On April Fools Day, Sweetie and I finally got our asses to the movies again. Just now I actually had to do research to figure out that the last time we’d been to a movie theater was to see Brokeback Mountain, a couple days after Christmas. My God, what have I become? I don’t think I’ve ever experienced such a cinemagoing drought since before I had a driver’s license. So yay for us - we saw and quite enjoyed Inside Man. The only unpleasant part of the evening was when I got run over by a trailer.
Before you start wondering how I could have been involved in yet another auto accident, let me assure you that I meant that last statement was only a metaphor (and a cheap little pun). To be more straightforward, among the previews before Inside Man was one for Universal’s United 93. If you haven’t seen it you can do so here.
As the trailer ended, I did something I don’t think I’d ever done (at least, not in public) in response to a theatrical preview: I booed. It was a sharp, disapproving boo, and fairly loud. I was a little disheartened that no others joined in, but I took some solace in the sprinkling of snickers my booing induced. I wouldn’t normally think of being snickered at as a desirable thing, but these were not snickers in the “can you believe that idiot?” vein - rather, they were ironic. They were snickers of recognition. (Mmmm… Snickers of recognition… [drool])
What I found boo-worthy was the idea of an action movie about the events of September 11. Before I go further into the issue, I feel that I should emphasize that I have no intention of passing judgment on United 93 as a movie, for the (hopefully) obvious reason that I have not seen it. What I have seen is the trailer, the content of which gave me every indication the movie will be, in my view, exploitative. Much of the media brouhaha over the past couple of weeks has centered around the question, “is America ready for movies about 9/11?” I suspect that many others essentially share the answer I would give, which is, “Movies about 9/11? Sure. An action movie about 9/11? Ugh… that’s not funny.”
The manner in which Universal and the film’s creators have been handling the imbroglio has only reinforced my distaste. First, the manager of the AMC Loews Lincoln Square multiplex in New York City stopped running the United 93 preview in response to the complaints of offended patrons. Notice, if you will, Universal Marketing honcho Alan Fogelson’s hedging assertion that the trailer is inoffensive because it accurately reflects the movie as a whole. The quote is formed a little strangely, making me wonder if what he said was taken out of context and pieced together. In any case his reasoning doesn’t wash, for a few reasons:
- Since when have the studios given a rat’s ass whether or not a trailer accurately represents the movie it is promoting? Any somewhat attentive movie patron has caught on to the increasing number of previews that completely misrepresent a film’s actual content or emphasis in order to appeal to the broadest possible demographic. So what’s he even saying here?
- OK, fine - let’s say the preview is true to the movie. If the movie itself is offensive, then the preview is offensive too. I found the preview offensive, so you’ll understand if I have a strong suspicion that the whole movie would make me feel more of the same.
More egregious is Fogelson’s equating the occurrence at Lincoln Square to one where a theatre removed one-sheets for The 40 Year-Old Virgin because of a customer’s complaint. As we say here on the internet, wtf? Let’s consider this. On the one hand, you’ve got perhaps a few sanctimonious prigs who are all bent out of shape over the assumption that Hollywood is mocking the notion of virginity. On the other hand, you’ve got a group of New Yorkers watching a preview that contains TV footage of one of the planes hitting the World Trade Center, and hurtles through a series of quick, action-packed cuts, underscored by ominous music and declaring touting itself as being from the director of The Bourne Supremacy. Pretty much every American who was old enough to comprehend the events of that day is still powerfully moved by them; most also have deeply-held feelings about 9/11’s continuing aftermath. It’s just… kind of not the same as a few people’s belief that middle-aged virginity is comedically off-limits.
Subsequent press stories on the subject - like this one, for example - make a lot out of the fact that the families of those who were killed on flight 93 gave permission for the film to be made, and for its release. In fact, the studio and the filmmakers are taking moral cover behind the families. United 93 director Paul Greengrass describes how the very very very first step they took to make the movie was to seek the families’ approval, declaring that after all, the families are the only ones with the right to make a moral judgment about such a film being made. All of which is, of course, total bullshit.
OF COURSE they needed the blessing of the families to make the movie. DUH! What were they going to do - make the movie over the families’ objections, and get sued into bankruptcy? The approval and editorial oversight of the families is a peripheral detail. Make no mistake: a major Hollywood studio does not make a movie in order to cozy up to a single group of maybe a couple hundred people (the one exception being if group in question is the membership of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences). The only endorsement they care about is that of the conceptual Joe Moviegoer, expressed by his showing up and buying a ticket. Preferably during the movie’s opening weekend.
Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center has thus far provided less concrete fodder for speculation. In theory, it doesn’t sound like an exploitative premise, per se - two Port Authority cops fight to survive, trapped in the rubble of Twin Towers. To be honest, my first thought was, “Hmm… doesn’t sound particularly cinematic. Two guys trapped in one spot for days on end? Might work better as a play.” The movie’s long cast list on IMDB suggests that they went another way with it. The presence of Oliver Stone’s name on any movie is enough for many people to start prepping their ire hoses; presumably their ranks will grow when it’s a movie related to 9/11. I don’t share such apprehension: yes, Stone is a provocateur, but he doesn’t indulge in provocation for its own sake. Even films of his that I haven’t liked overall (Natural Born Killers, The Doors) demonstrate that he’s a filmmaker who can be counted on to have a distinct point of view. On the other hand, the release date of August 11th seems a little more than coincidental. I’m crossing my fingers that he and Paramount don’t trot out a cheesily manipulative preview, complete with some of that news footage of the buildings coming down. Just what we all need.
is probably going to make me sound like a huge fogey, but the hell with it: this movie would have better if it had been made 20 years ago. It still wouldn’t be as good as Last Crusade, much less the original Raiders (kind of a tall order, since that was the movie that made me fall in love with movies as a kid), but it would have been better. A bit better, anyway.
If you’re like me, you may be wondering “who the hell is this dude?” Well, I’ve got a page that’s meant to address that very question: check my 
