Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"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.)
That the number of people who voluntarily checked off the box on their tax forms to contribute to the 911 fund had dropped off to 15,000 last year. It seems that once we've flown the flag, bought the FDNY t-shirt, shaved our heads, bought a gun and slapped ribbon magnets on the car we really aren't that scarred by the experience. Even people I know who live and work down there, who own businesses that were interrupted don't really have the time or the inclination to imagine themselves in a music video about the heroic efforts of a few people 6 years ago. And to be fair, the actual site looks more like an atomic power plant under contruction than anything intended to inspire awe. I'm sure it will be a servicable film - probably 45 minutes too long and there will be more tv news people outside the theater than inside watching it and Mr. Stone will eventually say something cryptic and stupid about how it's really all our own fault anyway. Or something like that.
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."
The fall of Saigon was 1975? (I guess you meant when we entered the conflict in the '60s, OK.)
Coming Home and Deer Hunter came out in '78
Apocolypse in '79
If there's a story to tell, a movie will be made. I'm just sorry it's Oliver Stone and the star of "The Rock" and "Con Air"--Mr. meaningful squinting--Nicholas Cage.
Barf.
No one person or groups of persons owns 9/11/01. Not the families of the deceased, not the grieving firemen and police officers, not Hollywood, not the GOP or the Democrats, not Karl Rove and certainly not George W. Bush.
WE, the people, own 9/11/01. It belongs to all of us. History will mark us for how we reacted to it.
Because it belongs to all of us, any of us is entitled to try and make sense of it, whether it be through essays, books, or, yes, movies. This is true irrespective of whether any or all of the rest of us ready to face what happened on that day. Leave the artists alone, we need them.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
