Overall I found this article engaging to read because the events being discussed are somewhat current. 9/11 is, after all, very recent in all of our memories. In her article, Randell considers the question of why films about 9/11, or other traumatic events, are not created until sometimes many years after. She argues that this gap between the events and films about the events "is symptomatic of the cultural climate that exists after a national traumatic event and can also be understood in terms of the need for temporal space in which to assimilate its various traumas."(197) In other words, after an event like 9/11, the nation as a whole needs to be able to process the event as well as the shock and emotions that came after. She further notes that even when films about these events come out, they often displace the anxieties surrounding them onto fantasy stories detached from reality, like Spiderman (197-198). Films like Spiderman/Spiderman II and the events in them evoke the memories of past traumatic events.
Television does something similar, but is different from cinema in that it provides a "fragmented return to the site of trauma."(200) By cutting up scenes and giving different perspectives on the event, the revisiting of the trauma is made more manageable and is critical to the healing of a nation's psyche (200). Although Randell argues this, I'm not sure if I can completely agree. I'm not sure if showing these traumatic events over and over again is repairing the trauma of a nation's psyche, or just numbing it. When I see images from 9/11 being broadcasted on television, all I wish is that I didn't have to look at it again. Why are they showing it again and again? Am I the only one who feels this way about it? It makes me feel hopeless in a way. That's why I don't watch the news anymore.
4 comments:
I agree with you- I feel similarly about what you describe as 'hopelessness'. It is hard to watch traumatic clips/stills, because in a way it numbs the importance of what you're really watching. News stations are constantly broadcasting horrible events with similar images, that we forget what we are looking at and kind of lose touch with the realness of the situation. I see both sides of this issue- that it is important to visualize something, but there comes a point where I'm not sure how much 'good' it is doing, outside of (in a way), glamorizing trauma.
To the point about reliving images from 9/11 over and over again-- you are not alone in feeling that way. Every time there is a special on 9/11 or a tribute to the firefighters, my father always rants about how the constant updates and reliving keep the trauma fresh in our minds and make it impossible to move past it. That is not to say that we should forget 9/11 completely, but I guess it is just such a controversial, touchy subject that everyone feels differently about.
Like I mentioned in my blog post, it is interesting how some movies use traumatic events to inspire (Spider-Man), yet some movies are pulled from production for a fear of offending viewers in the aftermath of such a shock. Personally, when I saw the author writing about "Spider-Man" I was a little surprised that such a popular, fan based movie series was being referenced for such a serious article. However, Randell proved that "Spider-Man" was using the trauma as an opportunity to show loyalty and strength in survivors. But like the article said, images of the WTC were photoshopped out of movie posters to respect victims and to make sure no negative emotions were riled up so soon after the attacks. This is mirrored during the Dark Knight Rises shootings when James Holmes opened fire in a movie theater during the Batman screening. After this attack, previews for the movie "Gangster Squad" were pulled because they included scenes where a movie theater was shot up. This goes to show that timing during national traumas is very important: when to show graphic footage, when to show the aftermath, when to depict similar traumas.
I feel that Hollywood movies that center around traumatic events have a similar numbing effect to replayed television clips but in a slightly different way. Hollywood movies, despite their ability to accurately recreate the setting of a traumatic event, are always simply recreating it. I feel that, as a viewer of a film, knowing that the event has been recreated trivializes it in some sense. It turns the event into a spectacle. These films become ninety minute snapshots of events which have lifelong repercussions. Do people watch war movies for their action or to relive their historical significance? I feel that this is especially relevant for events such as 9/11 that we all experienced. I don't need to see actors play the firefighters from 9/11 when many of those firefighters are still living and are able to tell their own stories. In this way I can see how Hollywood films almost betray the cultural impact of these events.
Andrew I love your point! Why give more visual symbolism for what happened when the people who are living/breathing symbols of what happened are still with us? I don't quite understand it either...And these films are meant to be big box office hits that bring in consumers. I'm just trying to think of what repercussions this might create in the long run...
Post a Comment