At the end of April, a movie depicting the events surrounding Flight 93 on 9/11/01 will be released. I saw the trailer this weekend, and I know that I will have an extremely difficult time watching this. As soon as I realized what I was seeing, I started shaking, turned red, and my eyes welled up with tears. If the trailer ellicited this strong of an emotional response, I can't even fathom what the full film will do. So the question remains:
Is it too soon for this? Can people handle it? Will you see it?
I also saw the trailer last weekend...While it was playing I realized what it was about and I thought, "Oh shit, no way". But after that initial reaction...I don't really think it's too soon although I know it's still very touchy. I'll try to see it for sure just for the fact that I try to take in all I can about that subject. My main question is, how is the story going to be told? Are they going to get real down and dirty with the details and motivations...or are they going to kind of, sugar coat it?
No, but I don't think any amount of time would be enough to turn this into something that needs a Hollywood interpretation.
It wouldn't faze me, but I'm sure that some people will walk out of the theater convinced they've been traumatized in some fashion. This is a nation that lets you sue for millions when you pour hot coffee in your own lap - certainly some part of the population will chose to be outraged or victimized after seeing it.
Ummm... how do you figure? People on the planes placed phone calls -- to 911 operators, friends and family. They are the first hand accounts of what happened on that flight, and these phone calls are what is being used to piece together details. Not to mention the information garnered from the black box cockpit recordings.
Of course don't know "exactly" what happened -- but do we ever? Did it stop us from making movies about the Titanic, the Holocaust, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Rowandan Genocide, etc etc? Or is this all "propaganda" too?
In response to the original post:
I think that it is too soon, but that is the nature of American capitalism and Hollywood. Apparently someone saw a profit in telling this story -- probably in A&E's surprisingly well received "Flight 93" special. I would wager a guess that the movie will cause a little hoopla but not very good numbers, so perhaps Hollywood will learn their lesson. I'm definitely not offended that they're making it -- it happened, it's in our history, and it needs to be remembered... but the Amerian public seems to be slightly averse to it right now.
I hate to say this, but taking the version of events put forward by a grieving family member or friend as gospel is not a good idea. Who wouldn't want their loved one to be viewed as a hero? We only know the most scant of details and a movie that claims to assemble the whole event based on phone calls that cannot be substantiated is dishonest and exploitative.
As for the holocaust and the genocide remarks, ease up on the melodrama. Comparing the well documented extermination of millions with conflicting reports of one plane crash is insulting and petty.
If "Fahrenheit 911" wasn't too soon then why would it be too soon to see the REALITY of 9/11?
We got inundated with that Micheal Moore piece of crap for weeks on end yet make a movie with some reality in it and you get people calling for it's removal before it even debuts. There are those that refuse to air even the trailer! The pathetic Left at it again.
(By the way, I can give MANY examples where I part ways with the Bush Administration but the events surrounding 9/11 is not one of them.)
The more contorversy this creates, the more tickets it will sell. Let's create some more controversy!
I don't think the mention of genocide is being melodramatic at all. I think that was the intention of the terrorists; to kill Christian Americans (A.K.A. the Devils)specificaly. Of course they killed a few of at least every nationality and religion including thier own which appears to me another failure for the wackos from the Middle East!
I wasn't comparing, nor was I being melodramatic. Perhaps the Holocaust was a poor example, but my point is that in severe tragedy -- where many first-hand sources perish -- we rarely have a historical stenographer on site to preserve the details for all time. Yet we can still call these things historically correct based on this crazy thing called evidence and investigative reporting....
You think that the recordings that were released by the FBI and the 9/11 Commission in 2004 are bogus? You think that 911 calls are bogus? Recorded answering machine messages, too?
As far as the "insulting and petty" accusation, perhaps you should examine your own assumption that family/friends of those who died are not credible sources, even 5 years later. To insinuate that someone would lie -- to the Commission, the media, Americans in general -- about their loved ones last words is a stretch.
So either you're one of the crazy, messed up conspiracy theorists on this board, or you have some serious personal vendetta against what has pretty much been widely accepted as a relatively accurate depiction of what happened on that flight.
There is a film about the genocide in Rewanda (sic) 10 years on, with people who were involved (victims etc).
That is increadibly harrowing (called shooting dogs), but it needs to be current, much like this film. Its content could be disputed, but its timing is not a problem. Film should not be about histoy, unless its a history film.