- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"But if movies about 9/11 have to be made at all -- and no one has yet answered the question, for me, at least, of why we should need or want them just yet..."
Why not?
Since when do artists (even mediocre ones) need a "why" to paint, write, film, dance, sing, etc.?
Is Zacharek so shallow as to think that even as enormous as 9/11 doesn't need to be addresses in cinema? (I already know the answer to this: Yes. Stephanie Zacharek is a hopelessly shallow film critic.)
The mere fact that one of the most common comments from witnesses to the attacks ("It was like a movie") begs, even demands, cinematic responses to the event. The fact that it is a story experienced by thousands and shared by millions also demands films about the attacks of 9/11 and the aftermath.
It's a stupid question. "Do movies about 9/11 have to be made at all?" I doubt Zacharek has actually asked the question of anyone. If she has, then she didn't even bother to do the simplest intellectual exercise of such questions by substitution other historic events: "Do movies about Vietnam have to be made?" WWII? The Civil War?
Or simply ask the question of other topics found in recent films: Do movies about pedophilia have to be made at all, Stephanie? Do we – should we – want or need them just yet?
Perhaps it's the contemporaneous nature of the events and the movies that bothers Zacharek. "Why should we need or want movies about 9/11 just yet?" Zacharek wonders. Perhaps she would rather artists wait ten years before addressing the event. The question not only demonstrates a resounding insensitivity to issues of art and society, but also displays Zacharek's ignorance of cinema history and criticism.
One of the most apparent characteristics of cinema (discussed in reams of criticism and analysis) is its "immediacy." Unlike any other medium, cinema (and it's offspring, television) is able to communicate the impact of "real" events, either through documentary filming or narrative recreation. A film like "Hearts and Minds" is not only capable of reaching more people that a book by David Halberstam, but the moving images are far more powerful and communicative than their still counterparts. There is the black-and-white still image of the burned child running from the napalm bombings. Then there is the moving image, along with the sounds; she is running toward the camera, toward you; her skin is peeling before your very eyes. Most of the other tactile arts address only one of the five senses, while cinema works (at minimum) on two – sight and hearing.
Regarding Vietnam, cinema critics and historians have long noted something odd about that war: it was nearly a decade before someone made a movie about it. The war-happy John Wayne film, "The Green Berets," was the only film made during the war. It was almost the eighties before we got "The Deer Hunter" and "Apocalypse Now."
Did we need films about Vietnam in 1969? Some would say we did. We could certainly have used them in 1974. But it was five years before we'd have narrative films that took a critical look at the war and attempted to assess its human cost to America as well as Vietnam. Ironically, it's been five years since the towers fell.
Also ironic: Oliver Stone was one of the filmmakers who attempted to view the experience of Vietnam through a variety of lenses. Oliver Stone made his career with a trilogy of films that sought to examine this war and its aftermath on individuals. Stone deliberately chooses and courts controversy in his film and his opinions. He has never gotten an easy ride from critics because of it. Critics on the right accuse him of hating America, while critics on the left accuse him of exploitation.
Zacharek's non-question is really just another example of a critic looking for an easy way to kick at Stone and his films. It's stupid of her to even ask such a question, and it's lazy of her to avoid addressing or answering it.
But that's the historic role of artists and critics: the artists ask questions, and the critics wonder whether anyone should be asking questions. (Other than the critic, that is.)
