2008 Woodie Awards
In My Humble Opinion: Cashing in on tragedy
Daniel Roberts
Issue date: 12/7/06 Section: Opinions
Great. But something still feels too creepy about it for me. One message board for "WTC" features complaints about the lack of exciting action shots. This expectation for sensationalized scenes shows that audiences are not yet mature enough to handle these films. Clearly, audience response is just as crucial as creative intention. No matter how nice their goals were, these movies turn a very fresh wound into a Hollywood spectacle of popcorn entertainment.
Do you remember the movie "Pearl Harbor?" It was only loosely about the attack, focusing instead on a heinous love triangle between Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett and (mmm) Kate Beckinsale. The high place this trash earned on my "Worst Movies I've Ever Seen" list is beside the point. What matters is that it came out sixty years after the catastrophe that inspired it. Sixty years! These 9/11 movies began filming a mere four years after the tragedy.
Perhaps what makes me so uncomfortable is that I can still recall exactly where I stood, what I was thinking and how my heart felt when these events took place.
I bet survivors of the 1912 Titanic wreck would have been equally offended if, in 1917, a movie had been made about the crisis. Charlie Chaplin would have played the Leo DiCaprio role, lip-synching, "I'm the king of the world!" (Movies were silent back then, duh).
The movies are already out. The damage is done. My little rant in a small college newspaper will not affect the producers in Hollywood. All I can do is declare that, for what it's worth, I think Hollywood really could have waited a few more years before capitalizing on the disaster of 9/11. That's just how I feel. Now insert witty, comforting one-liner here.
Do you remember the movie "Pearl Harbor?" It was only loosely about the attack, focusing instead on a heinous love triangle between Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett and (mmm) Kate Beckinsale. The high place this trash earned on my "Worst Movies I've Ever Seen" list is beside the point. What matters is that it came out sixty years after the catastrophe that inspired it. Sixty years! These 9/11 movies began filming a mere four years after the tragedy.
Perhaps what makes me so uncomfortable is that I can still recall exactly where I stood, what I was thinking and how my heart felt when these events took place.
I bet survivors of the 1912 Titanic wreck would have been equally offended if, in 1917, a movie had been made about the crisis. Charlie Chaplin would have played the Leo DiCaprio role, lip-synching, "I'm the king of the world!" (Movies were silent back then, duh).
The movies are already out. The damage is done. My little rant in a small college newspaper will not affect the producers in Hollywood. All I can do is declare that, for what it's worth, I think Hollywood really could have waited a few more years before capitalizing on the disaster of 9/11. That's just how I feel. Now insert witty, comforting one-liner here.
Be the first to comment on this story