"Speaking the Unspeakable" Response

            Karen Randell brings up a good question: why are there no movies about 9/11? We all have seen dozens of news clips and photographs—better video documentation than almost any historical trauma in the past. So why not take all of that video and visual imagery and turn it into a movie? I do agree with Randell that television programs about 9/11 are more easily accepted than cinema because of their “informational” front, and also because of the splicing and segmentation that news clips offer, which allows the viewer to digest what they are seeing. However, I also believe that 9/11 was such a personal event that directors and writers are almost afraid to turn this trauma into “entertainment” for a fear of offending 9/11 victims and their families. Randell mentions that in Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, noises of the attack on the WTC are played for two minutes: screaming, sirens, and crashes, while the screen is black. While this does allow for the viewer to fill in their own memories for that day, I would image Moore was also overwhelmed with the task of chooses just a few images or videos to fit into such a monumental, personal moment. It just seems so daunting to make a 9/11 film that is not “informational” but “entertainment” without offending anyone or ignoring a viewer’s personal memories. For example, there is a documentary called “The Woman Who Wasn’t There,” centering on Alicia Esteve Head. Head is a woman who claimed she was a survivor of the 9/11 attacks. She told her story of survival and eventually became the president of the WTC Survivor’s Network. The only problem was: Head was nowhere near the Twin Towers when the attack occurred. Head was able to lie for so long because no one was willing to challenge her story of survival. Accusing anyone of making up such a personal, disturbing memory of a national trauma is insensitive and offensive, especially when the trauma is so fresh. This same hesitation to question Head, I believe, is a key factor in why no important 9/11 films have been created cinematically. Depicting this event for entertainment runs the risk of offending some if it’s not depicted correctly.

            However, sometimes depicting the aftermath of a trauma (as Campany) explains, can be easier and more melancholic. One significant, critically acclaimed 9/11 movie that garnered much attention was Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, a 2011 movie staring Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock. This is not a movie about the event itself, but about it’s aftermath. A boy is trying to discover a message from his father who died during the WTC attacks. This movie does not attempt to push one general memory about the event, but depicts a personal aftermath from the WTC that cannot be disputed because it is told through one person’s point of view. This, in some ways, eliminates some of the risk of offending other survivors. Their trauma is addressed but not to the tee, offering survivors and outlet to deal with their emotions through a fellow victim’s eye. It is important to note that this film was made 10 years after the event, giving at least a small amount of time to heal some of the wounds from that day. Also, the film is careful in it’s choice of actors (Hanks and Bullock were both named most trustworthy celebrities in a Reader’s Digest Poll), and the story is told through a child’s eyes to make the story more emotional, soft, and naive. It is also important to note that since this article, many movies (The World Trade Center, United 93, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) have been made about the attacks, suggesting that maybe America is ready to have this trauma explored.