You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Lileks: "Why No Movie of 9-11?"
2004-04-15
This will sound crass, but bear with me.

9/11 would make a hell of a movie.

It’s the most dramatic day of modern times. The story lines are clear; it writes itself. You don’t have to make up heroic characters; every minute has a dozen. No Hollywood falsities need intrude – no star-crossed lovers, no cheerful archetypes, no swelling music (take a cue from “A Night to Remember,” which didn’t introduce an orchestral score until halfway through, to great effect.) Just tell the story as it happened that day, and people would cram the theaters by the millions. Just like they went to see “The Passion.” And with the same emotions, I’d bet: from the opening moments the audience would have the same sick clot in their stomachs, the same old throb of dread we all felt during “Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private Ryan.” This wasn’t pleasant, but it was important to see it, and know.

It doesn’t demean the day to make a movie of it, anymore than it would be an insult to write a novel about the events. Movies are how we tell stories; they’re the means by which the culture coalesces around certain ideas, or learns which ideas they should coalesce around.

And that’s the problem. I wonder whether Hollywood execs shy from a 9/11 movie because they think it might send the wrong message.

It would anger people anew, and we’re supposed to be past that. It would remind us what was done to us instead of rubbing out noses in what we do to others – I mean, unless you have a character in the second tower watching the plane approaching and saying “My God, this is payback for supporting Israel!” it’s going to come across as simplistic nonsense that denies the reality in the West Bank, okay? It would have to tread lightly when it came to the President, because even though we all knew that he wet his pants and ran to hide, we’d have to pretend and do scenes in Air Force One where he’s taking charge instead of crying help mommy to Dick Cheney, right? I mean the idiots in flyover people believe that stuff, and you’d have to give it to them or they write letters with envelopes that have these little pre-printed return address stickers with flags up in the corner. Seriously. Little flag stickers. Anyway, we would have to show Arab males as the bad guys, and that’s not worth the grief; you want to answer the phone when CAIR sees the dailies of the guys slitting the stewardess’ throats? And here’s the big one: if we make a patriotic movie during Bush’s term, well, it doesn’t help the cause, you know. People liked Bush after 9/11. Why remind them of that? Plus, you can just kiss off the European markets, period.

Richard Clarke’s book is available? Here’s a blank check. Option that sucker.

It’s like it's 1943, and Hollywood turns down a Pearl Harbor movie in favor of the gripping account of a Washington bureaucrat who warned FDR that the oil embargo would needlessly anger Japan. The attack on Hawaii would take up five minutes – and even then it would be a shot of the hero listening to the radio with an expression of stoic anguish. If only they'd listened.

I think people would like these stories to be told, but we can’t have war movies anymore unless it’s an old war, or one that happened in some place with an oversupply of consonants. It’s not that Hollywood is unpatriotic or wishes America to lose; they’d bristle at the charge. But they want Bush to lose first and foremost, and after that we’ll see what happens. To make a movie about The War admits that there is a war, and sometimes I think a third of the country rejects this notion out of hand. We’re only at war because Bush made us go to war! or we’re only at war because we don’t let Interpol handle it! or some such delusion. I swear: there are people who see the conflict in such narrow terms that if Bush on 9/1 had announced he was forcing Israel back to pre-67 borders, and the hijackers had heard the news in the cockpit, they would have hit the autopilot and let the planes resume their original course.

These are usually the people who think we are at war with a specific group with a hyphenated name, not an idea. These are often the people who realize that these hyphenated foes reside in a particular part of the world in which Iraq is literally the epicenter, and they cannot see the advantage to going there and staying there. Maybe we’re engaged in something larger than the vagaries of the election cycle, something that deserves to be worked through in the most popular storytelling idiom of our time.
Posted by:Steve

#6  Mike K. Kick ass and take names latter. I wish you great success. Clear headed good vs bad. Take that and run. For every PC bread and butter piece of blather write ten anti PC truth bombs.

Quality writers! Like fine brandy. Some time their will be a grown-up rich enough to put together a studio thats unafraid to make entertainment that isn't afraid!!!! Like Mel Gibson!!!!!!
Posted by: Lucky   2004-04-16 12:07:43 AM  

#5  I've always thought there should be two. #1 is about the WTC, from ten minutes before the first crash to the second collapse. Tell the whole event in real time, no musical score, no stock footage. Include Rick Rescorla, the red bandanna man, the Naudet brothers.

#2 is Flight 93. 'Nuff said.

Mr. Kozlowski, feel free to pick these up and run with 'em.
Posted by: Mike   2004-04-15 3:00:17 PM  

#4  Let me tell y'all a story.
I'm a budding screenwriter - haven't sold anything yet, but getting closer every day. Had an dea couple of months back for a screenplay called Thunder Run - about the charge into Baghdad. Figured it had EVERYTHING. Typed up a synopsis - straight from the actual AAR, which is on-line - and sent it to my agent, who was 110% in favor of it.
A couple weeks later this is the call I get: Forget it. Nobody wants to do a WoT movie right now because they are basically terrified that they will make a movie about a US victory and there will be some kind of horrible reversal that will leave them with an unreleasable film. If I want to write a Rambo-like fantasy, they'll look at that - but forget anything realistic.
BTW, kiss anything about 9/11 goodbye as well - the studios are convinced that the Three Thousand Families will insist on final approval of the script and story, and there is no way they'll be able to say no without looking bad.
The bottom line seems to be that there is no actual bias against such a movie because of the subject, but rather the imponderables that could knock it out of the game.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2004-04-15 1:06:44 PM  

#3  Im sure there will be one... starring Leonardo DeCapuchino and Kate Winslett. Of course Celine Dion will sing the theme.

"Don't you give up, you are going to die an old woman, in a warm bed, surrounded by your children, crapping in a plactic bag.", "Oh Jack, Im soo cold."
Posted by: JackAssFestival   2004-04-15 11:50:16 AM  

#2  DC 9-11: Time of Crisis was a Showtime movie of the events. It was all from the President and his staff's point of view, came off more as a documentary than an actual movie, but it was pretty good which is probably why the left that noticed it, villify it.
Posted by: ruprecht   2004-04-15 11:19:59 AM  

#1  As I pointed out on my site, there was a movie about the 1993 WTC attack: Path to Paradise. HBO movie, available on VHS. Pretty good for a TV movie; starts with Kahane's assassination and runs to the arrest of Yussef. There's a prescient "we'll be back to knock it down" moment at the end.

Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-04-15 10:43:39 AM  

00:00