United 93

Scott Hardie | April 2, 2006
Oliver Stone is putting out a movie this summer about the World Trade Center attacks (titled, with the usual Stone subtlety, World Trade Center), but the April 28 release of United 93 is coming up even sooner. (link) Already there is advertising for it that touts how it has the blessing of survivors' families, and it has given itself at least the illusion of support from New York by being booked to open the TriBeCa film festival this month.

Still, I don't think the movie is going to escape a gaggle of questions about it being too soon for a 9/11 feature film, on account of many people thinking it is too soon. It's one thing to make a Hollywood film about mourning the dead from that day (two excellent movies, The Guys and 25th Hour, come to mind), but it's another to turn the events of that day into a conventional thriller. When 9/11 happened, Pearl Harbor's tacky commercialization of 2400 American deaths was still fresh in mind, and it occurred to me that my grandchildren would someday see a tacky commercialization of 9/11 that would make me sick. I didn't think it would happen less than five years later.

I don't know whether United 93 or World Trade Center are good movies, but I don't intend to find out by seeing them, and that's despite liking both directors a great deal. If it's wrong for Hollywood to make a commercial blockbuster about 9/11, then it seems wrong for me to buy a ticket to one. I might relent later (there will be no shortage of articles debating the subject and some might make good enough arguments for seeing the films), but the thought of it today disgusts me.

What do you think?

Amy Austin | April 2, 2006
As soon as I started reading this, Scott, I was, like, "Well... it was only a matter of time." However, I -- like you -- would never have thought that it would only be *this* much (or little) time! It is rather sick, I think... but not all that surprising, considering the rather steady stream of shit that's been coming out of Hollywood lately -- and I'm also talking about a LOT of relying on stupid remakes, too... Shaggy Dog, anyone??? That was one of the trailers that we saw at Eight Below that I think probably gave me a better idea of how *you're* feeling about "insulting" movies... although I found myself shamefully chuckling against my will at some of it (a feeling only made worse by the raucous laughter of the small children nearby)... ugh!

It was only a matter of time. This much we know. If the same ability was around to do such a thing that soon after Pearl Harbor -- though, I guess it was really... they were just B/W and not quite as grotesquely "thrilling" -- I can't think of any comparisons to draw without research. However, I'm thinking now of Tora! Tora! Tora!, which I thought was a rather good movie -- and also in color -- but probably not as commercially disgusting... though who knows what people thought about it at the time (that was 1970, though -- still at least one generation removed, which we are totally not from 9/11)???

I remember thinking that one day I would have a similar perspective on 9/11 & Iraq as our grandparents do about Pearl/D-Day today, too, Scott... it's just one more reason to me that shows why it's so easy for old people to become so "crotchety" -- they hear people all the time who were "never there" or "not even born yet!" talk about things that they themselves have first-hand experience of, and it probably sparks a feeling of disgust and contempt for "these youngun's today"! Hmm. And there's usually no end to those first-hand stories if you'll ever sit and listen to an old person talk -- especially if they don't have much friends/family left in the world.

Wow, I think I need to go take my meds. I should probably also steer clear of such discussions that look on the surface as though they'd inspire a good well-written rant from me... but turns instead into a rather sad "Charlie Brown"-like statement on the world. (I think that kid probably needed some anti-depressants, too... ;-D)

Jackie Mason | April 2, 2006
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 3, 2006
I think it's far too soon and I don't see the point. Usually, films of this nature are meant to show the brutality and horror of such events to a generation that wasn't there, that can't understand it (I never saw the Pearl Harbor film because it looked atrocious - but I understand the spirit of such things). But it's only been 5 years, as you say - people clearly know about 9/11 and have seen footage of it.

I doubt they will make as much money as they are probably hoping from it. But what do I know. As they said on the Sopranos, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." (Attributed to H.L. Mencken.)

Scott Horowitz | April 3, 2006
5 years is enough time for this. If it was a comedy about the situation, that may be another story.

Steve West | April 3, 2006
Apparently not enough time for a lot of people. Radio reports indicate that many people broke into tears during a preview prior to seeing "Inside Man" in Los Angeles and chants arose spontaneously at other theaters of "Too soon, too soon!"

Jackie Mason | April 22, 2006
[hidden by request]

Michael Paul Cote | April 22, 2006
5 years is a pretty long time in the movie industry. I mean after all aren't we talking about people writing and submitting scripts for films while the events are still taking place? ie. the Jeff and Lacy story.