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.
No comments:
Post a Comment