common story was just death, but I suppose it's the only way you get a happy ending from 9/11.

The 9/11 movies bug me, but it bugs me more that other movies erased the towers from the skyline.

As someone said, there were WWII movies during WWII and some really hard to watch ones right afterwards. We're not as brave as we used to be at starting ourselves in the face I guess.

[yeahwho]

Here is the NYTimes Series "Portraits of Grief (http://www.nytimes.com/specials/national/portraits/A.html)". It is listed in alphabetical order with a respectful look at the humanity of the person and the individuals impact here on earth. Not the usual obituarie style. I'm going to finish them.

[BGirl]

I'd much rather see people explore the events artistically than use 9/11 as a pretext for a cynical power grab (e.g. Bush et al). That has been making me sick for oh... almost five years now.

[Documad]

I'd much rather see people explore the events artistically than use 9/11 as a pretext for a cynical power grab (e.g. Bush et al). That has been making me sick for oh... almost five years now.
I've been so upset by that, but almost no one I know is as mad as me. It is so much easier to talk in bumper stickers than to admit that we're in big trouble and no one has a solution. There is little recognition that in using 9/11 to push his agenda, Bush hasn't done anything at all to address what actually happened on 9/11, such as providing additional funds for security for NYC, protecting the ports, or revamping the public safety communications system. I think I'd lose my mind if I was a New Yorker or a DC'r, because it has to be even worse to see the memory of 9/11 abused.

[Documad]

Here is the NYTimes Series "Portraits of Grief (http://www.nytimes.com/specials/national/portraits/A.html)". It is listed in alphabetical order with a respectful look at the humanity of the person and the individuals impact here on earth. Not the usual obituarie style. I'm going to finish them.
I don't think I could handle that, but it's great that you're doing it.

I just read the Vanity Fair article on NORAD's monitoring of the hijacked flights and even without any person connection to the individual dead and just a clinical examination of the tapes, it brought up feelings I don't want to deal with.

[abcdefz]

The only one I've seen is United 93, and I can guarantee you that it's about as far from exploitation as you can get. It's not like they got Tom Cruise to lead the charge aboard the plane, and Ed Harris down on the ground trying to rally military jets while Greg Kinnear as President Bush reads a storybook.

In fact, the denouement depicting (but not explictly showing) all the other passengers beating one of the terrorists to a bloody pulp suggests a pretty nifty tension between doing things for spiritual reasons and doing things for animal reasons of survival and fear.

It's very, very even-handed. I'm wary of the other productions -- from the TV movies to Oliver Stone's movie, but United 93 is probably the best film of the year so far.

[QueenAdrock]

This is bullshit. There are way too many people cashing in on 9/11. It makes me sick.

You know what'll make you even sicker? The fact that Hollywood execs were arguing over the rights on September 12, 2001.

[Poster Boy]

I agree with a-z about United 93 being the best film of the year.

when my kids ask about 9/11 some day, I'll show them that film. It's unreal.

And before I saw it, I had the same view as hotwife about it being way too soon. But, given our current state, I think there's no better time.

World Trade Center, on the other hand, looks like by-the-numbers Hollywood schlock. I'll probably see it for comparisons sake.

[DroppinScience]

The only one I've seen is United 93, and I can guarantee you that it's about as far from exploitation as you can get. It's not like they got Tom Cruise to lead the charge aboard the plane, and Ed Harris down on the ground trying to rally military jets while Greg Kinnear as President Bush reads a storybook.

In fact, the denouement depicting (but not explictly showing) all the other passengers beating one of the terrorists to a bloody pulp suggests a pretty nifty tension between doing things for spiritual reasons and doing things for animal reasons of survival and fear.

It's very, very even-handed. I'm wary of the other productions -- from the TV movies to Oliver Stone's movie, but United 93 is probably the best film of the year so far.

This is truth.

I know where you guys are coming from with your discomfort towards 9/11-themed movies, but how soon is "too soon" anyways? It's as if no movie should be made about a real-life event with some of you people.

[Miho Mingu]

The Passion of the Christ was a lovely movie

I don't understand how it was. I couldn't bare the continuous scenes of torture, and I just saw bits & pieces. If that equals beauty, then something isn't right.

I see these 9/11-related movies as nothing but cash cows to industry companies.

[Loppfessor]

Oh man I thought this thread was going to be about the sweet video we shot at my b-day party last year.....I get no love

[kll]

I saw an interview with Stone, Nick Cage, another actor and the real-life guy that was trapped... a good point was brought up, which was they were making this movie within this timeframe to keep the facts from getting skewed... if you wait 30 years after an event, it's not as accurate... people get old, their therapists fuck with their memories, etc...

[HOTWIFE]

I don't understand how it was. I couldn't bare the continuous scenes of torture, and I just saw bits & pieces. If that equals beauty, then something isn't right.

I see these 9/11-related movies as nothing but cash cows to industry companies.
I was using sarcasm there sweetie:)

[DIGI]

what about all the WW2 movies? what about vietnam movies? are they any different because america wins?


Yeah cuz we totally kicked ass over in Vietnam.

[Miho Mingu]

I was using sarcasm there sweetie:)

Sorry, sarcasm is hard to detect. :'(

[Loppfessor]

Sorry, sarcasm is hard to detect. :'(


Umm ever heard of the smilies....:rolleyes: see it's easy (lb) Or I could be like What the hell?! You don't know how to detect sarcasm :mad: or OMG I can't believe you can't detect sarcasm :eek: Understand? :confused:

[Miho Mingu]

I hate all these smilies. I wish I could use ":P" as it shows. And I'll be content. That is, so everyone else sees it that way by default, but it's up to the individual if they want to turn them off.

[Loppfessor]

I hate all these smilies. I wish I could use ":P" as it shows. And I'll be content.


Look we don't need some kind of renegade who plays by his own rules!! :mad:

[Miho Mingu]

No. NEVER. ._. See, I like that one too.

[enree erzweglle]

I had a bad feeling about United 93 and wound up loving that movie, as much as it's appropriate to say that you loved a movie like that. I can't remember why I was doubtful going in--was it a matter of timing and the fact that I didn't know anyone in the movie itself which maybe made me think that it would wind up feeling like a made-for-tv movie? Or did I think that it might be exploitative? I think the latter bit because I think DS convinced me that it would be anything about that. (DS--you know a boatload about movies and music and that's so great.)

The twist is that the anonymity of the actors in United 93 was one of the things that made that movie as absolutely perfect as it was. No distractions, no preconceived notions about how a character would be or should be played.

It was so well done and tasteful, and the focus of the plot was perfect. I do think I posted about that in another thread, so I won't repeat it. The point is that I thought, ahead of time, that it would be awful and it wasn't. And now, ahead of OS's movie, I am thinking that it will be awful so maybe it won't be. I'm probably just a bad judge of some types of movies based on trailers. So I hesitate to jump on hating or pre-judging this latest movie, but every preview I've seen for it seems just a little cliched and cheesy, maybe a bit heavy on the violins...? Am I misreading that, I wonder. I'll see it anyway and I'll probably cry but this time, I'll go prepared with kleenexes and the ones I'm bringing have happy faces printed on them.

[DroppinScience]

I had a bad feeling about United 93 and wound up loving that movie, as much as it's appropriate to say that you loved a movie like that. I can't remember why I was doubtful going in--was it a matter of timing and the fact that I didn't know anyone in the movie itself which maybe made me think that it would wind up feeling like a made-for-tv movie? Or did I think that it might be exploitative? I think the latter bit because I think DS convinced me that it would be anything about that. (DS--you know a boatload about movies and music and that's so great.)

The twist is that the anonymity of the actors in United 93 was one of the things that made that movie as absolutely perfect as it was. No distractions, no preconceived notions about how a character would be or should be played.


Not to mention, but a lot of the military and air traffic controller people were the actual people who were there that very day, so there was a definite air of authenticity when it came to United 93.

Regardless, I'm glad you saw the movie and that you enjoyed it, and am flattered that you were convinced to watch it because of what I said. :o

[abcdefz]

Yeah cuz we totally kicked ass over in Vietnam.


A Fish Called Wanda. Or darned close. (y)

[adam_f]

I think a Fish Called Wanda is a bit overrated.

[Lyman Zerga]

I think a Fish Called Wanda is a bit overrated.

i like it but i have to agree

but lets discuss some more about miho's smilie problem
it's bugging me for ages godammit!

[abcdefz]

The movie is hilarious, but the camera placement (especially during robbery sequences) is often corny as hell. One of the worst-directed great movies there is.

[adam_f]

I just cannot buy the fact that John Cleese is funny. I've never, ever been a fan.

[HOTWIFE]

where the hell did my thread go?? hmmm...

Anyway, it's not about the quality of the movie to me, or how well it's presented, etc. It's the fact that people are making money off of tragedy.

[adam_f]

I guess they have a title for Die Hard 4. It's "Live Free or Die Hard"

Not sure how I feel about that. Mostly negative, I suspect.

[abcdefz]

where the hell did my thread go?? hmmm...

Anyway, it's not about the quality of the movie to me, or how well it's presented, etc. It's the fact that people are making money off of tragedy.


So where do you draw the line? Can Picasso not paint Guernica an sell it? Should the Warren Commission's report have never been published unless it was published and sold at cost? Should Steinbeck have resisted the urge to write Grapes of Wrath?

Should boxing be permitted, or race car driving? Pharmaceutical companies certainly make money developing medicines to avoid tragedy -- should that work be all pro bono?

These are legitimate questions.

[adam_f]

You edited your post so mine didn't make too much sense because I had to edit you piece of lint.

[HOTWIFE]

So where do you draw the line? Can Picasso not paint Guernica an sell it? Should the Warren Commission's report have never been published unless it was published and sold at cost? Should Steinbeck have resisted the urge to write Grapes of Wrath?
I think there's a right way to do everything. I guess if the movie producers took whatever money they put up for the movie and gave the rest to the families of the victims, or to a certain charity, I would feel better about it. It bothers me when I suspect they've looked at 9/11 as a money making machine for them.

[adam_f]

I disagree with HOTWIFE immensely but I don't have time to explain, so I'll just leave saying that it bothers me when people say something is "Xtreme" rather than "Extreme"

[abcdefz]

I think there's a right way to do everything. I guess if the movie producers took whatever money they put up for the movie and gave the rest to the families of the victims, or to a certain charity, I would feel better about it. It bothers me when I suspect they've looked at 9/11 as a money making machine for them.



So should any artist covering any tragedy do their work pro bono?

[adam_f]

Good, az made my point.

[HOTWIFE]

So should any artist covering any tragedy do their work pro bono?
Yeah, why not.

[HOTWIFE]

Good, az made my point.
It takes a smart man...

[adam_f]

Originally posted by HOTWIFE
Yeah, why not.

Why should journalists get paid to cover news? Why should a biographer get paid for writing a book on Muhammad Ali? Why should a doctor get paid for making someone feel better?

It's a job.

[abcdefz]

I'm just exploring a train of thought, here.

So, let's say that artists can only cover tragedy if they do the work pro bono. That might work if there were unbiased government grants, but otherwise, it would mean that the artist would need to forfeit any sort of wages for whatever period of time it takes to create the piece. This means that, basically, only the -- maybe not wealthy, but defnitely the artists in the "terribly financially secure" department could afford to do this sort of work, still potentially denying his family from financial benefits of his or her skills.

Then the coverage is skewed to priviledged artists, which is economic censure. Is that fair?

Also, who gets to decide what is tragedy? I mean, the downfall of apartheid was tragedy to some, right?

[HOTWIFE]

Why should journalists get paid to cover news? Why should a biographer get paid for writing a book on Muhammad Ali? Why should a doctor get paid for making someone feel better?

It's a job.
Yeah, I got the point when a-z made it.

[abcdefz]

I'm not trying to be provocative so much as just thinking this through.

I wonder if there are associations with movies, studios, or distribution, or paying to see movies, or just the aesthetic of movies themselves -- usually more visceral than most other art forms -- that make them see more inherently exploitative than other art forms. Maybe?

[HOTWIFE]

I'm just exploring a train of thought, here.

So, let's say that artists can only cover tragedy if they do the work pro bono. That might work if there were unbiased government grants, but otherwise, it would mean that the artist would need to forfeit any sort of wages for whatever period of time it takes to create the piece. This means that, basically, only the -- maybe not wealthy, but defnitely the artists in the "terribly financially secure" department could afford to do this sort of work, still potentially denying his family from financial benefits of his or her skills.

Then the coverage is skewed to priviledged artists, which is economic censure. Is that fair?

Also, who gets to decide what is tragedy? I mean, the downfall of apartheid was tragedy to some, right?
You definitely have a point. I really don't know where I draw the line. Every situation is a little different. All I'm saying is that there's something inately wrong with some director living more than comfortably off of money made from this type of movie.

[HOTWIFE]

I'm not trying to be provocative so much as just thinking this through.

I wonder if there are associations with movies, studios, or distribution, or paying to see movies, or just the aesthetic of movies themselves -- usually more visceral than most other art forms -- that make them see more inherently exploitative than other art forms. Maybe?
I know. What would this board be if everyone was scared to make a good point!

Maybe it's that movies are more 'real' than other forms of art. The reason I made this thread was because World Trade Center was coming out, and that's what, the 4th! movie now having to do with 9/11? I just smelled a skunk. To me it seems like everyone's trying to cash in on it, and we're letting them.

[abcdefz]

I guess it just depends on your bullshit detector. Like, with Oliver Stone (and the TV movies), I definitely smell a rat; Paul Greenglass (?), as a director, plus the advance press regarding United 93 made me think, holy shit -- is this Film As Monument?

Seriously. I was thinking about how we build a Vietnam memorial or plan to build a Twin Towers memorial... why can't a memorial be on film, instead of scultpure or architecture? And, seriously, if any film has ever done it, it's probably this one. (y)

[monkey]

i cant deal with watching these movies, even having to sit through the previews almost made me throw up. but that's my reaction, and by no means should it mean that these movies shouldnt be made. im glad that they are. but i will not be able to watch them now and i dont know when it will be ok for me to sit in a theatre and experience all that again.

[adam_f]

It's like az and I are connected via mind messages. Like that little girl and Michael Myers in Halloween 5.