Terror in the skies... and on film

The trailer for the first 9/11 film is up and running at Apple. No, it's not for the sure-to-be-abrasive Oliver Stone take on the events in New York; instead it's for Paul Greengrass' smaller film which looks at the events onboard the least-covered of those four ill-fated planes, Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers rushed the cockpit. The trailer is minimal, just graphics and sound, but it's potent nonetheless. Because there's really no footage, it doesn't suggest much about the film, though this Chud interview, which I previously mentioned, gives some clue as to where Greengrass is going with the movie.

The obvious question, as Ross already pointed out, is whether or not this is an appropriate topic for a film that will be shown in the popcorn and chintz-laden atmosphere of the multiplex, especially so soon after the attacks. No matter how respectful the film is toward the events of that day, I think there are going to be people who feel it’s a crass commercialization of tragedy and nothing else. As a nation, we're still ultra sensitive about that day; those wounds will take a long, long time to heal.

I suppose, in theory, I'm not opposed to films about that day, even from Oliver Stone. This isn't to say that these films won't bother me, that I won't rail against whatever inaccuracies, insults or mediocrities they peddle. But I'm not opposed to films on the subject purely out of principle. Films, however mired they may be commercial interests, are art, and a necessary part of vibrant contemporary art is its ability to tackle difficult, controversial subject matter.

Few bat an eye when novels, theater, performance art, etc... broach difficult topics; I don't see why the rules should somehow be different for film simply because it's more commercial and therefore perceived as a lesser art (a belief with which I obviously disagree). As with those other mediums, we should let the substance, not the form, be the issue of debate. Tony Kushner's Angels in America doesn't generate outrage that a mere stage play (well, however "mere" a 6 hour production can be) attempts to address the scourge of AIDS in the 80s; the debate is about what his play says. When it comes to the cinema, it seems to me that the rules ought to be the same; let's see what Greengrass has to show us before we cry out against the medium he's using to do so.