I have not seen the movie trailer for Flight 93 in the theaters, but I did see it via CNN's video link. In fact, I haven't seen any movie in the theaters since the The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe last year. But that is not the issue here.
We're 4.5 years removed from that horrible day, and we're still fighting the war that the US finally recognized was being fought against it for years prior to 9/11/2001. Some people think that this is too soon to see a movie about 9/11. Others think that the media needs to do a better job of replaying events of that horrible day when Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes and attempted to not only destroy the WTC, but to damage the Pentagon and destroy the Capitol building.
Everyone reacts differently to watching the trailer, and I'm sure people would come away from seeing the movie with different reactions as well. My first visceral reaction to watching the trailer was the chill that ran down my spine seeing the planes, confused air traffic controllers struggling to figure out what was going on, the fleeting images of the WTC burning, and knowing where all this led. And it got me angry (again).
Mrs. Lawhawk commented to me last night if a simple trailer showing the name would have been sufficient to convey that this movie was opening in just a few short weeks. I'm sure that it would, and I'm sure that even a blank screen with the name of the movie and the subhead or a picture of the plane or WTC would have evoked a reaction, perhaps one that caused people discomfort.
That's part of the point of Hollywood, as Hollywood itself likes to think of its movies. They aren't just making art, but statements on society, life, and politics. They want movies that will spark reactions and get people thinking. As in Good Night, and Good Luck, Crash, and Brokeback Mountain from this past year alone (all nominated for Academy Awards). Well, one recent event that should spark a reaction and get people thinking is 9/11. And a movie about 9/11 will certainly generate a reaction.
The question isn't why are people so traumatized by seeing movie images evoking the feelings of that day but, a) whether people reacting differently to this than they did to movies showing Pearl Harbor attacks and WWII in general, and b) why this is the case.
Hollywood ran a series of films - Why We Fight, to show the horrors of war and to keep people focused on ultimate victory. The first of those films, Prelude to War aka "Why We Fight, 1" - was produced in 1943. Six additional films were produced with the last released in 1945, which detailed the attack on Pearl Harbor. These were films showing the brutality of war all while the war was going on. Frank Capra directed those films. These movies were released concurrent with the war and shown repeatedly throughout the war.
Meanwhile, Victory at Sea was a 24 episode series produced in 1952, which fell right in the middle of another bloody war - this time in Korea. That was seven years after the end of World War II, and 11 years after Pearl Harbor.
These films were produced at a time when there was no 24 hour news cycle, and it still took time for events around the world to reach back to the US.
Yet, the reaction was one showing the brutality of war, the events that led up to the conflicts, and the personalities involved. It didn't attempt to gloss over the brutalities, or the horrors that the Nazis and the Axis powers inflicted on Europe, Asia, and North Africa. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that we had millions of soldiers under arms, and many of them never came home, and many more came home grievously wounded - and it was a stark and vivid reminder of what we were up against. Those movies that were published couldn't possible compete with the fact that so many fought, were wounded, or died serving this country.
In the current era, we have far fewer men and women serving in the military and most people didn't even recognize that we were at war (well, our enemies had declared war against the US numerous times, and it took 9/11 to get the US to belatedly react), so the horrors of 9/11 are far more vivid. Cameras are pervasive and the imagery of 9/11 is easily accessed. Although some, including Sean Hannity, claim that the media outlets aren't showing video from 9/11 anymore, the release of the 911 tapes from the WTC on 9/11, did prompt the networks to run video and images of the attacks, including the collapses at least in the NY area. And I haven't seen people condemn the networks for showing those videos again with each broadcast.
Also, it's a different media environment that we're living in today, but that doesn't mean that the trailers should have been pulled. And as far as the producers of the movie are concerned, there's no such thing as bad press - as this gets the movie press coverage it might not ordinarily have received had there been no such actions by individual movie theaters.
I suppose that some people might be offended having to sit through trailers to movies that they would find objectionable or never want to see, as opposed to the fact that no one forces people to pay money to see the movie of their choice.
Ed Driscoll has more.
No comments:
Post a Comment