Spielberg: September 11 Film Should Never Happen (1 Viewer)

[Justin Spike]

I second Lars' opinion.

I would very much like to see an accurate, well researched picture (or book) from the terrorists point of view, detailing the events from conception up to, but not necessarily including, the attack itself.

I also think we'll start seeing films with fictional characters, where the attack will be peripheral to the story. I'm not so sure I welcome these yet.

 

[Steve Christou]

The danger of making a Sept 11 film from the terrorists point of view is that you have to show them justifying the attack somehow, this is not chaotic evil, it's carefully orchestrated and perfectly planned evil, but do these crazed fanatics see themselves as evil? The film would have to show them as people, and as George Bush said a year ago, what they did was beyond human comprehension.
No I can't imagine any director ever making a film from the terrorist point of view.

 

[Brian W.]

I agree -- it should not be anytime soon. But if Spielberg really means "never," he's hardly one to judge making films about tragic events.

 

[Vickie_M]

I disagree with Spielberg, but then, I think his comments were probably taken out of context and/or he wasn't given a chance to expand or explain. The media do love those easily jumponable sound bytes, don't they.
Anyway, there already are two films about 9/11, and both just played at the Toronto Film Festival.
The Guys: Adapted from Anne Nelson's play about a writer (Sigourney Weaver) with the anguishing task of helping a fire captain (Anthony LaPaglia) prepare eulogies for men killed Sept. 11 at the World Trade Center. You might think our collective hurt has greatly healed in a year, but it surges back watching these unlikely comrades in distress. Director Jim Simpson, Weaver's husband, offers a moving reminder of lost heroes and those grieving them. (Synopsis from the Yahoo page)
11/09/01: TORONTO--The 11 films by 11 filmmakers in the film "11/09/01," all trying to address 9/11 in 11 minutes, are uneven and not entirely satisfying. One wonders if the producers, who are from France, should have recruited directors of shorts rather than features, but four of them have undeniable impact, and one is devastating. ROGER EBERT (full review at URL)
I'm looking forward to both of these films.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

There has been a film made from the terrorist's perspective (although not related to 9/11). Conveniently enough, it's called The Terrorist. It's a fine Indian film that I imagine few have seen.

 

[Jean-Michel]

There's another 9/11 movie as well -- Underground Zero, two 70-minute programs of short films made by various "underground" directors. Wildly uneven (especially the second half) but I got to see it for free on Wednesday so there's not much point in complaining.

 

[Josh Lowe]

Do you agree? I'm not sure I do.

Spielberg didn't seem to have much of a problem with exploiting the horrors of the Holocaust or the intense violence and death found on D-Day for his own benefit.

i'd say he's suspect. sounds a little too much like he's talking down to the rest of the world, handing down his holy decree.

 

[Phil Florian]

On a side note, I read some article recently about a movie shot about Hitler as a young artist and his relationship with, I believe, a Jewish art dealer? Or somesuch stuff. Who would have thought we would ever do a movie trying to look underneath the 20th Centuries Most Evil One? I for one agree with those on here who want to know why people do what they do. To simply mark them off as simply "evil" with no dissection of what leads them to that path is completely asinine. I don't think we are ready for a movie about Sept. 11, though, from any perspective. The whole story hasn't been found out, yet and the repercussions are still being felt. I agree that it is the next generations job to "fictionalize" it in such a way that allows people to explore it. For us to do it now, it would amount to so much flag waving propaganda, anti-Arab/xenophobic drivel, or typical USA bashing. Neither option forwards the art of film.


Phil

 

[Josh Lowe]

Who would have thought we would ever do a movie trying to look underneath the 20th Centuries Most Evil One?

you mean darth vader?

 

[Vickie_M]

On a side note, I read some article recently about a movie shot about Hitler as a young artist and his relationship with, I believe, a Jewish art dealer?

That would be
Max: Portrait of the artist Hitler as a young man. In 1918 Munich, a Jewish art dealer (John Cusack) befriends aspiring painter Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor), trying to impart joy and artistic devotion to the disillusioned war vet and counter the young man's vile forays into hate-mongering. Writer-director Menno Meyjes creates a passionate dialectic that's frightening to watch for the human flourishes the future dictator reflects.
----- Taken from that same Yahoo Toronto Film Festival article.
Some of you are awfully quick to jump on Spielberg for something that appeared on IMDB "News" (that didn't even mention where and when Spielberg was supposed to have said this, or what the context was). I suspect some of you just don't like the man and his movies, and you'd be entering any thread about him and putting your negative two cents in.

 

[RichardK]

hmm lets see how old will speilberg be in 2045?... well not likely around to win an oscar for making the movie i assume... there is your answer for not wanting it to happen... end of story.

 

[Sean Oneil]

What the heck happened to that guy?

Did he forget about some of the films he directed?

Some of his best films were based upon actual tragedies..

Am I missing something here?

 

[Seth Paxton]

I was told by someone who saw a documentary a few days ago about Spielberg making some comments about him not making a film about the event. The reason cited was that this is already one of the highly documented events in recent memory and perhaps he doesn't have anything more to add.

This sounds a lot more reasonable, doesn't it. I wonder which I should believe, the possibly misquoted, highly hypocritical statement or something like the above statement.

I'm going to say that maybe SS was simply saying "what else is there to film or show?" With the Naudet brothers having their work right in the middle of it all, plus the thousands of other cameras that were soon focused on the events, I can't imagine any film ever being half as compelling as the real footage that already exists.

Part of the reason for historical period dramas is to see behind the scenes or show moments that were not caught on film.

After all, isn't "JFK" mostly about the conspiracy theories around the shooting, rather than recreating that day which is so (in)famously captured already.

 

[Seth Paxton]

If the discussion is about a wham-bam action movie about 2 firefighters who are in love with the same woman, and one of them die in the WTC attack, and the surviving fireman later joins the army to fight against Al-Qaida in Afghanistan... well, I agree THAT movie shouldn't be made.

And it's not just because of how recent and brutal the tragedy is either.
The one silver lining in the whole cloud. Most of us might never have to see the Bruckheimer-esque version of 9-11.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

People, can't you see that Moe and Edwin are right!? There is one reason, and I mean ONE reason only to make a film about 9/11...

Money.

What has been painfully absent in this thread so far, and i'm frankly shocked at it, is the fact that 9/11 is the most well photographed and documented tragedy in our history! Will this evidence not exsist in 50 years for that generation to see and read?

What the hell would be the point of this would be film!? Give me one justifiable reason why this film should be made, just one. You can't because no point exsists, none, nada, zip, zero!

As far as i'm concerned, Jules and Gedeon Naudet already produced THE definitive experience of what it was like that day and they almost died doing it, no further big budget blockbuster directed by Michael Bay Jr. in 50 years is needed in the slightest.

Not every tragedy needs, OR SHOULD, be made into a movie. If you can't tell already, I agree whole heartedly with Spielberg.

Leave it alone.

As far as a film from the terrorists point of view is concerned, I don't give a shit what those twisted bastards points of view are!

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

What has been painfully absent in this thread so far, and i'm shocked at it, is the fact that 9/11 is the most well photographed and documented tragedy in our history!

You must have skipped over my post.

~Edwin

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Apologies Edwin, what I meant was is that no one is mentioning that simple fact as much as it should be mentioned except for a few.

I saw your post.

 

[Jeff]

If Spielberg wasn't misquoted then he will feel pretty silly from saying that, a few years from now.

It's funny when people can make dozens of terrorist movies about Americans getting killed but when the real thing happens you want to keep it hush, hush.

Any bets this thread won't last long?



Jeff

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

But Jeff, those other films are fictional, 9/11 was real, certaintly you can see the distinction. I wouldn't take a film like say Collateral Damage seriously because it's fictional. With all the footage that exsists of 9/11, hundreds of hours perhaps more, a film is not needed, that's the bottom line here.
Thier were no camera's at Omaha beach to fully film and document what happened, and thier were no camera's to fully film and document the holocaust, or Titanic, nowhere near as thoroughly as 9/11 anyway.
This is why those films were made. They give us an eye, as accurate as possible, into event's that we could not, and did not witness for ourselves. Future generations will be able to witness 9/11 as well through the hours of footage shot that day. Far more impacting and sad than anything Hollywood could come up with.
A film would be a waste of both time and money.
Is the footage of the Towers collapsing not horrifying enough for real? We don't need to see it done by Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker sound.
Why should the thread be closed, were speaking civil enough IMO.

 

[RichardMA]

Max: Portrait of the artist Hitler as a young man. In 1918 Munich, a Jewish art dealer (John Cusack) befriends aspiring painter Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor), trying to impart joy and artistic devotion to the disillusioned war vet and counter the young man's vile forays into hate-mongering. Writer-director Menno Meyjes creates a passionate dialectic that's frightening to watch for the human flourishes the future dictator reflects.

I'd always heard that one of the reasons Hitler hated
the Jews was that as an art student, he'd been told by
his Jewish (or predominantly Jewish) teachers that he
wasn't that talented. What I fear is that being an American
film, they will wallow in melodrama, instead of trying to
show just the facts. I see Cusack coming off as another
"saint" like David Schwimmer in the vastly overrated
"American History X." It seems that American audiences
are incapable of appreciating differences between people
without those differences being absolutely night and day,
no shades of gray.