What's new

Post-September 11 Film Viewing, Revisited (1 Viewer)

Terry St

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 21, 2002
Messages
393
You make it sound like the entire nation has post-traumatic stress disorder from one terrorist bombing. While truly an unfortunate event, it simply doesn't compare to the devastation to civilian populations seen, within living memory, in countries such as Britain, Germany, Poland, Japan, Serbia, Congo, Vietnam, Korea, ... (The list goes on for a loooong time.) It is true that Americans have been heavily insulated from the tragedy of violence since the civil war, so it is understandably a bit shocking to finally see some of it on your own soil. Still, many other nations have been through a lot worse, but they're still here and still watching popcorn flicks.

Take Japan for example. Can the destruction of the world trade center even begin to compare to Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Japan did not choose to avoid all mention of such disasters in the years that have passed since then. Instead they embraced disaster movies! They took the fear of technological inferiority that rose from the nuclear holocaust and transformed it into a driving force behind their meteoric rise from a devastated near-feudal nation to one of the most technologically advanced industrial nations on the planet. They didn't retreat from the horror they were subjected to. They faced it, overcame it, and drew strength from it. Their cinema continues to reflect this.

The situation in post-war Britain was very similar, but they responded to it very differently. While the Germans never had access to nuclear weapons, the British still experienced mass bombing of civilian centers on a scale no nation in the America's has ever seen. Britain may have emerged from WWII as a sovereign nation, but it could hardly have been considered victorious! The mighty British empire that once spanned the globe is now one small group of islands. Their economy, that once dominated the world, now barely qualifies for G8 membership. Their formerly omnipotent navy had long since become an obsolete joke. After WWII they were faced with pulling a future from the rubble, just like the Japanese, except they only recovered a fraction of what they lost. What was post-war British cinema like? Escapism. Past glories. Anything but the unbearable truth.

Does cinema really influence a nation to a large extent? Failing that, can it even be considered an accurate reflection of a nation's mindset, or does it merely reflect the minds of a greedy few who are only concerned with avoiding box office failures and bad press that might reduce profits? I honestly don't know. The media has treated 9/11 as some kind of cabalistic idol of fear that must be bowed down to and worshiped, but never questioned or analyzed. Hollywood, ever the money grubbers, have given us plenty of "Bridge over the River Kwai" rather than some "Godzilla".

Admittedly it is too soon to jump to conclusions, but still, the apparent lack of mainstream films dealing with Terrorism (and the motivations behind it) is quite concerning. Perhaps they are yet to come? I certainly hope so. While 9/11 is nothing compared to what Britain and Japan went through, the response to it so far suggests that American society may lack the resilience required to recover from true adversity. You can't fight terror by forgetting it. You need to understand it and face it. What better place than the cinema? It may be art, but what is art without meaning?

P.S. If you guys think this post is too political PM me and I will delete it. It was sort of difficult to avoid given the topic though.
 

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
8,515
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer
Ange,
I have to seriously disagree with you on several points.

1) You state that Hollywood agrees with you and that the artists are "limiting" themselves. That's one interpretation. I think that the STUDIOS are limiting what is put out on the basis of expected money returned. It's not even art to them...it's commerce. And like Wal-Mart shelving Maxim and FHM (but selling guns), their motivation is not the human condition, just the financial one.

2) Disaster films, which I assume is your complaint, come and go. The Sum of All Fears did rather decent BO, and featured EXACTLY what you describe: "high body counts, low emotional commitment, and no consequences." And unlike real life, it used the stock movie villain...the Nazis, instead of something meatier, more realistic. Something that brings out the "interest groups". Plenty of films still offer that soullessness you describe. They just package it differently.

3) Star Wars killed thousands of people (Stormtroopers and Imperial functionaries in fun, family themed PG entertainment 26 years ago. And we all cheered. Because it's just a movie.

4) Just a movie doesn't absolve any artists. Nor does it assume that filmed entertainment = real life. It's like hearing an actor playing a soldier or an athlete talk about they know what it's like in battle. No they don't. Not even close. I have watched and loved Schindler's List...but I have no idea the fear and devastation and trauma wreaked by the Holocaust. I have but sniffed at it, detached, an observer to horror. I imagine the experience is quite different.

By saying art does not cross lines, you accept the lines, and limit the art. Art does what it wants, for the auidence.

Take care,
Chuck
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Terry is right. Godzilla was a direct attempt to deal with the nuclear bombings in Japan and the effect that terror had on their society.

Many Japanese filmmakers have addressed the issue in fact, including Kurosawa in his film "Dreams".

And while Godzilla and Dreams show respect for human loss, some of the Godzilla sequels are still more like B&B films.


The things I dislike about a B&B film I still dislike the same amount and for the same reasons. I always thought it was just stupid and pretentious of Bruck to have all the "I'm cool" posing scenes/dialog. He wasn't in touch with real humanity before 9-11 nor after it (based on Bad Co). The emotions in his films are always caricatures of real emotions to me, and I just think you can be fun and adventurous without that (if you are a sharp writer/director) - see Raiders of the Lost Ark for example.



I do think the country is more in touch with those moments when they see them in film, but at the same time film helps us deal with such events, and as a genre comedy usually works by taking the serious edge off of them. Sometimes comedy comes too soon for a person's healing process and is offensive, but generally the need to be able to laugh about something will come.

After all consider the comic relief during and the choice of "Lime in the Coconut" at the end of Resevoir Dogs to help deal with the emotional stress that builds up in the audience during the film.


PS - good post Chuck
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
BTW, I also find Patriot Games very disturbing as the troops go in and kill everyone in the terrorist camp when we now have people forced to make such real-life decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq, like the attempt to bomb Saddam at that cafe. You wouldn't want to be wrong on something like that (or I would hope for your humanity that you wouldn't want to be wrong).

Ford's emtions in that scene carry all that much more weight to me now.

But that film and scene obviously take a respectful human emotions approach to the subject.
 

DaveGR

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
120
Andrew you made my point exactly. See the thing is, you said alot of art isnt about crossing lines,,But see thats your line,Perhaps where it hasnt crossed the line with you,it has with other people. Which means lines are trash because one line to one person isnt a line at all with another.
All we have are our opinions,and sometimes we get lost in them. I know I have before. We can choose to watch something or not to, its all our Opinions.
 

Nick Graham

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 16, 2001
Messages
1,406
The first film I saw after 9/11 was The Last Castle, and while it seems like an insiginificant little action movie, the end had me a little misty eyed, especially the final shot of the flag. The Sum Of All Fears didn't bother me at all, the bomb sequence was quite chilling so soon after 9/11, but not at all sensationalist or melodramatic.

One thing about film in a post 9/11 world that made me laugh is that I specifically recalled many critics calling the villains in "Executive Decision" racist stereotypes when it came out....turns out they weren't stereotypes at all.

As for Armageddon, I've long considered Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer to be cinematic terrorists, frequently assaulting the intelligence of innocent Americans, and fleecing them of untold millions. Why the president won't send troops after the creators of Weapons of Mass Brain Cell Destruction such as Armageddon and Pearl Harbor is beyond me. And shouldn't taking such a huge leak on the graves of those who gave their lives at Pearl Harbor be considered a small act of terrorism?
 

DaveGR

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
120
Hmm then dont forget about Saving Private Ryan acting as if only americans ran the beach. Or Schindlers list talking about only Jews and not mentioning the countless others of different religions and backgrounds. But see not to many people are going to do that,and even though I mention them as examples,I love these films,and have nothing against them,they are telling a story.

Ive had to say this before in other threads,but even though I did hate Pearl Harbor,I did not for the reason of it mixing history and what they considered a working script. Please try and find a Film which recounts a historical event,that is 100 percent right on. They change things,because it is JUST A MOVIE and they can do what they want to help move the film along,or make it work the way they want it to.
People get so up in arms about this,and it blows my mind.
Not to tick anyone off,but if you really knew film you could look back at countless examples of this,and Who knows how many people are offended by any film you can mention.
 

Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 7, 1999
Messages
901
First of all, Chuck: you're awesome. Great points. If I may rebut:

The emotions in his films are always caricatures of real emotions to me, and I just think you can be fun and adventurous without that (if you are a sharp writer/director) - see Raiders of the Lost Ark for example.
EXCELLENT point! I bet we could spend days listing enjoyable, adventurous films with some real emotional heart.

I think that the point of this thread is being hijacked a little. My point is NOT that I was too disturbed by images of the destruction of New York to watch it. My point is NOT to denigrate action movies or disaster movies that hit too close to home. My point is NOT to argue that such movies should be censored or suppressed by studios. My point is that movies devised to make their audiences laugh out loud at a one-liner while thousands of people are being killed by realistic and plausible violence disgust me now. And I'm starting to think that a person of my background and sensitivity should have been disgusted all along.

This is a great discussion.
 

Kevin Grey

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
2,598


The important point here isn't that Sum of All Fears was already completed but that it was a box office hit. If people truly found treating such events as distateful then they would likely have avoided the film, yet they didn't.

I think Hollywood is truly out of touch. After 9/11 there were a lot of people in Hollywood trying to figure out what the right thing to do was. I can remember that industry watchers were predicting that dark films would be avoided in favor of comedies. When dark movies like Don't Say a Word, Training Day, and From Hell debuted at the top of the box office and expected hits, like the patriotic Last Castle, bombed it showed that Hollywood's perception of people's ability to separate fact from fiction was incorrect.

Just because Hollywood hasn't financed films with terrorist themes since 9/11 doesn't mean that there isn't a market for them. Disaster-type movies like Armeggedon certainly haven't gone away either. The recent movie The Core featured scenes of widespread destruction and Roland Emmerich is making a megabudget disaster film in the vein of Independence Day called The Day After Tomorrow.
 

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
8,515
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer
Ange,
I can't (and won't) argue with your last two paragraphs. As for the Wile E. Coyote argument: when Armageddon came out, one of my favorite critics stated that for how realistic it was, Bugs Bunny should have played the lead driller. Armageddon is a cartoon. It just has real people playing the roles.

I am certainly not telling you to be disgusted or not be disgusted. I am not trying to equate Armageddon with Star Wars either. But both films are in the same vein. Both use cartoon violence to entertain. If B&B tried to sell real emotion with their callous violence, their films would fail, because the audience wouldn't buy it. They sell cartoon emotions with cartoon violence, so it fits. By making yourself aware of their techniques, you are now fit to ignore their films. Some folks will go, as they always do (heck, I'll see Bad Boys II). I just want them (and me) to always have that choice. I draw the line for myself. You draw it for yourself. The public defines where that line becomes an issue of profit for the studios. Not any single person.

Good points on The Sum of All Fears and Collateral Damage (I get a point for remembering that...and no I haven't seen it, nor will I, EVER) being made prior to 9/11. I agree that the studios have moved away, but not out of taste. If there was a dollar to be made, they'd exploit it. And they will one day again. Sooner than some would like, no doubt. It's cyclical.

Anyways, thanks for the kind words. It's the interesting point in a discussion where people are actually starting to realize what they (and more importantly, others) are talking about :) Usually we just try to yell our point!

Take care,
Chuck
 

Jeff Pounds

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 6, 2000
Messages
385
Hmm then dont forget about Saving Private Ryan acting as if only americans ran the beach.
Interesting thought, but I don't think it's really the same thing. In SPR, they were showing a specific part of the Normandy landings -- Omaha Beach -- which also happened to be the most horrific and intense landing site and it WAS only Americans.

The British and Canadian landings at Gold, Sword and Juno -- and even the American landings at Utah -- went MUCH better, in terms of casualties.

In fact, there were more casualties at Omaha then Utah, Gold, Sword and Juno combined (on the actual D-Day landings that is).
 

DaveGR

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
120
See my point isnt to say I agree with that logic of some naysayers in regards to SPR. My point is, there were many people,mostly from other countries,that DID mention that,and felt that it was giving america all the credit. I could care less one way or the other,and was simply mentioning that as yet another film that would offend some while others would hereald it as a great historical film. I for one liked SPR quite a bit.

BTW in regards to one liners while milions die.

When thrown into a tramatic event,people deal with things many different ways. I know several who try to actually do one liners or throw in an offbeat line while in danger,or after seeing some horrible event. I for one have did this. I know others who have as well.
So its not as though distancing yourself from a tramatic event is so out there.
 

Scott Weinberg

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2000
Messages
7,477


Yeah but The Core only made about $30 million, which is less than 1/3 of the budget! Perhaps our love affair with cinematic disaster has waned a bit recently...or maybe The Core just stunk and people knew it. ;)
 

Kevin Grey

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
2,598


I think it was the whole stinking part:) Plus it had no bankable actors and a premise that people had a hard time believing no matter how often the screenwriter tried to say it was based on fact.

Anyway my point was that movies with elements similar to Armageddon have been bankrolled since 9/11 and will continue to be as long as Hollywood sees potential profit.
 

EdHoch

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
182
Location
Lincoln, CA
Real Name
Ed Hochstatter
It's true, I watched Independence Day for the first time since 9-11 and you know it did flash through my mind when "checkmate" hit NYC. It wasn't the fantastical, would never really happen moment it was in past viewings.

Having said that, I didn't turn the movie off, it was same cheesy, mindless summer flick that it was back in 1996.

It still pulls me right out of the movie when Goldblum can link his Powerbook right into the alien technology...my suspension of disbelief just doesn't stretch that far.
 

Scott_lb

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 7, 2002
Messages
592
This might sound really stupid, but I changed the way that I view horror movies after I saw Saving Private Ryan for the first time on opening weekend in the theater. For years I watched the Friday the 13th movies and the Halloween movies, and Michael Myers still scares the crap out of me to this day. However, I recall sitting in my seat literally scared shitless at the end of SPR when the soldiers have to guard the bridge and they are basically waiting for the Nazi's to arrive. There is a shot where their is a US soldier on either side of the frame and you (or at least I) feel like you're in the middle. You hear the rumble of the tank in the distance getting louder and louder. Before you know it, it's right there and all hell breaks loose. After watching that film, I made two "discoveries" about myself: First, I have the utmost respect for anyone (from any country) who had to go through the absolute hell that is war. Second, the horror movies seemed absolutely funny and comical to the real horrors that occur in real life. 9/11 was one of those days, and unfortunately, I am convinced that there will be many more to follow (I pray that I am wrong). I cannot stomach watching the film "9/11" filmed by those two brothers. That video is without question the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in my life (in addition to seeing Ground Zero in person- however I saw it three months after the attacks). Die Hard III is also hard for me to watch, as I Armageddon. I find myself enjoying other movies more now, especially ones that feature the triumph of the human spirit or ones that have something to say about life (About Schmidt comes to mind).
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
Scott,

I hear ya, but I have to disagree with your assessment that the film 9/11 is "disgusting".

If you mean what is showed in the film is disgusting, your of course right, but if you mean the exsistence of the film in general I disagree.

It was made quite by accident really. The two brothers were their for a totally different reason, to film a young fire fighter when it happened, so they naturally started to film that instead. I mean why not? They were their and had cameras. They realized, rightly so I might add, that it was important to document that day as much as they could.

They were also mindful of what they aimed their camera's at as well, so where's the disgust? They went through the same hell everyone around them did...they just happened to get it on video. As far as I know, they never even took any profit from the video.

Was it a crime that they presented it to the world? Absolutely not. That film should serve as a reminder to appreciate the men and women of our police, paramedic and fire departments and to remember that day, as difficult as it may be. I don't want to ever forget how I felt on 9/11/01.

Bottom line, what the video shows is absolutely sickening, but the film in and of itself is not IMO, and I would never fault the Naudet bros for getting it to us.
 

Jeff Pounds

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 6, 2000
Messages
385
I could care less one way or the other,and was simply mentioning that as yet another film that would offend some while others would hereald it as a great historical film.
Gotcha Dave.

Although I still don't see what others could complain about in regards to SPR... it WAS historically accurate in regards to the Omaha Beach landings.

If people from other countries want to complain about a historically inaccurate WWII film that "gives America too much credit," they always have U-571. ;)
 

MarkHastings

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
12,013
but theres a huge difference between a movie and actual events
True, but you can't say that an image in a movie (even though it is fake) will not spark some emotion in a person.

If it weren't for these emotions, we wouldn't have people squirming over blood in a horror movie (which we all know isn't real blood)...or we wouldn't have people crying during emotional love stories.

To say that a film like "Armageddon" is "just a movie" is fine, but to deny the fact that images effect emotions in people is being a bit blind to human emotion.
 

Qui-Gon John

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Messages
3,532
Real Name
John Co
I was gonna say that about TRADING PLACES, but you beat me too it. Especially when Akyroyd and Murphy are waking into the exchange right at the base of the towers.

I don't have a problem with seeing movies with the WTC in them. And I liked both Armageddon and Deep Impact.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,821
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top