More on A.I. and the World Trade Center (1 Viewer)

[John Miles]

So what happens if leaving the towers in causes the audience start drifting towards what happened on 9/11, thus destroying the original artistic intent of the scene?
OK, let's talk about "artistic intent." Every exterior shot of Manhattan in A.I. carries a strong and very intentional subtext: humanity, unique among the members of the animal kingdom, fouls its own nest.
The voiceover during first few seconds of the film makes it clear that we've rendered our coastal cities uninhabitable through environmental damage. If leaving the WTC in the New York footage reminds the viewer of anything, why not the irony of great human works destroyed by great human failings? I would see them as complementing the symbolism of the drowned city, rather than detracting from it.
To address Al's concerns about historical revisionism being less forgivable than fictional revisionism: what's the difference? Whether you agree or not, film is a part of our history. You cannot alter a single frame of an existing film without changing the history of cinema and, consequently, the history of human mythology.
Leave the towers in, Mr. Spielberg. The terrorists have changed our lives enough already without any further help from you.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I really DON'T think we should be going through old historical documents and removing any reference of the twin towers (and film represents a social/historical document).

(sigh)
Once again, folks, no one has suggested any such thing. These "slippery slope" arguments are well beside the point.
The point is narrative logic. This includes the verisimilitude of the setting and the question of anachronism as it pertains to a shot lasting mere seconds and contributing nothing more to the film than identifying a location and a time-period. Clearly, in this one instance, the presence of those towers is anachronistic. Unlike, for example, the opening montage of Woody Allen's Manhattan, they should not be there.
As for the suggestion that "any film that has the towers should keep them", why? If their presence detracts from a viewer's willing suspension of disbelief - as they certainly would in A.I., or any other film set in a period after their destruction (or, for that matter, prior to their construction) - then why should they be kept?

 

[Rich Malloy]

quote: To address Al's concerns about historical revisionism being less forgivable than fictional revisionism: what's the difference?[/quote]
I would presume that this difference is self-evident.
By way of example, what of the various permutations of Rembrandt's paintings (by his own hand, of course) or Walt Whitman's constant revising of Leaves of Grass? Does this represent a "revisionism" as reprehensible as an historian's assertion that the NAZI's never committed genocide or that the indians never occupied North America? I don't believe the two are even remotely comparable.
Simply put, an artist has a right to revise his own creations - whether or not you or I agree with such revisions - but an historian does not have the same right to revise the "facts" of history.* The historian is not the author of history in the same way that an artist is the author of his works.
*EDIT: And I think it's highly significant to recognize that Speilberg is or may be altering his creation to accurately reflect a historical truth - the destruction of the world trade towers in the year 2001 - not to deny or revise that historical truth.
[Edited last by Al Brown on October 30, 2001 at 03:55 PM]

 

[Michael Reuben]

What of the various permutations of Rembrandt's paintings (by his own hand, of course) or Walt Whitman's constant revising of Leaves of Grass?

The armchair aestheticians of the HTF don't recognize such examples, Al. For them, artistic freedom is a fine and wonderful thing -- until the artist does something they don't like.
The solution to all this is very, very, very simple: Respect a filmmaker's choice to include, or not to include, images of the World Trade Center.
Save the protests for when someone other than the filmmaker makes the change (which, aside from the false rumor about Escape from New York, hasn't happened yet).
M.

 

[John Miles]

I would presume that this difference is self-evident.
That was a rhetorical question (which I answered rhetorically as well, although you snipped that part out before replying.)
I stand by what I said: change an existing work of art, and you do change history.
Obviously, you're right in that it's his film, and he can put King Kong on the Empire State Building if he wants to pay the license fees. But that's not what's being debated.

 

[Jason Borchers]

As for the suggestion that "any film that has the towers should keep them", why? If their presence detracts from a viewer's willing suspension of disbelief - as they certainly would in A.I., or any other film set in a period after their destruction (or, for that matter, prior to their construction) - then why should they be kept?

The future is impossible to predict. Any future we imagine will never remain accurate for very long. In this case, do we really need to "update" a small shot which only became anachronistic after the film's release?
Obviously, any movie made from now on set in New York City of the present or future won't show the WTC. But why should we alter movies made before the attack? Tell me, how many people are going to be that distracted by, as you said, "a shot lasting mere seconds"?
------------------
Jason Borchers
Link Removed

 

[cafink]

As for the suggestion that "any film that has the towers should keep them", why?

Because that's how the movie was made.

 

[Darrel Johansen]

That means that somebody has to go back and edit the book, "1984," and of course, the movie, "2001, A Space Odyssey."

 

[David Lambert]

in the theaters. Therefore, the version that will be on the dvd will not be the same. What's the point of home theater if the "home" version is altered?

Aha! Robyn has hit upon the supreme argument in favor of Original Theatrical Presentation!
Don't mind if I quote you, do you Robyn? That's a good slogan to put on those Mummy Returns/Ghostbusters/Pro-OAR "business cards" being discussed in another thread.
Leave the WTC in AI.
------------------
DAVE/Memphis

MORE TV ON DVD, PLEASE!

 

[Todd H]

My Uncle died a horrible death when I was a kid. I guess I should destroy all the pictures I have of him since he doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Al, you're walking on a dangerous path. 2001, as many others have mentioned, has many small qualities (not the least of which it's name) that would fit it in with your qualifications. Would you condone the editting of that? If a director is willing to submit his work to the public, nine times out of ten, he should be satisified with what he's putting out. If he isn't the film shouldn't be released. If we condone the editting of one film, we open the door for many other edits.
To take this from a story standpoint, removing the WTC would remind people of the terrorism much worse than keeping them in would, thus distracting their thoughts from the subject matter Kubrick/Spielberg was trying to convey. This isn't some popcorn flick. It's a movie about ideas, and terrorism (unless you count that against the mechas) isn't one of them.
------------------
My DVD Collection
My Preorders
My Wishlist
Potter is coming...

 

[Jeff Adkins]

I found an interesting quote regarding David Lynch's thoughts on film revisionism. The interview was with David Lynch's sound guy, John Neff and can be found here .
Here's the quote:
"But I’ve heard people ask him about the 'directors cut' of Dune, of course that’s a bad subject for him to ever discuss, but his basic theory is that when the film is done, what you see in the theater is the director’s cut. That’s the story. So these other scenes would do justice to certain things that were created for this film, but they didn’t work within the film. I’ve heard him say that it has to be kept separate, and it cannot be cut in. He.. I don’t know if he has seen the reinserted scenes in Apocalypse Now, but we were in Cannes together for Mulholland Drive, and this is no offense to Mr. Coppola, but David said it just saddens him, to see the original film altered like that. When you’re done with the picture, you’re done with the picture. That’s it. So he may have wanted to see the scenes cut back in at one point, but today he says, “That’s the picture” At least that’s what he said to me."
I wish there were more directors like David Lynch!
Jeff

 

[Todd Hochard]

From one Todd H to another

but I would argue that film IS history

True as it may be, it saddens me to think that for many people, film is the ONLY history they know. Step away from the DVDs, and pick up a book!
Also, the dead relative argument is absurd. Using that logic, I would argue that leaving the WTC in AI is an incorrect as you digitally editing your dead uncle into a photo of you taken last weekend. Simply put- that scene couldn't have existed, for the same reasons that THE WTC towers can't be in AI.
It might be prudent to remove them- after all, unlike other comparisons (Ma Bell in 2001), the WTC is NOW, and the AI DVD is being released NOW, and leaving them in may unnecessarily "weight" the scene NOW, giving it much more significance than it should have NOW.
Besides, they can put them back in next year, when they release "AI, the Super-de-duper bit, DTS 24/96 four disc set, with 28 hours of bonus material."
Basically, I agree with Al Brown.
Todd

 

[cafink]

The armchair aestheticians of the HTF don't recognize such examples, Al. For them, artistic freedom is a fine and wonderful thing -- until the artist does something they don't like.

Well, ignoring the condescending attitude and name-calling… What exactly is wrong with that? Steven Speilberg isn't giving "A.I." DVDs away for free — we have to pay for them. If I'm expected to pay good money for a product, it had damn well better be something I like!

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

I don't believe the film that we see at the theatres is the director's cut because most of the time the director doesn't get the final cut. It is the editor. You can make or break a film in the editing room and it isn't always the director's say.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I stand by what I said: change an existing work of art, and you do change history. Obviously, you're right in that it's his film, and he can put King Kong on the Empire State Building if he wants to pay the license fees. But that's not what's being debated.

I think that's exactly what's being debated here.
Even though we're only talking about a few frames, I don't want to minimize your concerns. It is, after all, a matter of principle that we're discussing. In my mind, an artist "owns" his work and has every right to revise it. That's the principle I'm working from.
You haven't explicitly stated an alternate principle that you believe trumps this one, but I think I can extrapolate one from your comments. As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong) you believe that revising a film is the same as revising history. If by that you mean "film history", then I certainly agree.* As I suggested earlier, this is something that artists throughout history have done - they have revised their own works. From da Vinci to Rembrandt to Walt Whitman to Stanley Kubrick, artists have worked from this very principle. Other artists, conversely, refuse to revisit a work once they've declared it "finished". Woody Allen, for example, is famous for this. For him, not only is a film "done" when it's "done", he refuses to even see it again once he's declared it "done".
This seems to be the extreme example of the principle that you're working from. When a film is "finished", it's "finished", and no one, not even the author of that film, is obliged to alter it ever again. Does this adequately express your opinion on the matter?
Actually, not quite. I still have one question: when is a work of art "finished" in your mind? Upon it's first public viewing, perhaps? Would you agree with a definition that states "once an artist has presented his/her work to the public, that artist shall no longer alter it". Is this an adequate expression of your opinion on the matter?
Obviously, I disagree with this position, but it's nonetheless a position worthy of debate. And I think it's important to clarify where we stand on this, what principles we're working from, because there has been lately a nearly impenetrable fog of bad analogies and non sequiturs obscuring the basic disagreement here.
So, have a honestly and correctly elucidated your position, or do you need to clarify it further?
*EDIT: Again, I think it's highly significant to recognize that Speilberg is or may be altering his film to accurately reflect a historical truth - the destruction of the world trade towers in the year 2001 - not to deny or revise that historical truth.
------------------
"Only one is a wanderer; two together are always going somewhere."

Link Removed
Al's Criterion Collection

 

[Michael Reuben]

Steven Speilberg isn't giving "A.I." DVDs away for free — we have to pay for them. If I'm expected to pay good money for a product, it had damn well better be something I like!

So you're saying that anyone who buys a DVD or a movie ticket should have some say over the contents of the film? (I hope not.)
M.

 

[cafink]

So you're saying that anyone who buys a DVD or a movie ticket should have some say over the contents of the film? (I hope not.)

No, I'm not saying that.

 

[Michael Reuben]

quote: No, I'm not saying that. [/quote] Then, with due respect, I don't understand your point. There's no question that we're all free to choose what works we will or won't support with our dollars. I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested otherwise. The issue currently under discussion is whether the artist should remain free to revise a work after a certain point in time.
Obviously, anyone who disagrees with the revisions isn't required to support them financially.
M.
[Edited last by Michael Reuben on October 31, 2001 at 10:37 AM]

 

[Todd Hochard]

quote: *EDIT: Again, I think it's highly significant to recognize that Speilberg is or may be altering his film to accurately reflect a historical truth - the destruction of the world trade towers in the year 2001 - not to deny or revise that historical truth.[/quote]I think this is the most important point.
The Ma Bells and Pan Ams are still around, under different names, but- and I don't mean to be disrespectful or crass here- the WTCs are GONE.
And this thread perfectly illustrates the point- that little scene now has too much significance. And, as shown previously, that certainly couldn't have been the intent. I'm guessing the scene was as simple as showing the NYC skyline in the future. But now, it has a life of its own. Heck, by reading some of the passionate responses here, that scene is more important than the movie itself.
That certainly couldn't be Speilberg's intention, even now, in light of recent "events."
Todd
[Edited last by Todd Hochard on October 31, 2001 at 10:26 AM]