Is it too soon?

[Beefy]

So, Oliver Stone's new film about two police officers who survive the collapse of the World Trade Center and what they go through as they stay to help out has started filming.

It's been four years now, it'll be five or six before this film finally lands.  We've had movies and TV shows address the attacks.  While the idea of a 9/11 film does still feel a little exploitative to me, I can see where shining an artistic light on the heroes of that day is a worthwhile subject.  And, though it has been a long since it has occurred, when Ollie is on as a director, he is ON as a director.  So, since I first heard about this film, I filed it away as an interesting curiousity.

When aintitcool.com announced that filming had begun, it became a little more real.  But then I stumbled across one particular sentence...

The producers say they will film the actual collapsing scenes in LA as to not upset the New Yorkers.

They're actually going to recreate the towers falling.  One great big special effect.  I had assumed the story would pick up post-collapse, but apparently there's going to be quite a spectacle. 

Suddenly, I wasn't sure how I felt about the film anymore.

What do you think?  Too much, too soon?

[Alice]

I don't think it's ever too soon to tell stories.  People have written books about this & nobody bats an eye.  I think the problem main problem is that when we hear "Hollywood" we automatically assume it's exploitation because that's normally the case.  But when there is something in print, we see it as more of expression than exploitation.  I'm not sure why that is, but that's how it appears to me.

[cnamon]

I have yet to see the towers fall.  I don't plan on it.

[Bennyhana]

I'll put 50 bucks down right now that says Oliver Stone will somehow make a mockery of what was a very sad day in american history. 

[DownSouth]

I don't think it is too soon.  I would like it to be based on actual events.  It would also be class act to donate some proceeds to charities.

[Beefy]

I don't think it's ever too soon to tell stories.  People have written books about this & nobody bats an eye.  I think the problem main problem is that when we hear "Hollywood" we automatically assume it's exploitation because that's normally the case.  But when there is something in print, we see it as more of expression than exploitation.  I'm not sure why that is, but that's how it appears to me.

I think that's because Hollywood constantly reminds us that they are about profit, not about quality.  Hollywood has no problem exploiting for profit.  But even Hollywood is going to have to walk a fine line with this one.

Some print is stigmatized, but the literary world is still thought of as more refined, and so you can talk about anything and get away with it.

[meredith]

Well... They could have worse directors on it, right?

[Alice]

Well... They could have worse directors on it, right?

Like Tarantino.

[nishi]

well, and there is a difference between a movie - which is fiction - and a documentary or books about it. i have only read one piece of fiction that deals with it, and even then, while it is a significant part of the plot, there's not a lot of detail about the actual event (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, by jonathan safron foer, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618329706/qid=1131042913/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-8170046-6759202?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

i read a lot about it, and i've watched some of the documentaries. i don't know that i am ready for a fictionalized account of those events yet.

although i agree that it's never too soon to tell stories, i guess i'm still taking in the real stories, and the interpretations of people who were there. right now, i'm not as interested in an artistic interpretation, because i don't really know what could be said about it that isn't already overwhelmingly expressed through actual survivor accounts. we're not far enough away from it to respond historically.

that is why i was so taken with Extremely Loud - a first person narrative of a little boy whose father died in the world trade center. the story takes place 2 years after the fact and is about his struggle to come to terms with elements of his father's death, and he takes some very extreme approaches in order to do that. but it isn't about what happened in the towers.

i don't know. all i can see is "towering inferno". i know stone isn't that kind of person, but really - what other kind of story is it, there in the building, in the moment?

[Bennyhana]

I should actually answer the question and say that I don't think it's inherently too soon, I just think that most of the teams hollywood would put together will come up with something that is too crappy to do justice to the memories of those, still fresh in our memories, who gave their lives.

And yeah, Tarantino would be worse.

[Beefy]

i don't know. all i can see is "towering inferno". i know stone isn't that kind of person, but really - what other kind of story is it, there in the building, in the moment?

There's also a desire by the producers to let the people know that this isn't the "Towering Inferno-Titanic version" of the 9/11 events.

Yeah, I can't help but wonder how much they're going to recreate.  The planes hitting?  People jumping?  I hope not.  If this is the story of two particular, fictional people who escape the towers and then stick around to help, do we need to see any of it.  I guess if the impact of the disaster of the actual collapse is to register with audiences, then watching them fall is necessary.  But, save Dots, how many folks are there out there who don't already know that?

From a narrative point of view, as a storyteller, I can see opening with the collapse.  I can even see opening with the attacks, but keep everything contained to inside the towers on an individual point of view.  The American in me feels like it's not necessary to show somethign we already have embedded in our brain - no movie is going to make those events have more impact than when we watched it all happen.

Has there ever been a tragic event-to-Hollywood movie that has turned around so fast?  May some during WW2?  But those would have been for propaganda purposes, which this is not.

[nishi]

Some print is stigmatized, but the literary world is still thought of as more refined, and so you can talk about anything and get away with it.

that's a little extreme. it's not as though art film does not also "talk about anything" and usually gets away with it. although i'm not sure what you exactly mean by "gets away with it". you read a lot of movie news so you know who is getting called on the carpet for what in that world. i read a lot of similar material about authors and books - it's not like they are not held responsible.

the literary world does not have the same spot in popular culture that hollywood or oliver stone have, so similar news about the literary world isn't usually seen by a lot of people. for instance - you saw that salman rushdie was the subject of a fatwa. but what did you really hear about the actual content of the book? because it got a lot of talk in literary press, and further talk in literary press regarding what it said about muslims.

[nishi]

Has there ever been a tragic event-to-Hollywood movie that has turned around so fast?  May some during WW2?  But those would have been for propaganda purposes, which this is not.

but that propaganda, if fictionalized material, was very benign in content because most people at home did not know and did not really *want* to know what was going on in that war. most people *still* don't know what combat in both europe and the pacific theatres was like, tom hanks notwithstanding.

and if real footage - again, it wasn't the images that needed to be seen.


there isn't anything in our history, or maybe any countries' history, that is analagous to watching an enemy successfully attack two major cities live and in real time, and kill thousands of innocent people right in front of their friends, their relatives, their colleagues and tens of millions - if not more - of their countrymen, with the possible exception of dropping the bombs on nagasaki and hiroshima. although that was not televised, so many people were so immediately affected that the impact of those moments was so vast.

but, i don't know. like i said - i just can't imagine what could be said that would be of interest to me. even if it starts with the towers falling - i've read hundreds of accounts of people who were inside and nothing could be more powerful.

maybe it's the movie version of those because stone - probably correctly - assumes that more people would see a movie that would read those accounts?


frankly, imagining the production team meeting on that film gives me the creeps. listening to the special effects guys, the sound director, even oliver problem-solving..... yuck.

the process of making a film - or making anything - is to turn it into something else that, artistically and ideally, gives a different point of view.  i could give a shit what oliver stone thinks about september 11th.

[Listener]

I should actually answer the question and say that I don't think it's inherently too soon, I just think that most of the teams hollywood would put together will come up with something that is too crappy to do justice to the memories of those, still fresh in our memories, who gave their lives.

And yeah, Tarantino would be worse.

Look at the bright side.  It could be Uwe Boll.

[Listener]

I got to work just after the first plane hit.  I actually watched the second plane hit.  That was once more than I needed to see.

[Beefy]

I should actually answer the question and say that I don't think it's inherently too soon, I just think that most of the teams hollywood would put together will come up with something that is too crappy to do justice to the memories of those, still fresh in our memories, who gave their lives.

And yeah, Tarantino would be worse.

Look at the bright side.  It could be Uwe Boll.

Ooo ooo!  I got that reference!

[VikingJuice]

I personally don't care for the idea.  I don't care to relive any of that day or that time in American history.

I guess it could be worse though, it could a Bruckheimer film.  That would motivate me to protest.

[Mr. Ubiquity]

I wonder if they chose to recreate the collapse because they thought that using the actual footage would be too upsetting.

Personally, for me it doesnt matter either way.  THe subject he chose will cause strong emotion regardless if you support or condone the making of the film.  As long as he does it in view like a documentary rather than a flick for entertainment, i think it will do ok.

Hell even Mel gibson raked in alot of money with whats the movie and that scene of the beating of Jesus Christ was " intense"   i know thats the wrong word, im out of verbs for the mornin.

[ReBurn]

I don't think that I would like to see it.

[Jessie]

I don't think that I would like to see it.

I agree.

[Listener]

I don't think that I would like to see it.

I agree.

Me neither.

But you know it'll be "critically acclaimed", whatever that means.

I've learned one thing:  if the AJC's Eleanor Ringel Gillespie hates it, I'll like it.

[Beefy]

I don't think that I would like to see it.

I agree.

Me neither.

But you know it'll be "critically acclaimed", whatever that means.

I've learned one thing:  if the AJC's Eleanor Ringel Gillespie hates it, I'll like it.

I dunno, Ollie hasn't been critically acclaimed in quite a while.

I may or may not see it.  We'll see as we get closer to the film.

[Gamplayerx]

I won't go see it, but I never go to movies anyway, so that's not saying much.

[grace]

hummm... caught the 1st and 2nd towers live.... that was enough filmage for me....i cannot see how even a documentary could do good ...or for that matter ...any justice.. a piece of history that doesn't need to be repeated???  now... if we captured Osmama, there would be justice for a full documentary and some closure??