babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » World Trade Center: The Movie

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: World Trade Center: The Movie
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 03 August 2006 06:24 PM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
World Trade Center

Just saw an advert for it on television.

During the weeks after 9/11, I wondered how long it would be before someone made a movie of it. I'm still shocked, though.

I'm also angry. The movie industry should not be profiting from the death of 3,000 innocent people.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 03 August 2006 06:51 PM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But by that rationale, all those great WWII movies are profiteering from the deaths of 50 million people.

Oliver Stone doesn't have the most nuanced, subtle vision of all the directors out there, but he's a hell of a lot better than most. Maybe it is a bit soon, but art has always acted as a catharsis for traumatic events.

I'm not familiar with Oliver's politics. He's not a ra-ra Bush kind of guy, is he? "Platoon" would suggest not.


From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 03 August 2006 07:11 PM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sineed, the other thing that upsets me about this movie is that it puts 9/11 back in the spotlight during the runup to US midterm elctions in November. Just what we don't need.
From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 04 August 2006 03:25 AM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting point; I didn't think of that. However, I would argue that maybe the focus on 9/11 will remind the American electorate of how badly Dubya has botched things since then, from letting Osama get away in Afghanistan to lying about Iraq's involvment in order to wage war.

And recall how the release of "Fahrenheit 911" before the last presidential election didn't hurt Bush, in the minds of some maybe even helping him by making some voters think their president was under unfair attack by "radical" elements of the media. And perhaps some of the more elaborate efforts to discredit Kerry, like the Swift Boats veterens campaign, were inspired by "Fahrenheit 911."


From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 04 August 2006 03:32 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the movie sounds rather corny, and somewhat exploitive as I doubt the victims families will get compensation. I must admit that I've never been a big fan of Nicholas Cage though, because he seems pretty overwrought to me, so I probably wouldn't enjoy the movie that much to begin with.

Then again I suppose it was inevitable that the movie was going to be made, and yeah I'd agree, that any movie about historical events will be exploitive to an extent. As for the comparison to WW2, that's not quite accurate because that was an actual war. Unless of course you think that 9/11 was an act of war, as opposed to the traditional definition of terrorism where its considered to be a criminal activity.

[ 04 August 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 04 August 2006 06:51 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sineed:
But by that rationale, all those great WWII movies are profiteering from the deaths of 50 million people.

That was my thought too. If you don't think the movie industry should be making money from a movie about an event that killed 3000 people, what did you think of Schindler's List?


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 04 August 2006 07:19 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I refuse to go support it. I don't think I'd even download it if I had the chance.

Nothing like Rich movie industries soaking up every bit of blood in turn for more profit heh?

On the other hand they did the same with most other trajedies. Pearl Harbour etc.

ETA: I'd be slightly happier if they emphasize the sorrow for those who lost their lives.

[ 04 August 2006: Message edited by: Who? ]


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605

posted 04 August 2006 07:26 AM      Profile for EmmaG        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Who?:
I refuse to go support it. I don't think I'd even download it if I had the chance.

Nothing like Rich movie industries soaking up every bit of blood in turn for more profit heh?

On the other hand they did the same with most other trajedies. Pearl Harbour etc.


[ 04 August 2006: Message edited by: Who? ]


So is it your view that no movies should be made about any tragedies involving war, murder, etc. that are based on real events? I think anyone should be able to make a film on any subject they choose. Just don't go see it if you don't agree, which I'm sure is the path you're going to take.


From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 04 August 2006 07:46 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It would probably be a great movie if it went into the backgrounds and lives of the terrorists who actually highjacked the planes. Looked at their motivations cinematically. Lots of scenes in 1990s Saudi Arabia, etc, climaxing with the 9/11 replay for the last 20 minutes / half hour (at MOST) of the movie.

From what I have heard, this is not the movie Stone is making.

Schlindler's List was great because people knew the background of WWII enough so that the drama was well-contextualized. I don't think 9/11 movies should be approached the same way because the audience's background knowledge of the relevant history isn't the same.

[ 04 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 04 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]


From: 4341' N7938' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 August 2006 07:48 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I feel the same way. I think movies about world events are fine. Why shouldn't real life influence art?

Also, as for compensation - didn't the families already get thousands (or even tens of thousands) of dollars in compensation? I'm not positive about this, but I seem to remember there being quite a controversy over how the families got a decent chunk of change out of it, and how some complained because it wasn't enough.

Pardon me: it was millions.

I wouldn't worry too much over how much money they won't be seeing from the movie.

[ 04 August 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605

posted 04 August 2006 07:51 AM      Profile for EmmaG        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michael Moore also made millions off of Farenheit/911, which was released much sooner than this movie. I'm wondering whether there were any objections to his profits?

[ 04 August 2006: Message edited by: EmmaG ]


From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 04 August 2006 07:54 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EmmaG:
Michael Moore also made millions off of Farenheit/911, which was released much sooner than this movie. I'm wondering whether there were any objections to his profits?

[ 04 August 2006: Message edited by: EmmaG ]


The majority of objections came from the RNC and the right.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 04 August 2006 08:01 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I haven't seen F911, but I found it interesting that Michael Moore started making a movie about why the US military did such a bad job at intercepting the highjacked flights, but ended up making a movie about the Iraq War.

I wonder whether that was Moore's artistic / political decision in light of changing circumstaces circa 2003, or whether something else was at work there.


From: 4341' N7938' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 04 August 2006 08:05 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All kinds of events, from the founding of Rome to Guernica to Frankie and Johnnie are chronicled, as history, as art and as folklore.
The participants - hero, villain, victim, witness or presiding leader - are part of a public event, and thus, public property for purposes of the chronicle. They're not supposed to profit.

Whether the chronicler profits depends on the contemporary audience and is irrelevant to the cultural value of the product. That depends on whether the product strikes any deep chord in the collective consciousness - only time will tell.

I haven't seen this movie, but probably will sometime. I hope i'll be able to judge it on its factual accuracy, fairness and artistic merit - rather than on my own political bias.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 04 August 2006 08:17 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I probably won't see it, but only because I don't have any expectation of it being entertaining. I fully expect hokey overdone dramatics with formulaic character subplots. Titanic and Pearl Harbor were like that, and they both sucked.

I like war movies. They don't make enough movies like Patton these days. Saving Private Ryan was pretty good. Band of Brothers was a great mini-series.

I have no objection to the movie being made, though.

I respect other people's right to avoid the movie if it offends them.

[ 04 August 2006: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 04 August 2006 08:47 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EmmaG:

So is it your view that no movies should be made about any tragedies involving war, murder, etc. that are based on real events? I think anyone should be able to make a film on any subject they choose. Just don't go see it if you don't agree, which I'm sure is the path you're going to take.


On second thought I probably spoke too soon. I envisioned the typical Hollywood version. The commercials didn't look too promising but then again you can't judge a book by its cover.

And for the record, political affiliations aside I do think Michael Moore's an idiot. F9/11 however did sympathise somewhat with victims which I respect however his questionable suggestions about GWB did him no favours. If you want to bring someone down, do it with facts. Not suggestive drivel.


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 04 August 2006 10:15 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
the other thing that upsets me about this movie is that it puts 9/11 back in the spotlight during the runup to US midterm elctions in November. Just what we don't need.

I don't think it's gonna make much of a difference on that front. I'd imagine that anyone who is a potential Bush voter already keeps 9/11 pretty close to the top of their consciousness already.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 04 August 2006 10:47 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stone is an over-director and Cage is an over-actor, so I don't plan on seeing the film. Nonetheless, I have no problem with creating a film based on the event itself. I remember how glued everyone was to the news during the attack. Clearly, it's an event which will spawn stories, myths, facts, and art for quite some time.

That said, I do find the timing of the release a little suspicious. I don't think Stone is a Necropublican. I suspect any political considerations into it's release came from the studio bagmen.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kenehan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12163

posted 04 August 2006 11:02 AM      Profile for Kenehan     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sineed:
I'm not familiar with Oliver's politics. He's not a ra-ra Bush kind of guy, is he? "Platoon" would suggest not.

Ra-Ra Bush guys tend not to be seen in photos like this:

Stone is a lot of things but he's no Rebublican.

Watch Born on the Fourth of July or Salvador.


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 04 August 2006 02:00 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Who?
quote:
And for the record, political affiliations aside I do think Michael Moore's an idiot. F9/11 however did sympathise somewhat with victims which I respect however his questionable suggestions about GWB did him no favours. If you want to bring someone down, do it with facts. Not suggestive drivel.

Michael Moore is nothing remotely like an idiot. I'm not crazy about his cinematic technique, but i respect his research. You can diasgree with his politics, his agenda, his social stance, his affiliations, his style, his artistic vision. You can dislike his work. But you can't easily refute his factual base. Innuendo? Check it: every single thing he said about GWB is backed up by at least two other sources. Bring him down? Facts are inconsequential to public opionion. Somewhat sympathetic to the victims? He barely got started: there were plenty of victims more pathos-worthy who didn't make it into the movie.
I'm half hoping for another MM film on Iraq... probably, the US won't allow him in to make one.

EmmaG:

quote:
Michael Moore also made millions off of Farenheit/911, which was released much sooner than this movie. I'm wondering whether there were any objections to his profits?

There may have been objections, but, as most of it was channelled into Katrina relief, nobody's gonna win much in a legal action.

[ 04 August 2006: Message edited by: nonsuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
what'sleft?
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12467

posted 08 August 2006 01:09 AM      Profile for what'sleft?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Surprising, considering he made JFK, that Oliver Stone's 9/11 film isn't more like this one, which is quite interesting and convincing.
From: the first world | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
erroneousrebelrouser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12363

posted 06 September 2006 10:59 AM      Profile for erroneousrebelrouser   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's left; your Google page didn't bring up any image or message, at least from where I am sitting. I wonder if you want to relate to it; or provide another link? Maybe. Anway, thanks for the effort. (Maybe I don't have the right media player, either).

My opinion of Oliver Stone reminds me of an interview from "Inside the Actors Studio" with some artist as a guest and answering a question about her feelings about Stone and working with him; I rememember one stating that she felt he was a "genius" -- I've heard other artist's feelings portrayed similiarly regarding conversations where Stone is brought up, and his body of work.

I think if I would have wanted any director to take on this project, it would be him. Actually I hate to say this; but I probably believe that it was actually hard for him to wait five years to do this project and release it. He was probably chomping at the bit to do it for some time now. He has a way of storytelling that is sometimes fascinating; as in Natural Born Killers and movies like JFK; Nixon...and his ambitious projects like the more rescent Alexander...these lofty achievements are always going to be controversial and comparative to other directors; such as Tarantino and others who use a lot of blood and gore to receive and achieve sensationalism and a cult status, as is obvious in other films that come to mind as of late.

It can't be an easy thing to do obviously; but I have to say that I admire him for his attempts. When a director has an image that he want to portray and artistically project and define his direction, make it believable, authentic and understandable to a general audience -- it has to be applauded. Never mind the subject matter; although people are always going to be objectionable about it. (Especially when innocent people are killed) Regardless of the scale. To compare it to WWII is not an accurate parallel; at least to the point that Americans were quite off-guard and stunned at the events which unfolded on that day. Never in the history of air traffic were all planes directed to land, all in the course of one day. It is unparallelled in history; and as told by the ones who participated in it...was quite astonishing; as told by air traffic controllers and the ones who carried out the commands to get the planes on the ground -- nobody really knew what was going on; one plane after another just started to disappear -- as it began to unfold that our Country was under attack it must have been quite hard to grasp for those people...I remembered watching and will not soon forget the feelings that were reeling inside of me. And I didn't have a loved one who worked at the Trade Center; still no one knew what direction that day would take. By the time most of America woke up that day and realized what was going on our Commander in Chief was and had been already in the air, and had been soon after the planes hit. That day. It's still shocking and disconcerting, even now; as I'm sitting here and remembering. That's why it's easy to understand people's emotions about not wanting to see the movie. It is quite understandable.

But regarding his work; I have always thought that Stone's work with color vs. black and white images; and sometimes throwing the images off with crude camcorder reflections; seemed to make the movie viewer feel like it was more real and that they were closer to the project. I thought that Nixon was one of the most brilliant movies that he has ever made. Anthony Hopkins portrayed his vision of the life of this former President, slowly losing his mind through the times he was going through and the underhandedness in which he worked; still shocked at the end, feigning innocence with tears and shame; and his obvious inability to rationalize and come to grips with his horrible persona and the consequences of his actions that those closest to him were 'privileged' to have to deal with, attempt to cover up, protect, and inevitably could do nothing to save this man; who himself was his own worst enemy, falling apart at the seams. I loved how he put this movie together. Now that was a lofty project; but it was told better than almost any other movie that I've ever seen; aside from movies like Shindler's List, and The Pianist.

I'm sure that he will receive harsh criticism for doing this movie; but I also believe that others will try to do versions of this movie, and profit from it as well. Although it seems impossible for me to try to understand what it must be like to have lost someone under the circumstances with what that day represented; (I can't imagine ever achieving closure; I won't even try to understand what it must feel like) But having said that, I feel that Stone is more interested, personally; being that he is actually from New York, in telling the story than reaping any benefits from it; in terms of financial gain. This is clear from the controversial choices that he has made and the risks that he has taken in the past, and has survived almost in a way that he is almost fearless in his undertakings as well as the subject matter. If he feels passionately about it; he wants to do it. I at least applaud him for that.

There will be many versions of this story told, probabaly. I feel that it is just inevitable. People are still churning out WWII movies and Vietnam movies; and even if they're not the same as conclusions are drawn, it's still sensationalism and sensationalism sells tickets; still I believe that Stone wants to tell the story more than anything.

I don't really like Cage either; I could imagine that his ego was (or is) big enough to put himself in that movie; and if I have any critism it would be that. He wouldn't even be in the business probably if his uncle wasn't Francis Ford Coppolla. Aka Nicolas Coppolla. But he's not a bad actor; he's passionate. He was passionate about leaving this world in Leaving Las Vegas- (a role he won best actor for his portrayal of a tragic alcoholic) --although I really never could understand a role where somebody would hate their life so badly that they allowed themselves to fuck up so much and at such an alarming pace; that they achieved liver failure in a matter of a week or two. Or three. I didn't get it. But maybe that was the movie; there are tragic figures out there who waste their lives; but I would imagine that in Las Vegas one would do it after losing all their money; (he had money; a great job...ect.!) Cage's personality only went through a divorce. Somtimes that's reason enough to want to save your life! I just didn't get it. That was a strange script. But maybe that I didn't get it and other's did...is the genius of it. Who knows.

I also think there will be stories that will come out of the events of what happened on the day the Towers were hit and collapsed; flight 93 crashed and the Pentagon was attacked; that will splinter in all directions; will we fault everyone of those who want to tell their story? Last weekend I saw actual footage in documentary style of what happened that day told by the people who witnessed it first hand. Those stories to me were the most touching versions of the stories; because they were real footages and real stories told by the loved one's who lost their soul mates that day and/or family members; and to me that's all I ever want to see, really. But it's not to say that I'm not interested to see what political angles that Stone has come up with to propel this movie; in terms of terrorism, the CIA, the Government; what happened; why it happened; as he has done in depth with other movies. His theories about what happened and why would be interesting to me, at some point. If anybody; Stone has the credibility to undertake a project such as this, regardless of the consequences or the critisms that might come in the aftermath.

Like with JFK; but thirty five or six years later. He obviously took risks and has been referred to ever since as the "conspiratory" theorist...so I just hope that he took all of the facts and put them together so that maybe we can all draw actual real images and ideals from whatever he's done with this huge undertaking. That is the real power of movie making. That is where I believe he doesn't take his position lightly...I haven't seen it, so I don't know. I only have these other movies to compare it to; hopefully there is a strong message there.

There usually is, with his movies. Alot of undercurrent madness- as in the similarity of the fine line which crosses genius and madness...which is a familiar theme with him.

[ 06 September 2006: Message edited by: erroneousrebelrouser ]


From: home sweet home | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca