Every film needs an antagonist.
The newest Oliver Stone movie hits theaters this week. Stone is a good movie maker. By "good" I mean that he knows his craft and is adept at making pictures that move us. The problem is that by conservative standards, Stone is a political wacko who likes to make his films as a contribution to the left-wing agitprop (to use my new favorite word). The problem, then, is that his well-crafted propaganda is attractive and sells lot of tickets. The big question surrounding this movie then is, "will he get it right?" How will Oliver treat one of the most significant events in recent U.S. history?
Well, there are of course, two types of reviewers: those who like the movie and those who don't. This one calls it "a damn good movie". The emphasis of the review and the film is on its two central characters and the gut-wrenching ordeal they and their families go through. The reviewer warns that, "ignoring this film...dishonors the filmmaker, the actors and mostly the men [portrayed in the film]. 'World Trade Center' is about them, not about us. We are only being asked to appreciate what they endured." Well that's nice. We wouldn't want to dishonor the filmmaker.
Debbie Schlussel, on the other hand, sees the film another way. She writes, "this version will make conspiracy theorists--and extremist Muslims--very happy." Why? Because this version of 9/11 has been completely stripped clean of any and all references to the perpetrators of the attack. But, some may say, the focus of the movie is on the two policemen who are trapped in the rubble, not about the people who carried out the attacks. As one commenter on Schlussel's site puts it, "showing a movie about 9/11 without mentioning Islam or at the very least Al Queda terrorists is like making a movie about the Holocaust without once showing a Nazi or mentioning Germany." Quite true. So, what was the strange force that brought the buildings down? Who is the phantom enemy?
"United 93" beat "WTC" to theaters, but Stone hopes by being the first to reflect on the New York attacks to influence the films that will come after his by making the focus on the victims -- and on the U.S. (Schlussel gives us this insight from Stone: "Maybe later, I'll make another one, from a different perspective. . . " Like from Osama's perspective, perhaps?) The end of "WTC" is punctuated by a statement that reminds us that people "from 87 countries" died on 9/11. What's he trying to say there? That America wasn't the only victim? That the U.S. wasn't the sole target of the attack?
Maybe "attack" is too strong a word for the likes of Stone. As one of the stars of "WTC" put it, the U.S. has done "reprehensible things". Get that? After watching "WTC", we are supposed to believe that the U.S. is somehow the enemy. Sure, our cops and firemen in NYC are brave, but it was our own country's geopolitical/geomilitary action (in at least 86 other countries?) that ultimately brought those buildings down on the international representatives in New York.
So that's why there's no enemy in the movie. They're all sitting in the theater.
Well, there are of course, two types of reviewers: those who like the movie and those who don't. This one calls it "a damn good movie". The emphasis of the review and the film is on its two central characters and the gut-wrenching ordeal they and their families go through. The reviewer warns that, "ignoring this film...dishonors the filmmaker, the actors and mostly the men [portrayed in the film]. 'World Trade Center' is about them, not about us. We are only being asked to appreciate what they endured." Well that's nice. We wouldn't want to dishonor the filmmaker.
Debbie Schlussel, on the other hand, sees the film another way. She writes, "this version will make conspiracy theorists--and extremist Muslims--very happy." Why? Because this version of 9/11 has been completely stripped clean of any and all references to the perpetrators of the attack. But, some may say, the focus of the movie is on the two policemen who are trapped in the rubble, not about the people who carried out the attacks. As one commenter on Schlussel's site puts it, "showing a movie about 9/11 without mentioning Islam or at the very least Al Queda terrorists is like making a movie about the Holocaust without once showing a Nazi or mentioning Germany." Quite true. So, what was the strange force that brought the buildings down? Who is the phantom enemy?
"United 93" beat "WTC" to theaters, but Stone hopes by being the first to reflect on the New York attacks to influence the films that will come after his by making the focus on the victims -- and on the U.S. (Schlussel gives us this insight from Stone: "Maybe later, I'll make another one, from a different perspective. . . " Like from Osama's perspective, perhaps?) The end of "WTC" is punctuated by a statement that reminds us that people "from 87 countries" died on 9/11. What's he trying to say there? That America wasn't the only victim? That the U.S. wasn't the sole target of the attack?
Maybe "attack" is too strong a word for the likes of Stone. As one of the stars of "WTC" put it, the U.S. has done "reprehensible things". Get that? After watching "WTC", we are supposed to believe that the U.S. is somehow the enemy. Sure, our cops and firemen in NYC are brave, but it was our own country's geopolitical/geomilitary action (in at least 86 other countries?) that ultimately brought those buildings down on the international representatives in New York.
So that's why there's no enemy in the movie. They're all sitting in the theater.
posted by AdmiralDack | 8:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home