August 16th, 2006

World Trade Center: See It Again, For The First Time

 by Jonathan David Morris  
| View comments | Print This Post Print This Post

When someone tells me they don’t want to relive 9/11, it sounds to me like the only perspective they want to consider is their own. 

A guy I know told me the other day he doesn’t plan on seeing Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center. When I asked him why, he told me he doesn’t feel the need to “relive” September 11th. I thought this remark was somewhat unusual.

World Trade Center is about two Port Authority police officers who were rescued after spending 24 hours pinned beneath the rubble.

Most of us — including me and the guy I was talking to — watched 9/11 happen from the comfort of our offices, classrooms, or homes.

I’m not saying you had to be at Ground Zero for 9/11 to affect you. I’m not saying you had to lose someone. I’m not even saying you had to have worried whether someone you loved would be lost. All of us were affected by 9/11 — even those of us who weren’t directly affected by it.

But if you didn’t live through it in the sense that two guys pinned beneath the rubble lived through it, then how could World Trade Center possibly constitute re-living it?

Your whole 9/11 experience revolved around watching television. Wouldn’t the only way to relive your 9/11 be a movie about people watching Fox News?

Maybe I’m just nitpicking here.  Obviously, when people say they don’t want to relive September 11th, they’re talking about how they felt that day — not just what they saw. This makes me wonder if watching it unfold on live TV has warped our perspective, though.  Generally speaking, not wanting to “relive” 9/11 sounds more like an excuse not to see World Trade Center than a reason not to see it.

In fact, a lot of the reasons people won’t be seeing this movie sound more like excuses than reasons. Like the idea that it’s “too soon.” Or the idea that Hollywood shouldn’t be telling stories about such an important part of our history.

How could it ever be too soon to tell stories about something so significant? Mankind has been telling stories about important events for thousands of years. Most of that time, we weren’t even worried about storytellers taking artistic liberties. Just take the Gospels, which differ on small points such as Jesus’s last words and whether he carried his own cross. Do these differences hurt the story? Of course not. The lesson prevails through each variation.

The same should be true about September 11th. There are so many perspectives from which this story could be told. From inside the Towers. From inside the Pentagon. Even from inside the classroom where George Bush was reading to those kids.

When someone tells me they don’t want to relive 9/11, it sounds to me like the only perspective they want to consider is their own.

They don’t want to see the debris clouds from inside the WTC concourse — as seen in World Trade Center. They don’t want to see the struggle aboard the airplanes — as depicted by United 93. All they want to see is what they remember seeing while they watched 9/11 safely from home five years ago.

The first thing a lot of us said that morning was, “God, this looks just like a movie.” And it’s that very sense of detachment — the comfort that came with being able to turn off our televisions — that some people don’t want to give up.

As far as I’m concerned, this is the wrong reason not to see World Trade Center. Maybe it would be the right reason if you were directly affected by September 11th. That’s different. But the rest of us experienced those attacks secondhand. We never had to identify with the heroes; we just had to call them “heroes,” feel bad for them, and send their families money.

World Trade Center will change that. It’ll let you get to the real human heart of this story once and for all.

Make no mistake: This movie will make you emotional. You’ll have flashbacks the next day. For lack of better expression, it’s the next best thing to having been at Ground Zero. All I’m saying is, don’t think of this as a deterrent. After all, you probably weren’t at Ground Zero to begin with. The two officers this movie focuses on were.

You don’t owe it to those guys — or to anyone, really — to see Oliver Stone’s new picture. But before you tell me you don’t want to relive September 11th, live through it again — for the first time — through the eyes of two men who survived.

Culture: Hollywood, Entertainment



Jonathan David Morris is a political satirist based in New Jersey. His website is Read JDM.
readjdm@yahoo.com
http://www.readjdm.com/main/

Read more articles by Jonathan David Morris

Bookmark and Share

  1. Maybe its just me, but I'd be showing the film every day and reminding a lazy American public as to what is and why we are fighting

    Comment by Richard | August 16, 2006

  2. I don't think most people will avoid seeing "World Trade Center" because they don't want to relive the experience of 9/11, more because they don't want to relive the experience of shelling out $10 to see a mediocre movie with bad acting

    Comment by Patrick Mulligan | August 17, 2006

  3. Sure enough, hollywood is so good at getting us to the "reality" of the issues of the day. If I wish to "feel" all warm and fuzzy, I'll go to the dog pound and embrace a puppy.
    The three named author sounds like a shill for the movie industry that is well known for bastardising nearly everything they touch.

    Comment by Gary Hyde | August 18, 2006

  4. I will never see an O.Stone movie. All of his film making life he has made movies that show how bad americans are .Do I have to tell you about Platoon!.Now he wants us to think he's "Joe American" .Give me a break

    Comment by gene tsapogas | August 20, 2006

  5. What about the 43000 civilians killed in Iraq as the result of our invasion and continued occupation?

    I wonder if Oliver Stone will be getting to them any time soon? Then again the Iraqi people probably don't need a movie to reminded them of the continuing carnage, instigated by our illegal invasion of their country.

    Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever, which is something that will never stop being a fact, no matter how much try and ignore it.

    Comment by Max Godwin | August 21, 2006

  6. Max,
    Come on! There has been plenty of reason to invade Iraq, one of them being that Saddam Hussein is the most obvious suspect in this scheme and that he is a terrorist, even to his own people!! The other ones are that he was a supplier to terrorists as well as a trainer of them. Maybe instead of giving the same tired rhetoric against ourselves, maybe we can come together to find the best way to victory against the Islamofascists.

    Comment by Don | August 23, 2006

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.







Latest Articles

Bad News, Bailouts and Automobiles
 by Steven D. Laib
Obama: Fear and the Security Force
 by Selwyn Duke
We’re Broke, So Let’s Give Our Money to Foreigners
 by Alan Caruba
Nothing But the Truth
 by Phillip Ellis Jackson
Why They Quit Being Leftists
 by Carlos Alberto Montaner
How Barack Obama Will Ensure His Victory in 2012
 by Selwyn Duke
Duly Noted
 by George de Poor Handlery
Happy Days
 by Lisa Fabrizio
Sarah Palin is the Israel of American Politics
 by Aaron Goldstein



Book Reviews



Features







         Top 25