9/11 movie premature, bad choice by greedy film industry
April 17, 2006 —
The movie industry is notorious for doing anything to make a profit, but have they finally gone too far? Yes.
Topping the list of disgraces to film is United 93, a movie about the events on the hijacked United Airlines flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11. Now, we all knew that eventually Hollywood would sell its soul and try to capitalize on 9/11, but I was just hoping I wouldn't live to see it.
Only a few years ago, Hollywood executives stalled the release of Spider-Man so that a scene with the Twin Towers could be removed. Now there was some sensitivity. But now all Hollywood is seeing is a chance to cash in on catastrophe. I guess it feels it's waited long enough.
This United 93 movie is only going to further desensitize us to the violence in our world and cheapen the legacies of all the people that were killed that day. We don't need to see these people die all over again, especially on the big screen.
We all saw Titanic and other similar disaster epics, but what did they accomplish? They made us feel all warm and fuzzy inside about something that should have elicited sorrow.
The difference with Titanic is that everyone involved with the sinking has long since passed. 9/11, however, is still very real to us. It's incredibly current. If in a hundred years, when we've all died, someone feels the need to make the 9/11 story a movie, then so be it. At least we won't be around to see them rape history and romanticize murder.
How long before we see the Hurricane Katrina movies? Because what good is senseless tragedy without popcorn and cola to go along? Watching poverty and grief isn't the same if we can't see it in Technicolor.
And while we're at it, let's just brutalize the memory of some other heroes. Like Mother Teresa for instance. Director T. Rajeevnath of India thinks that Paris Hilton would be perfect to the play the role of Mother Teresa in an upcoming movie. The world knows Mother Teresa because she was a good, caring, angel of a woman who lived her life for others. So who better to play her in a movie than someone whose only gifts to the world were a cheap porno and a sub-par death scene in House of Wax?
Hilton would have to wear prosthetic makeup of course, and we know that what's on the outside is all that counts. But I can see the director's point, the two having so much in common like ...oh yeah, they have nothing in common. Hilton is a spoiled little rich girl and Mother Teresa was a saint. At least for our sakes Hilton has turned down the role - for the time being. It seems Bollywood is no better than its American cousin. Is there no decency left in the director's chair?
I'm an avid movie-goer. I'll probably never stop visiting the theater. I can turn my head on debauchery like Freddy Vs. Jason and the Star Wars prequels, but I can't support movies that violate our last shreds of humanity. The film industry needs to pull its head out of the waters of greed for a moment and realize that there are better ways to make money.