Joho the Blog
|
|
|
September 03, 2006
Jonathan Mahler, in a NY Times review of Joel Meyerowitz's book of photos of the World Trade Center clean-up, joins the congregants at the church of the WTC, saying of the workers: "...they are reclaiming this hallowed ground, making it possible once again to imagine a future there." The attack on the World Trade Center was a despicable act of mass murder. As is true for too many of us, people I know lost loved ones there. But those deaths did not make the ground sacred. There's something dangerous and unseemly about referring to it as such: Unseemly because it implies that the lives that were stolen need a special nimbus of grace to be valued; dangerous because imbuing a horrible crime with religious significance puts it within the realm where the murderers want it. They want a jihad. It's real important that we not give them one. IMO. I have not seen the movie WTC, and I will not. In fact, I would pay an annual subscription never to see another Oliver Stone movie. [Tags: wtc terrorism 911 oliver_stone] Posted
by D. Weinberger at September 3, 2006 04:32 PM
|
Comments
It seems far too early to be memorializing September 11 with movies. The background treatment it gets in TV series, like Rescue Me seems appropriate while we sort out what it all means in a historical sense. We have a lot of sorting left to do. I also fear that 20 years from now, September 11 will be just a footnote, as Pan Am 103 is just a footnote today. There may be far more terrible events to come that will demand that the West confront and destroy true evil. We've wavered in confronting it abroad, and assumed that police action can protect us at home. That'll probably work for this wave, but may not be sufficient for the next.
Posted by: Brad Hutchings | September 5, 2006 03:32 AM
I agree that embuing the site of 9/11 with religious status &/ symbolism, places it just where the perpetrators want it. The lives of those people killed were much more than one day in one building. I think one of the biggest issues faced in the defence against terrorism is that of the need for separation of Church and State, if the World as we know it is to progress towards a truely global community.
Posted by: Cath Stephensen | September 5, 2006 10:34 PM
Prior to seeing WTC, I would agree with you on Oliver Stone. However, I read the reviews and then heard a story about the ex-marine who went to the site on 9/11 - he is portrayed in the film. Based on what I'd read and heard I gave it look -- but was still skeptical. It was a compelling film and it made me curious to dig further about the events and people involved. I believe the film accomplishes its goal in helping folks look at the heroic character of so many people that day and beyond.
We are a microwave society. Delayed gratification and respect of privacy is long gone. I believe it is unrealistic to think people aren't going to write and produce films on this topic. This story, however, treats the topic very well -- especially given the guy in the directors chair.
As for it being hallowed ground, well, that too is hard to avoid. Much like Normandy, Oklamhoma City, Nagasaki, Pearl Harbor, etc. anytime an event of this magnatitude occurs there is a natural inclination to revere the site. I don't think that has been overdone nor would it be unwittingly supporting the terrorists agenda. Those nuts, like the Oklahoma City nuts (funny that we didn't call them terrorists, but they were too) are just cowards plain and simple. So, if you can get past the director, go see the film, you will be glad you did.
Tony
Posted by: Tony Heringer | September 12, 2006 04:15 PM