Posted on 04/16/2006 5:31:56 PM PDT by DieHard the Hunter
New Zealand September 11 hero Alan Beaven is to be immortalised in the first Hollywood movie about the terrorist attacks, but his Auckland family will not rush to see the film.
Beaven's brother, Ralph Beaven, said the idea of watching a film of his brother's ordeal was traumatic.
Universal Studios is soon to release United 93, which will focus on the United Airlines flight which crashed in a field in Pennsylvania before it could reach its intended target in Washington DC, thought to be the White House.
It is believed the hijackers failed in their mission because a group of heroic passengers, including former Auckland University student Beaven, stormed the cockpit. Beaven will be played in the movie by British actor Simon Poland.
A year after the 2001 attacks, Beaven's wife, Kimi, revealed to the Sunday Star-Times that her husband's remains were found in the cockpit of Flight 93 and his voice was on the cockpit voice recorder.
The film, to open on April 28 in America, has ignited debate there over whether the country is ready for such a vivid portrayal of the attacks.
When a trailer advertising the film was played at Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, audience members began calling out, "Too soon!"
The trailer contains news film of one of the planes about to hit the World Trade Center, and a cinema in Manhattan took the rare step of pulling it from its screens after several complaints.
"One lady was crying," the manager told a local paper. "I don't think people are ready for this."
Ralph Beaven said he would not go to the cinema to watch the film. "For me personally, I'm not sure I'd go along, I think it would be a little too close to home. I don't want to go down that track again.
"It would be very emotionally charged, especially seeing someone else represent your brother."
He said he might consider watching it later in the privacy of his home, if it was issued on DVD.
His brother had been an environmental lawyer in San Francisco who had fought for the underdog against big corporations, and who did not seek the limelight.
"He was not the sort of person who deliberately set out to have a lot of publicity. He was a down-to-earth Kiwi, he wore jeans and jandals."
Beaven said he had never received official word as to what exactly his brother's role was on the flight, and he believed Kimi Beaven's belief he had fought with the hijackers was conjecture.
This is how information is presented in a free enterprise system. I guess we could have publicly funded news with free distribution, but do you think the World really needs to hear NPR's take on 9/11?
People are going to talk about that big hole in Downtown Manhattan, and what it means and what went on. This is only natural. Moore's film came out three years ago, to great critical acclaim, and people are complaining about an accurate portrayal now? You get the feeling that only anti-American sentiments are permissable with respect to 9/11.
If you ask me, folks on the left are just upset that this movie will establish the truth of what happened in people's minds before Oliver Stone can come out with his hatchet job next year.
Art...? Murdered citizens as art? I think I'm gonna hurl.
'proper time for this movie' = once a Democrat is in the Whitehouse
> I don't like the idea of hollywood making money off this film.
I would be most interested to learn what Hollywood intends to do with its profits from this movie.
I'd like to see a large slice of the gross takings (now *there's* an appropriate term!) go to a 9-11 charity.
When should I stop holding my breath, d'ya think? This is why I am of two minds on the subject.
I can't help but think about the children of the victims. I had my cousin in my lap for hours during one of the memorials trying to explain how daddy fit in the little box. I fielded some of the most gut wrenching, painful questions that will forever haunt my sleep.
The kids will want to see these movies. It will probably turn into an obsessive fixation for many.
How will this affect them?
I'm all for history being made into films. But not while we are still in the war.
It's either a "friggin popcorn eating movie" or you sit back and wait for Katie Couric to tell you what really happened once she takes over at CBS Nightly News.
Frankly, I prefer to have a forum that is not controlled by the MSM from time to time.
How seriously do people take TV movies?
I think this is going to be a good portrayal of some great heroes. I intend to see it myself.
Exactly. I am interested in the vision Greengrass is bringing to the screen (since I thought the Bourne Supremacy was a well crafted thriller).
Both the Left and thr Right need to learn a simple f***ing rule: If You Don't Like It, Shut Up And Don't Watch It.
First of all, there are two different movies you are merging into one discussion.
Second of all, you have twisted various statements and added your own commentary to them.
You seem to be happy posting to yourself since you made your own conversation.
> I would rather crawl across a desert of salted glass than see this movie.
I understand and respect your viewpoint.
We'd probably all crawl across a desert of salted glass if doing so would wind the clock back to September 10. Or put the crew of Flight 93 in the cockpit in time to land the plane safely.
Alas this won't and can't happen. The best we can do is Remember. Never Forget and Never Forgive.
For some, this movie may help achieve this end.
I don't need a movie or Couric to tell me about 9-11. I was here, I saw it, I felt it, that day is etched in my very soul. None of us should need it to be reduced to a movie.
>>>Frankly, I prefer to have a forum that is not controlled by the MSM from time to time.
They are owned by the SAME people.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320747/posts
George Soros, Media Connections - Bump List
>>>Both the Left and thr Right need to learn a simple f***ing rule: If You Don't Like It, Shut Up And Don't Watch It.
I'll be sure to pass your words on to the children that lost their parents that day.
First of all, this movie does not exist in a vacuum. Moore's film has been out three years. Stone's film is coming next year. This issue has been dealt with and will be dealt with in film.
Second of all, my comments are my own. I don't see how I am twisting yours to say that movies for profit are a letigimate way of sharing information in a free enterprise system.
I am happy to discuss matters with you, but that does not mean I must agree with you.
If people can't handle films about 9/11/01 almost 5 years later, they never would have made it through World War 2. Hollywood was pumping out war films like you wouldn't believe back then.
Please do. They do not *own* such an historic event.
>>>I don't need a movie or Couric to tell me about 9-11. I was here, I saw it, I felt it, that day is etched in my very soul. None of us should need it to be reduced to a movie.
How about, the people that go see the ViaCom one HAVE to endure that smell that we lived with for months afterward. They want to know about 9/11, then they have to have the full experience.
Wasn't commenting on the purpose.
Only that I saw the TV version. It was very well done.
It's not a small screen story though.
Now you are speaking of three different films.
Hollywood is very good at cooking the books. They can make most movies look like they were money losers. "Oh, we had planned to donate all of the profits to 9-11 causes but we didn't even break even on this. Sorry."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.