comment #1

Mike McNeely says ...

At first glance, I thought that was Bob Dylan holding the record in the pic.

comment #2

Dan R% says ...

Didn't even have this on my radar, but it's definitely there now. Sandler isn't someone that I am compelled to watch, but I do love Punch-Drunk Love, and always hoped he'd do something similar again. Anyhow, thanks for the heads up Wells!

comment #3

Andrew says ...

Sounds good. Just curious -- why haven't you posted your review of World Trade Center yet? Is there some kind of embargo on it? David Poland posted his review so why can't you?

comment #4

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Andrew: I'm working myself up to it. I've been waiting for my feelings to settle down and for the clouds to part and...well, stuff like that.

comment #5

MS says ...

Haven't heard about this film at all. Sounds really promising. Some nice writing too, Jeff.

comment #6

Rob Scheer says ...

Andrew... my opinion isn't nearly as valid as a notable like Jeff Wells or (grumble) David Poland... but just to offer a counterpoint, I saw "World Trade Center" last Wednesday and wasn't too hot on it. I'm a New Yorker who (like everyone) took 9/11 very personally and still haven't really moved on, but not only do I think these movies aren't too soon, I think films NEED to be made about this subject.

That said: WTC has its emotionally affecting moments (it can't help but) and Nicolas Cage is pretty fantastic-- but it just has a really weak script. It's the strength of the story, not the filmmaking/script, that's going to affect people. I had numerous issues with the movie (posted on my blog-- sorry, shameless plug), but one of the chief issues is the story isn't particularly cinematic and I don't know... I just felt odd watching an "uplifting" film about 9/11.

I don't mean to rank on it, it's not at all a bad film. It just has a lot of issues and I couldn't really get into it, beyond its strong opening 20-30 minutes . What's odd is this is a MUCH more sentimental film than "United 93," yet I was a lot more emotionally affected by the latter.

I know no one asked for my opinion, I just wanted to offer a differing viewpoint.

comment #7

nicanor says ...

And because the rest of the cast -- Jada Pinkett Smith, Saffron Burrows, Liv Tyler, Robert Klein, Melinda Dillon, John de Lancie, Donald Sutherland, and Binder himself) give rooted, lived-in performances all down the line.

I find it hard to believe Binder plays anything but himself in any movie. I wanted to see this movie up to the part about Binder.

comment #8

Anonymous says ...

Where's Sandler on the Oscar Balloon then?

comment #9

Rob says ...

I'm curious to see what sort of role Melinda Dillon plays.. haven't seen her in anything substantial since "Magnolia"

comment #10

PT Gunderson says ...

Reign O'er Me has a great title. That much is clear.

comment #11

Anonymous says ...

He looks exactly like Bob Dylan - that's truly uncanny.

comment #12

Daniel Zelter says ...

Jeff: It might be good, but the concept of casting Sandler for the part reminds me of that Jerry Lewis concentration camp movie you brought up earlier. I guess the guy didn't learn his mistake with Punch-Drunk Love, which is that no one wants to see him in a drama. And if Carrey couldn't win an Oscar, neither will Sandler, but at least Sandler will rebound with that gay marriage movie...

Anyway, methinks this is really just the New Yorker answer to Crash.

comment #13

Anonymous says ...

Sandler's appearance in those pictures makes me actually want to see this.

comment #14

Dan R% says ...

DZ, I guess getting some of the best reviews of your career is always a mistake :-/
No one saw Punch-Drunk Love cos it looked weird and it was one of those movies that was never destined to make $80 million. It was much more a PT Anderson flick than a Sandler one.

I think that Carrey doesn't get an Oscar nomination because he's trying for one. Did Sandler even do any campaigning during the nomination process for PDL? I'm not saying he's a shoo in or anything, and he probably has done enough crappy work to turn off the Academy by and large that many might not look at him twice in consideration, but ya just never know. After all another clown one Best Actor, beating out sure bets like Ian McKellen and Tom Hanks. But I digress.

comment #15

NYCBusybody says ...

This is exactly what Jeff is best at; there's no better writer in the business as far as creating thoughtful and deeply explained interest for a film many had never even heard of. Cheers, mate.

comment #16

Nicol D says ...

I hope this is good. I used to dismiss Sandler but in recent years I think there is much more to him.

I look forward to seeing this. I also hope that the 9/11 genre does not get too watered down too soon.

Nevertheless, good to have Sandler doing a project like this. His heart is in the right place.

comment #17

Anonymous says ...

This looks awesome. Upside of Anger was a great flick and I happened to like Mind of the Married man's second season a lot. Binder is someone that takes a lot of chances and it''s nice to see that he's growing forward. I can't wait for this to come out.

comment #18

Sean Richardson says ...

"Anyway, methinks this is really just the New Yorker answer to Crash"

I have to ask ... what does this have in common with 'Crash' other than Don Cheadle?

Wouldn't the New Yorker answer to 'Crash' have to do with racism and probably have multiple characters?

comment #19

Why so Bitter? says ...

"Anyway, methinks this is really just the New Yorker answer to Crash."

Wow, Daniel Zelter being cynical and ragging on a movie he has yet to see even a trailer for.

I'm shocked.

comment #20

Chris No says ...

Reign O'er Me is Mike Binder's best film.
Better than Crossing the Bridge?
Better than Indian Summer?
Is that possible?
This one looks like the must-see movie for those who like their emo-porn with a spritz of zeitgeist.
Someone wants to make an honest movie about 9/11 they won't set it in NYC and they won't create characters that have been directly affected by what happened.
Show someone sitting in front of their television for two straight days in their pajamas.
I went to Apple Pan on 9/11.
The place was packed.
People jockeying for position and eating hickory burgers and fries and pie.
Adam Sandler = Jerry Lewis.
There's nothing worse than a clown who wants to be taken seriously.
United 93, WTC, The Great New Wonderful, and Reign O'er Me are all exploitation films.
I can't wait for Spielberg's entry into the genre.
Speaking of exploitation.
The only place where a Jewish guy is best friends with a black family man is in Hollywood.
Barf.
Mike Binder is a huckster.
9/11 is turning into some weird combination of JFK's Assassination and Woodstock.
Everyone remembers where they were when it happened yet everyone was there when it happened.
9/11 was a movie to begin with.
No movie will ever be able to recreate what was caught by the television cameras and anonymous video cameras that day.
Too bad Emile de Antonio is dead.
He could probably do wonders with all of that found footage and spare us Mike Binder's batch of Xmas treacle.
Hollywood is a den of vultures.

comment #21

Anonymous says ...

Wow. That's just so negative dude!

comment #22

Anonymous says ...

"I went to Apple Pan on 9/11.
The place was packed.
People jockeying for position and eating hickory burgers and fries and pie."

Well, that's it then. That's the only story worth telling.

comment #23

Fygar says ...

I don't know that I can ever really get past the unbelievably awful "Mind of the Married Man". I see Binder's name and I just go catatonic. Or, at least, something akin to Kramer when he heard Mary Hart's voice.

comment #24

Rick T. says ...

What? That was one of my favs! I love Mike Binder. Sopranos and Curb and Married man was the best HBO linup of all time. This movie feels cool. I like Sandler in dramas. Good piece. I love your blog. (Is this a blog? I think it is...)

comment #25

Matthew Jordan says ...

Listen, I know this debate was had a few months ago, and that no progress was made then either, but Jeff: how can you reconcile this:

"And I can understand people saying, "Look, leave me out of this...we all went through it and it was awful but I've moved on...enough.""

With this:

"But what if there was a 9/11 movie that was only nominally about 9/11? A movie about dealing with 9/11 grief by not dealing with it, by keeping it in a box? Which, let's face it, is where an awful lot of people are still at these days. (Like the ones who refused to see United 93 last spring, for instance)?"

Obviously, you can't understand people who have no desire to relive the events of 9/11 over and over again for the sake of driving a lot of shareholder's stock up. So why bother?

Sorry, didn't mean to lay a fart in the middle of an otherwise well-written piece.

comment #26

Webster says ...

Married Man was a dreadful show, but I thought Joan Allen was robbed of an Oscar nomination (and win) for The Upside of Anger. Another good movie, and I'll be a convert to the Binder camp.

comment #27

Mark says ...

"and how this friendship brings some comfort to both. And then, very gradually, a bit more."

Sounds gay.

comment #28

Mike Gebert says ...

Best 9/11 movies so far:

The Lord of the Rings (powerful message that there is evil out there and you can't just hide in your cute little country house, combing your toes and hoping it never gets to you; by the way, if you've never read the McSweeney's parody of Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky doing a commentary track for FOTR in which they excuse Sauron and blame it all on Gandalf's cycle of violence, it's hilarious)

Batman Begins (Liam Neeson is great as Osama Bin Laden, charismatic, ascetic and willing to kill everyone for his insane notion of purity; Christian Bale is very good as Liberalism, realizing that moral relativism and personal angst doesn't cut it when you're dealing with religious psychos out to kill you)

Flight 93 (superbly done but so limited in its focus that you end it wanting the next movie about it all that provides some damn context)

Kandahar (speaking of context-- yeah, some weak acting, but if you ever wanted to see how bloody miserable the Taliban could make life, buddy, see this)

The Day After Tomorrow (actual extremists are out to kill us all, so Hollywood makes a hysterical movie warning us of the danger from... KILLER SNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!)

comment #29

Mike Gebert says ...

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/22fellowship.html

comment #30

shinji says ...

United 93 left me cold, like it insists to goad me into something spurious. I don't get the feverish adulation hyped on it. Images without consideration of context are not enough, despite momentary trends that suggest otherwise. Stone's WTC movie seeks compassion, not just getting a rise out of ppl's adrenalin fixation. That is relatively profound or at least meaningful whereas the other film just coasts on controversy.

comment #31

east coast transplant in los angeles says ...

I think the rash of 9/11-inspired movies is tacky and exploitive. Hollywood and its denizens are so out of touch with what it was really like that day in New York City and on the east coast at large. Yet they are exploiting it in a really crass way. During the trailer for World Trade Center I cringed (and not just because Nicholas Cage is laughably cast)...I imagined what it would be like for friends of mine, who lost family members, having to endure a bullshit, manipulative trailer like that while trying to escape REALITY and pain by attending a fucking fun summer movie. Oh Oliver Stone, your ego may be big, but it's not big enough to own any authority over what happened that day.

comment #32

jesse says ...

Mike Gebert, since when is "personal angst" of the Batman variety specific to Liberalism? Oh, and how exactly does he demonstrate "moral relativism" at all, let alone the folly of it? You're reaching.

I don't know that Neeson represented Bin Laden (and therefore the movie 9/11) so much as the mindset you need to carry out any horrible large-scale terrorist act. Batman Begins has echoes of 9/11, but it's not a 9/11 movie. I love the movie, but in terms of movies with even peripheral 9/11 connections, 25th Hour is way, way better (in that regard).

Shinji, I get what you're saying about United 93 even though I did like it. I didn't, however, absolutely love it, although I don't think the problem was lack of context. My problem with it was repetition in the control-tower scenes -- I think I would've felt a greater impact if I hadn't seen so many variations on the "something very, very bad is happening" scenes (followed by mass confusion). Doubtless that stuff is perfectly realistic (or at least it felt that way), but that doesn't make it a great movie.

comment #33

Hopscotch says ...

Married Man blew. and with all due respect, Upside of Anger did too for the most part. Doesn't mean the man can't make a good movie, doesn't mean I don't want to see this one. But I'll remain skepitcal for now.

comment #34

Mike Gebert says ...

Jesse, I read an interview where Nolan said that Bale's performance was modeled on Paul Berman, and Michael Caine's on Christopher Hitchens.

Cillian Murphy was, of course, playing Paul Wolfowitz....

comment #35

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Matthew Jordan: The people who say "leave me out of this...we all went through it and it was awful but I've moved on...enough" were the ones who refused to see "United 93." I can understand people saying this and feeling this way because I understand that many people are like that.

Having said that, I can also pass along my honest views about this leave-me-alone way of dealing with the honest horror of that day, which is that they migth want to climb out of that five-year-old bath water and that after five years they might want to grow up and grim up and get into that day for a couple of hours and feel it again and THIS TIME get past seeing it from solely a wounded-America perspective.

They might want to consider more fully that terror of this sort (maybe not quite as devastating but in the same horrific ballpark) is happening to Average Joes in Israel and Lebanon and Iraq and Afghanistan quite a lot, and that the American reaction to 9/11 is a major reason these people are getting shot, bombed, burned, blown up and wiped off the face of the earth on a daily basis.

9/11 was a nightmare, but the world is a slaughterhouse and we are fully armed and militant and out for blood and allowing a lot of innocent people to be killed right now because of what happened that day.

And while we're at it, let's again consider the question that has never been allowed into the national dialogue in the news media or by the government. Which is, "Why would Osama and his pallies do such a thing?" The only explanations that have gotten any traction in a lot of areas of this country is that (a) they're insane or (b) Satan rose from the caverns of hell and ordered them to do this, and they had no choice. Nobody ever even ASKS if they might have had REASONS to hate this country's government and worldwide industry and political influences.

The answers are out there, and they're pretty easy to find. There were answers, I feel, in the section of Steven Gaghan's "Syriana" abotu the young Saudi guys who lost their jobs and felt disenfranchised, and were then taken under the wing of Islamic radicals. There are very clear answers in the writings of Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal, and in what Oliver Stone said in late September 2001 about the attacks being a revolt against the new world order, etc.

To truly grow up and conduct ourselves like adults with educations we have to accept that there are reasons -- reasons based on experience and not ideology -- that we are hated by others in that region. Maybe they're not very good or wise reasons (I think Osama and his gang are stuck in ideological cement and missing the point about the possibilities of creative change), but most Americans haven't even considered this. They've never gotten past, "Ohhhh, it was so terrible that day" and so all they can say today is, "Ohhh, leave me alone...no 9/11 movies!...turn on the baseball game!"

comment #36

Mark says ...

Best 9/11 movie? Fight Club. A charismatic and resourceful true believer gives the disillusioned losers of the world some purpose in life, creates a small army, and takes down all the tall financial buildings.

Message; we're involved in class warfare, and the meek can pack a helluva punch when given a cause.

comment #37

be4rg says ...

That LP Sandler is holding ... Songs For Beginners

comment #38

NYCBusybody says ...

That Wells cites noted anti-Semite Noam Chomsky in his defense of Osama Bin Laden is a perfect example of the moral degeneracy needed to support Al-Qaeda. They are religious extremists who believe anyone who is not Islamic must die. They decided to tack on these socio-political creeds AFTER they realized that despicable "progressives" like Wells would eat it up - after all, it's much more important to attack Americans and baseball than to fight anti-Semitic and anti-human terror.

Osama does not care about Palestine. He does not care about young Saudi oil jobs. And Western liberals have decided to support him. Deespicable and humanly retrogressive, man. The blind leading the blind.

comment #39

NYCBusybody says ...

I think the great Clash lyric applies very well to Wells and his ilk: "If Adolf Hitler, flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway"

comment #40

Liz says ...

"if you ever wanted to see how bloody miserable the Taliban could make life, buddy, see this [Kandahar]" . . .

Oh yeah, that just shot right to the top of my list.

Binder's done some excellent work recently, so curiosity will compel me to get over my various reservations to see this one.

But whatever happened to Man About Town?

comment #41

Dave at Garfield Ridge says ...

"And while we're at it, let's again consider the question that has never been allowed into the national dialogue in the news media or by the government. Which is, "Why would Osama and his pallies do such a thing?" The only explanations that have gotten any traction in a lot of areas of this country is that (a) they're insane or (b) Satan rose from the caverns of hell and ordered them to do this, and they had no choice. Nobody ever even ASKS if they might have had REASONS to hate this country's government and worldwide industry and political influences."

Jeffrey, no one has any doubt that Osama and company had their reasons to do what they did. The issue is do those reasons *justify* what they did.

In a word, no.

But please, let's have that "national dialogue" about how we *deserve* to get killed for what we do, or what we've done, or what the Jews have done, or the Trilateral Commission, or Charles Martel. And please, another lecture on why we're just as evil as them for having the gall to fight back when someone wants to kill us.

I mean, I've only spent five years listening to every critic of the Bush Administration make their case, but I guess I *still* haven't heard it enough times, so please, repeat it once more, with feeling.

I'm all ears.

comment #42

NYCBusybody says ...

I always find it amusing how Osama Bin Laden's reasons for doing what he did, according to far lefties, sound exactly like their own particular political grievances. They've enshrined this guy as the great crusader of their anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Semitic political mindset.

comment #43

BL says ...

"I think the rash of 9/11-inspired movies is tacky and exploitive"

Oh yes, just as all the WWII movies made since that dreadful conflagration are 'tacky and exploitive' too. "Best Years of Our Lives"? Pure trash. And how dare Spielberg make 'Saving Private Ryan" a not to mention that dreadful piece of hackwork known as "Band of Brothers" (although "1941".....)

Actually, why don't we go back to earlier times and wipe out all memories of Shakespeare's "history plays" (Henry V, etc). That guy shouldl have stuck with whimsical entertainments like "Midsummer Nights Dream" and "The Tempest" - he had no buisness dragging his country's ACTUAL past throught the mud.

comment #44

BL says ...

So, NYCBusybody, having set yourself up as the TRUE spokemen for the rights of the Palestinian people - what do you suggest their best course of action should be?

And fess up - you are really Armond White, right?

comment #45

NYCBusybody says ...

Best course of action? Stop denying Israel's right to exist. Stop blaming the West for their own proclivity to side with terrorists and Islamofascist organizations. It's their fault. Simple as that.

Don't even know who Armond White is.

comment #46

Mike Gebert says ...

Stop blowing things up?

Sounds like a plan to me. Considering how rock-bottom crappy their lives are after years of blowing things up, hard to see how not blowing things up could do them any worse.

But then nobody ever says "Give peace a chance" to people like the Palestinians, only to the Israelis or President Bush.

comment #47

NYCBusybody says ...

Their lives are rock-bottom crappy because they continue to believe the anti-Western lies told to them by Islamic extremists (and supported by Western far-left extremists), and continue to deny Israel's right to exist. Can't have peace with a country whose existence you deny.

comment #48

Daniel Zelter says ...

NYC: "They are religious extremists who believe anyone who is not Islamic must die."

And we chose to fight them with extremists who believe anyone who isn't Christian must die.

>I think the great Clash lyric applies very well >to Wells and his ilk: "If Adolf Hitler, flew in >today, they'd send a limousine anyway"

Nice try trashing liberals, but Bush's granddad did business with Hitler, while most of the veterans who fought in the first World War were teargassed for wanting their money.

comment #49

travis b. says ...

nyc - i don't think chomsky is anti-semitic. he may be anti-israeli policy, but to assume that he's anti-semitic because of that is jumping to conclusions. that's something that's been bothering me of late with the news. i've heard several times in the past few weeks that instead of saying israel has attacked beirut, palestine, etc. etc. etc. some have said the jews have attacked beirut, palestine, etc. israel, while predominately jewish, is not the embodiment of jewish political beliefs, nor the entire jewish religion. as someone of jewish descent, i feel there needs to be a strict seperation of the two, otherwise it does become an anti-semitic issue.

as for jeffrey's comment about asking questions regarding the reasons behind bin laden and pallies' attacks...i think these questions do need to be asked, but not for any justification on their parts (there are always alternatives to violence), but justification for us to make sure it never happens again. remember, bin laden is the extreme example, but it doesn't mean there are not people in that culture (i say culture because it appears to affect most of that region, as well as parts of Africa, instead of one specific state) who try to do right, yet feel the same apprehension and resentment towards our culture. there has to be some sort of middle ground reached with those who want the best for their people (without irrational violence and on both sides), otherwise it becomes an endless cycle.

regardless, i'm really looking forward to this film for two reasons. sandler, when serious, is great. punchdrunk love is his best film (by far) and i'll be interested to see what someone does with him in a serious film that is not a variation of the angry man-child he plays in his comedies. also, it'll be interesting to see a 9/11 film that plays with the reaction instead of the event itself. here's hoping it hits it on the head.

comment #50

NYCBusybody says ...

Anyone who isn't Christian must die? I despise the far-right (I'm an atheist), but when Pat Robertson's terrorist bombing squads start up in full force, then I'll listen to that argument.

Fundamentalist Christians just as idiotically want to move the world back to the 10th century. They just don't happen to be murderous barbarian idiots like the fundamentalist Muslims. And when they are (Eric Robert Rudolph, Tim McVeigh) they're punished like the criminals they are, not feted by racist anti-Semites like Wells and Zelter.

comment #51

Donlee says ...

Jeff, I repeat, where is Sandler on the Oscar Balloon?

comment #52

BL says ...

Busybody:

So Palestinians should just lie down and allow the Israeli govt. to steal their land, take away all their rights, and eventuallly herd them into concentration camps like sheep?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but certain targeted groups of German people allowed the Nazis to do this prior to and during WWII and that didn't work out too well for THEM.

When Israel was re-founded - the new leaders of the country COULD have turned their new country into a model democracy giving equal rights to ALL its residents and as such could have served as a shining example to their neighbors - unfortunatley they chose not to take that path.

No idea of who "armond white' is? Do you live in NYC?

comment #53

NYCBusybody says ...

Land that was taken from Jews in the first place, by Arabs, BL?

And they did try moving out of the Gaza Strip last year. Bill Clinton had Israel ready and willing to make big steps, in the late 90's, towards returning taken lands to the Palestinians. The Palestinian government balked, because Arafat couldn't deal with not having the existence of Israel denied.

Read your history, BL, not revisionist, biased, racist history like Zinn and Chomsky.

comment #54

travis b. says ...

zinn? racist? no.

comment #55

arisi catone says ...

put a camera on sandler full time
and i watch!!!!!!!!!!!!

comment #56

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Okay, I'll put Sandler and Cheadle and Binder in the Oscar Balloon....I'm just busy and running around and dithering.

comment #57

NYCBusybody says ...

With all this Hitler talk I'm doing, it makes me feel like going to this site.

http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/

comment #58

Tony Rosen says ...

Hmmm... Israel going indiscriminately ballistic in Lebanon seems pretty "anti-semitic" to me. The Arabs are also semetic peoples, no? Oh, I forgot, they're "our" enemy... and I'm a self-hating Jew!

comment #59

NYCBusybody says ...

I wish they WOULD be more indiscriminate. Israel pussyfooting around is what lets this whole mess continue.

We're not talking about Arabs. We're talking about Palestinians. There's quite a big difference.

comment #60

jjs says ...

No one should be surpised about Sandler and his acting ability. On the Actor's Studio, he said he was trained at the Stella Adler Academy, method-style...

comment #61

travis b. says ...

who thinks sandler should play bob dylan circa blonde on blonde? anyone?

comment #62

NYCBusybody says ...

I agree, travis. I think he should sing "Stuck Inside of Mobile", then fart on a kid and scream angrily, thus displaying the myriad personalities of Adam Sandler.

comment #63

Thompson says ...

"not feted by racist anti-Semites like Wells and Zelter."

I think its a bit much to label Wells a racist.

comment #64

nemo says ...

Wow, I cannot believe how much better Sandler looks with long hair. Why does he always crop his hair so short that his head looks like an egg with a nose?

The only actor who regularly sports an even uglier short haircut is Vince Vaughn. Vaughn has got to stop with that horrible Julius Caesar fringe. He would look better even if he went bald, and we know how much Jeffrey Wells hates that, almost as much as he hates an actor's growing lardbutt.

Both Sandler and Vaughn should let their freak flags fly.

comment #65

BL says ...

Hey Busybody:

Since you are all for granting people their original land starting from day One - I think I probably know some native Americans who might be happy to take over your apratment.

comment #66

NYCBusybody says ...

BL,

You: "So Palestinians should just lie down and allow the Israeli govt. to steal their land

Me: "Land that was taken from Jews in the first place, by Arabs, BL?"

I'm certainly not the one arguing for granting people original land. You're the one who brought up land.

It is part of Islamic extremist propaganda that this is about land. It's not. It's about religion.

comment #67

NYCBusybody says ...

Besides, Native Americans aren't "indigenous". They migrated to the land just like everyone else. They parted it up where they found it, and started bloodthirsty wars with other tribes to keep it, or take it.

Sounds kinda like those horrible, evil European whites, doesn't it?

comment #68

Daniel Zelter says ...

Dave:

>Jeffrey, no one has any doubt that Osama and >company had their reasons to do what they did. >The issue is do those reasons *justify* what >they did.
>In a word, no.

When Reagan was supporting those same actions by Osama against the Soviets in Afghanistan, he would be saying yes.

>And please, another lecture on why we're just >as evil as them for having the gall to fight >back when someone wants to kill us.

Bombing and torturing civilians who have nothing to with terrorists isn't what I'd call "fighting back"...

BL: >Oh yes, just as all the WWII movies made >since that dreadful conflagration are 'tacky >and exploitive' too. "Best Years of Our Lives"? >Pure trash. And how dare Spielberg make 'Saving >Private Ryan" a not to mention that dreadful >piece of hackwork known as "Band of Brothers"
>(although "1941".....)

The difference between the WW2 movies and the 9/11 movies is the WW2 movies serve as fantasies for Americans coping with a war, while the 9/11 movies are essentially snuff masquerading as drama.

>Actually, why don't we go back to earlier times >and wipe out all memories of >Shakespeare's "history plays" (Henry V, etc). >That guy shouldl have stuck with whimsical >entertainments like "Midsummer Nights Dream" >and "The Tempest" - he had no buisness dragging >his country's ACTUAL past throught the mud.

Shakespeare's plays dealt with royal intrigues, not the recreation of tragic events in which numerous people were killed.

NYC: > I despise the far-right (I'm an atheist), >but when Pat Robertson's terrorist bombing
>squads start up in full force, then I'll listen
>to that argument.

Do David Koresh, Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph count?

>They just don't happen to be murderous
>barbarian idiots like the fundamentalist
>Muslims.

Then what do you call ignoring AIDS, global warming, and stem cell research? (Not to mention Katrina...)

>And when they are (Eric Robert Rudolph, Tim
>McVeigh) they're punished like the criminals
>they are,

You mean by allowing people like them to have assault weapons under the Second Amendment?

comment #69

Mike says ...

I read the script of REIGN O'ER ME a few months ago and hated it for the exact same reason that Jeffrey loved it. It is completely unnecessary for 9/11 to be mentioned in this script - all they needed to say was that Sandler's family was killed in an accident (plane, car, train - doesn't matter) and he has since dropped out of society. The use of 9/11 is exploitative at best and ridiculous at worst - the "emotional scene" Jeffrey mentions in which Adam finally comes to terms with what happened is completely unbelievable.

(SPOILER: His wife and kids traveled to Boston from NY without him, then they decided to have a family vacation in Disneyland, so instead of traveling to NY and then flying together to LA, they decided to fly separate to LA, which of course was 9/11. Not only is this itinerary far-fetched, but why weren't the kids in school in September...?).

Every day I read a script at work (I'm in the biz) that throws 9/11 or the Iraq War unnecessarily into their plots. It's insulting to the 1000s who died that day and the 1000s more who've died in Iraq that every shitty horror/teen sex/rom com/awards-pandering drama movie mentions these events now.

comment #70

Aladdin Sane says ...

Mike, while it's unusual for kids to be out of school during the first few weeks of the school year, it has been known to happen. Family vacations that couldn't be taken during the summer etc.

Anyhow, from the way Jeff has talked about it, it's about dealing with grief and one thing many of us can relate to when it comes to grieving is 9/11, right? I don't think it's exploitative, but I'm not in the biz and I haven't seen the movie. Like I said before, I look forward to it. Sounds good and all that stuff.

comment #71

Aladdin Sane says ...

(and by before, i mean as my old posting name, Dan R%)

comment #72

abner says ...

Besides, Native Americans aren't "indigenous". They migrated to the land just like everyone else. They parted it up where they found it, and started bloodthirsty wars with other tribes to keep it, or take it.

Sounds kinda like those horrible, evil European whites, doesn't it?

Good Ole Hermann Goering U, good to see someone's not letting their education go to waste...

comment #73

c fontana says ...

"But what if there was a 9/11 movie that was only nominally about 9/11? A movie about dealing with 9/11 grief by not dealing with it, by keeping it in a box? Which, let's face it, is where an awful lot of people are still at these days."

What if? Umm...ever see 'The 25th Hour'??

comment #74

BL says ...

Mr Zelter:

"The difference between the WW2 movies and the 9/11 movies is the WW2 movies serve as fantasies for Americans coping with a war, while the 9/11 movies are essentially snuff masquerading as drama."

Ah, so you favor propaganda (ie - 'fantasies') over truth-telling? You must think 'freedom of the press' is SUCH a bother and will be delighted if the Bush administration can stamp it out for good (privitizing the internet seems to be their final major hurdle).

And BTW - propaganda makes for lousy movies, most of the WWII propaganda films masquerading as 'drama' were terrible. Assuming you have never SEEN "Best Years of Our Lives", you ought to rent it - it's not great but its a lot better than most of the crappy war movies produced in that era and is notable for NOT romantisizing war as primarily an opportunity for heroic exploits and derring-do.

"Shakespeare's plays dealt with royal intrigues, not the recreation of tragic events in which numerous people were killed."

LOL - have you ever SEEN one of Shakespeare's history plays (or ANY Shakespeare play for that matter)?

Honestly, you'd best stop trying to act like an 'expert' when you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.

comment #75

BL says ...

Busybody:

If Israel was playing by the rules of most civilized democracies, those who worship Islam would have equal rights to the rest of the population.

That Isreali Jews specifically pick on Moslems is despicable.

That said, many of the Moslems whom the Israelis displaced (Palestinians) are still alive or children of the disposessed. The Israelis were dispossessed fo their land so many centuries ago, I think they 'deserved' the land by some sort of birthright even less than Native Americans deserve to assume primary ownership of the Americas.

And unless you have information to the contrary, the Eurasians who first occupied the Americas were the first human beings on the continent. How much they may or may have fought amongst themselves during all this - we will probably never know - so that said, the primary source of blood upon their hands was probably from animals.

comment #76

Daniel Zelter says ...

BL:

>Ah, so you favor propaganda (ie - 'fantasies') >over truth-telling?

No, I just feel that if you're going to cover a serious event like 9/11, you don't dramatize it in a way which exaggerates its impact.

> You must think 'freedom of the press' is SUCH a >bother and will be delighted if the Bush >administration can stamp it out for good

What press? Bush doesn't have to do anything to minimize its role, since they've chosen to do it on their own by hiring loudmouths like O'Reilly and Limbaugh to make up stories for the public.

>And BTW - propaganda makes for lousy movies, most >of the WWII propaganda films masquerading as >'drama' were terrible.

True, but the cartoons were cute.

>LOL - have you ever SEEN one of Shakespeare's >history plays (or ANY Shakespeare play for that >matter)?

No, just read a few, and they usually consist
of frequent rambling and the occasional stabbing.

comment #77

NYCBusybody says ...

The mythological deification of Native Americans is virulently racist. It springs from the same font of spirit that energized white racists in the South.

The blind leading the blind.

comment #78

Abner says ...

"The mythological deification of Native Americans is virulently racist."

Sieg Heil, baby! I hear what you say!

comment #79

NYCBusybody says ...

I dunno. I'm black, so it would be kinda tough for me to be a Nazi.

comment #80

BL says ...

"No, I just feel that if you're going to cover a serious event like 9/11, you don't dramatize it in a way which exaggerates its impact."

Please cite an example from any conflagration or catastrophe which meets your "standards".

"What press? Bush doesn't have to do anything to minimize its role, since they've chosen to do it on their own by hiring loudmouths"

Nice cover story there - marginalize the media nutjobs and ignore all the corporations who ignore their supposed madate as public watchdogs and act only out or pure greed. Does 'privitizing the internet' not mean anything to you?

As for shakespeare, I suggest at the very least you rent Kenneth Branaugh's version of "Henry V" (some people prefer Olivier's, but not me". "Henry VI" is a very good play about actions of both English royalty and the masses, but a film has never been made of it.

comment #81

BL says ...

Actually, Busybody, I have come across enough neocon trolls on political boards claiming to be 'liberals', that I am skeptical about your professed 'blackness' - although god only knows, it MAY be the case.

" dunno. I'm black, so it would be kinda tough for me to be a Nazi."

Have you ever heard of the film "Lancombe Lucien"?

When it comes to AMERICAN history, there was a segment of black people who fought on the side of the South as a means to keep themselves enslaved. No doubt these misguided souls were as racist as their white masters and believed black people to be naturally inferior to whites and unable to intigrate into 'civilized society'.

comment #82

Clifford Anderson says ...

Chris No, wasn't War of the Worlds Spielberg's entry in the genre?

comment #83

Chris No says ...

Clifford: I don't know. Was it? It seemed to me that the movie was a remake of a movie that was based on a book that was written in 300,000 B.C. I guess it could have been a 9/11 movie, if you choose to interpret it that way, but to me it seemed like a very expensive Sci Fi B-Movie. I guess Poseidon could be seen as Wolfgang Petersen's 9/11 movie. I guess. I guess any movie made after 9/11 could be intepreted as a 9/11 movie, just as you could make the case that every movie after Hiroshima is a post-atomic movie. Or maybe they're just movies and have nothing to do with anything. In the case of Spielberg, I would assume that latter.