Open Forum Friday: Real-Life Tragedies… How Soon Is Too Soon For A Movie?
Well it’s hard not to bring up Paul Greengrass’ 9/11 movie United 93 as a point of discussion this weekend, as it seems to be garnering a lot of praise, in addition to generating dialogue among people (which is always good, in my opinion). But United 93 isn’t actually the first movie to be made about 9/11, as there was already a made-for-TV movie on A&E last year called Flight 93. So my main question is this: when is it okay to make a movie based on a real-life tragedy, and how long is a respectful period of time to wait? Is it ever okay? Can a movie actually help people cope with the pain, or is it always nothing more than an exploitative cash grab? Surely it must be possible to cross the line when it comes to fictionalizing sensitive events, and making entertainment out of other people’s misery. At the same time, however, the most powerful stories seem to be based in reality. Also, do filmmakers have a responsibility to the truth in these situations? I’m not just talking about 9/11 movies, but also serial killer movies, disaster movies, and anything based on actual human drama. Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (9)
Two schools of thought.
Films are based on either entertainment or education. Either one can be used to refute opposition depending on the reactions.
I prefer not be educated by hollywood. If movies are based to entertain at their expense, then its no different than the other exploitations of “tragedies” we’ve seen.
As for the perfect time to release a film? Preferably when all the indisputable facts have been collected and verified. Then again, when its based on entertaining, facts are meaningless.
Overall it depends on whomever wants to tackle delicate topics. When a topic is regarded for public information on its events, the whole “respect for the families” is futile. This is when the “education” or “awareness” campaign takes up the slack.
Money talks, bullshit walks.
Posted by Bassmasta-Baychuk on April 28th, 2006I’m a big proponent of free speech, so I’m not going to say any movie shouldn’t have been made. That said, I feel like the events themselves were dramatic enough. We all lived through the events, and anyone who needs to be reminded of what happened probably has their head too far up their ass to be moved by a film, however well done. Sure, it was the defining moment of the century thus far, but does that mean that we need to dramatize it immediately? Considered by most to be the definitive WWII movie, Saving Private Ryan was the product of half a century of perspective. Could the same be said of Flight 93?
Posted by John on April 29th, 2006Good point, although to be fair, there were a lot more decent WWII movies released many many years before Saving Private Ryan. And is Saving Private Ryan really the definitive WWII movie? There are so many aspects of WWII that the movie doesn’t even touch.
With the media saturation and the speed of modern life being what it is today, maybe 5 years really is long enough to look back. I don’t think United 93 is supposed to be the definitive 9/11 movie, it is just telling one perspective of what happened.
Posted by Sean on April 29th, 2006I don’t argue that there were no good WWII movies before Ryan, only that Ryan was the definitive WWII movie. Sure, it didn’t address every aspect of the war, but it didn’t aim to. The mission was an allegorical look at what the war was about from the Allied perspective. In the same way, Coppola once responded that Apocalypse Now wasn’t meant to portray the Vietnam War, but rather that it WAS the Vietnam War. My problem with this film is that by taking a “CNN†look at the events, it fails to be little more than a Discovery Channel-esque reenactment. Such a literal film might be of some use, but it seems a bit corny and unnecessary to me. Dramatic? Sure? Profound? Not at all. I just can’t get excited about a film whose entire plot I have known for at least four years. Maybe I ask too much, but if a film wants to deal with 9/11, I feel like it ought to hit it out of the ballpark.
Posted by John on April 29th, 2006did you see it John, are are you writing a review for a film you haven’t seen yet?
Posted by Goon on April 29th, 2006I haven’t seen it yet, but I’m willing to venture that it’s no Apocalypse Now.
Posted by John on April 30th, 2006so therefore not worth seeing? sean, get me a rolleyes icon.
“My problem with this film is that by taking a “CNN†look at the events, it fails to be little more than a Discovery Channel-esque reenactment.”
Was “last days” or “elephant” nothing more than a reenactment of events? United 93, and I thought it wouldnt but it did, like both of those other films I mentioned, actually did give me another perspective on what happened on 9/11. why? becuase the movie is mostly very clinical, as if 9/11 got put on a doctors table, with only a few really supposedly emotional moments in there. So much of it is inside the control towers and NORAD, etc, it really does tell you a story you haven’t heard for four years. Unfortunately because of its title I and perhaps many others got an impression of it the movie that isnt true. Flight 93 is a base for the movie, but thats all, the best parts to me anyways were not on the plane.
You’re looking for a 9/11 movie that wouldnt get it and IMO shouldn’t be made. This movie, I give it a lot of credit for the fact that it wasnt some ‘passion’ type movie where the passengers and everyone suffers so everyone can have a pity party for themselves and what they went through 5 years ago. Everything from the camera work to the casting choices highlights confusion and helplessness and how overwhelmed EVERYONE was, unable to do their jobs when they really really really needed to, unable to properly communicate with each other fast enough to do anything, and without resources to get them done. That theme from the control towers carries over into the scenes on the plane. (now I dont necessarily believe the plane wasnt shot down, but as a movie i’ll go along and say it wasnt for this next part), where the difference is by the end the passengers had enough information to make a decision to move. It wasnt some big bombastic scene of heroism to me so much as it was a very logical and planned attack. And it lasts like, 2 minutes and the movie’s over.
So I dont get this Apocalypse Now wishes, its not just like comparing apples and oranges, its more like apples and chainsaws. United 93 doesnt need 50 years of perspective, it isnt there to put you through 9/11 over again, and I’d hardly even say its ‘dramatized’ – I’d say 90% of the dialogue is just air traffic people noting plane positions and reporting what they are hearing from other airports, etc.
I don’t know how alone I’ll be on it, but like I said, basically – this movie was so clinical about the events I dont know how anyone could ever say it was exploitative or ra-ra patriotism. I was cynical about it myself, how couldnt i be after everyone for 5 years has been exploiting it for their own gain. I had no reason not to believe the first real 9/11 movie (sorry Michael Moore) wouldn’t be, but it wasn’t.
Posted by Goon on April 30th, 2006actually, I’m starting to think others agree with me about the ‘clinical’ nature of the film. Looking at IMDB I’m seeing a multitude of people who HATED it because it WASNT a ra-ra movie, it WASNT dramatized, because the approach Greengrass took was ‘too boring’ for them.
Posted by Goon on April 30th, 2006http://boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=2056&p=.htm
here’s an example. the guy from B.O.M. has always been a douche in my opinion, and so I usually check in on his reviews for things sometimes to see what the Idiot Population is thinking.
he’s saying things about badly established characters (literally saying each passenger should have had a defining characteristic), and the base of his review is that the 9/11 attack was the worst thing to ever happen, and that United 93 trivializes it. This is his take on what i say ‘clinical’ – I say theres nothing wrong with keeping a level head and seeing something for what it is, but this douche apparently wants no movie, but if there is a movie make sure the Arabs on the plane have razor sharp teeth and the passengers are waving the flag as they charge the hijackers. His words specifically stated that the charge of the passengers fails to capture “the indomitable American spirit”. Christ.
See, as much as politics really is pretty much left out of this movie, there are always wingnuts who will find something, or get mad because there isnt enough of something, or nitpick tiny things out of the movie and turn it into a grand statement about it.
Posted by Goon on April 30th, 2006Leave a Reply