Posted on 08/09/2006 6:24:09 AM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
Last night I saw the premiere of Paramount’s new movie “World Trade Center”. I have some comments to make.
Before the showing of the movie, a representative from Paramount walked to the front of the audience and gave a short “pep talk” to promote the success of the movie. This included encouraging interaction with the audience, such as “How many folks here tonight are fans of director Oliver Stone?” (many clap from the audience), and “How many folks here tonight are fans of actor Nicolas Cage?” (again, many clap from the audience).
Then the movie began, preceded by a promotional for some up and coming Paramount releases.
The movie included videos from the actual 9-11-(2001) events, and even included a clip of a person falling (it did not show the person actually jump) from the World Trade Center, and intense authentic videos of the collapsing towers and other genuine film from the horrific moments of that day. There is no question that for most who view the movie, it can arouse anger at the enemy. There were scenes that included bit-players in the movie acting as rescue personnel using terms, “those bastards”. The “bastards” were not specifically identified. A viewer was to understand that the “bastards” are bad, and what they did was wrong, and the movie was gripping, and was a good movie. But I want to make some comments.
Not once did any of the players in the movie use the word “Muslim” or “lslam”. In fact, they didn’t even use the word “terrorists”. I did hear the word “terrorism” at least once, which was barely audible and seemed to be part of some news broadcast as background sound effects for one of the scenes in the movie. One actor played a heroic Marine who participated in the rescue efforts and was later identified at the end of the movie as subsequently serving two-terms in Iraq because, as was said three times by bit-players in the movie, “America may not realize it, but we are now at war”.
Not once did the movie identify who we were at war with. There was a scene that showed a 9-11 clip of President George Bush making comments regarding the World Center attack – upon which someone in a row behind me starting making booing sounds, so I assume some of this California audience believed that the enemy that we are now at war with is George Bush. This same person would at times during the movie start mumbling to the person next to him to explain how Israel is the terrorists and various anti-American remarks. Judging from the reaction of some others, there were not a few who agreed with him.
These are the same people as found in Connecticut who voted against Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary for an “anti-war” (“it’s all America’s fault”) opponent, who voted against Lieberman – Lieberman a liberal Democrat but “too strong on defense”. Democrats who are revealing themselves as what they are and who they really hate - which isn’t the terrorists. To boo at such a moment does not reveal themselves as “anti-war”, nor does it reveal, as the spin of the old media is portraying, “the depth of anger over the Iraq war” – this wasn’t booing at Bush despite any spin from liberals . . . to boo at such a moment of the film is to boo at America. That’s the fact. To sit and listen to such while watching the movie reveals them, just as the results of the Connecticut primary reveals the Democratic party.
Back to the movie, however, I should add that upon exiting the theatre there was a small set of stairs and someone gave the person who was booing and making comments a shove from behind to see if he would fall onto the cement. Let me make it clear, it wasn’t me, but I do have to say that my immediate reaction was I turned to a nephew who attended the movie with me and we both laughed. Surprisingly, everyone just kept moving along, there was no shouting and such, the one who shoved the person was a man with his wife or girl friend, and the “person” who was shoved a male in his thirties who just tried to re-adjust his hair on his balding head and backed away as the wife or girl friend of the other just smiled a smirk as they walked on.
Three times during the movie, a bit-player, or an actress portraying the wife of a Port Police officer trapped under the rubble of the World Trade Center, made reference to the (February 26) “93 attack” (upon the Center) – again, the attackers were not identified specifically, nor even generally.
The movie was about two Port Authority police officers who were part of the team that went in when the tower(s) were first hit and then were trapped under the rubble when the towers came down and, after a very long, intense claustrophobic experience for the audience who are brought into the dark hole with the officers and almost die along with them, the officers are rescued. The movie was about the families, wife, children, of these officers, what they had to endure, the joy of the rescue of these officers. It was about the others, from the human perspective, who either died in the terrorist attack or were relatives of those who were murdered. However, no one in this movie was said to be “murdered”, so let me correct that to say anyone portrayed in the movie as “relatives of those who were victims” from 87 countries.
As the towers fall, the movie shows various people from around the world. We see for example, a group of Arab men, in their twenties and thirties, who look very concerned and upset as they watch the events on the boob-tube. You know, the type of Arab men which we are not suppose to profile. And, we see the French people crying. We see what looks like some Afghani camel driver listening intently to a radio, very concerned over the events.
We don’t see any Muslims dancing in the streets.
The movie was not about Islamic terrorists since they, Osama et all, Islamists et all, were never once identified in any manner in the movie – yes, there were dramatic, authentic, video of the towers falling, the face of President Bush making public statements at the time, but never, never, the face of Osama or any of the such. In fact it could have as much been Christian terrorists as Islamic terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center as far as this movie was concerned because if the movie was about who engaged in the 9-11 “war upon America” the movie didn’t communicate any of that. Perhaps, as the one booing in the audience thought, it might have been the Israelis who attacked on September 11, 2001. So the movie wasn’t about who did the attack, nameless and faceless, but about those who had to endure the attack and how, yes, there is “evil in the world” but also “good” in this reconstruct of actual events and actual people.
So that was basically what the Paramount movie was about.
When the movie ended, most in the audience clapped. For my own personal reasons, I did not clap. Anyone who soon after asked me, “how was the movie?”, I replied, “it was a good movie”.
I guess that is all I have to say. The only last comment I would make is, during the entire movie there were scenes showing a television turned to CNN – here and there, a television in the background. Everyone in the entire world on that day, were, according to the movie, watching CNN. There was even a scene where one of the wives of a Port Authority officer walked down the twilight street of her neighborhood and such and during such dramatic moments everywhere one can hear coming from the neighbor’s houses comes CNN. The message I guess being that everyone in America turns to CNN to get their news.
It was ironic to see and hear only CNN in this movie. You would hear the voices of the CNN anchors, and, well – I really didn’t watch CNN on that day, but some of the words of those voices really didn’t strike me as authentic CNN. Authentic CNN is all about doctoring words, and doctoring photos, to help the enemy. As thousands (millions?) of conservatives have been saying, CNN, AP, Reuters, ABC News, they doctor words and doctor photos, and in fact they even have Islamic terrorists on their payroll. Of course, in the last few days we have learned that indeed, Reuters had Islamic terrorists on their payroll working the propaganda war for the enemy. There is no doubt that before this war is over, the war which the enemy started, the war upon America, upon Israel, upon freedom and the West in general, and now the war upon those who are “strong on defense” such as a Bush or a Lieberman, before this war is over, it will be found for example that staff of the ABC radio news were in direct communications with these terrorists during a time of war and assisting them. Of course, anyone who a couple months ago, despite ample evidence to attest, said Reuters had operatives of the enemy on their direct payroll were called kooks - and those, such as the man who booed Bush at the premiere of “World Trade Center” and who think America took down the towers, were and are called rational, or perhaps “journalists”.
Nevertheless, despite the failures of this movie, there is a chance that some of the audience may remember 9-11, may even get angry, and may even come to the rationalization that perhaps those who are directly assisting the Islamic terrorists to win their war upon us should perhaps be executed. And perhaps some may understand this is war. That perhaps, one does not need to strap a bomb on themselves to necessarily also be a terrorist. After all, Osama, at least not yet, never strapped a bomb on himself. Is Osama a terrorist?
Osama isn’t in this movie. But, you might want to go see it. Like I said, it’s “a good movie”.
Good post. Good observations on your part.
Sounds a bit like having a movie on WWII without mentioning Nazi Germany or Hitler.
I refuse to put one red cent into the hands of Hollywood,
regardless of the movie or the actors playing in it. It drives my wife nuts that I will not go to ANY movies showing at ANY theater, period. Different strokes for different folks, and not meant as criticism of those who do go, but I just can't see supporting an industry that,
like refusing to name the group who brought down the twin towers, is more concerned with "world-wide acceptance"
(read receipts), than telling the truth. Truth in Hollywood (like Communist propaganda) is only the truth as THEY SEE IT!
Or a movie about Pearl Harbor without ever depicting the Japanese Air Force. Think about it, it's possible.
Someone else saw and reviewed the movie here on FR a couple weeks ago. After reading your review I feel even more confirmed in my opinion towards the movie and why I feel Oliver Stone purposefully left out a clear reference to who was responsible for 9/11. Heck just the other day there was a news story saying that 1/3 of Americans believed that America had something to do with 9/11. So yes here is the link to my post about the movie and why I am still not going to see it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1671473/posts?page=60#60
CNN was not even a thought at that point.
"...I feel Oliver Stone purposefully left out a clear reference to who was responsible for 9/11. Heck just the other day there was a news story saying that 1/3 of Americans believed that America had something to do with 9/11..."
I'll never forgive Stone for his film SALVADOR.
Stone said recently that if Bush had only served in a war then he would be too sensitive to have (started) gotten us into this war.
To follow Stone's logic, that young corporal in the trenches on the Western Front in WWI should have become too repulsed by the horrors of that war to have launched any more military actions. But Hitler's horrific war experiences did not make him very anti-war did they?
Go see "United 93" as it well shows the terrorists at work and how much of a threat they are. Oliver Stone has just made a rescue some guys from a cave-in movie and used the time frame of 9/11 as the setting. The bogus of Stone is not saying who or what put the guys (and the rest of us) at peril.
CNN = Communist News Network
ABC = All 'Bout Communism
NBC = Nothing But Communism
CBS = Communist Broadcast System
As the towers fall, the movie shows various people from around the world. We see for example, a group of Arab men, in their twenties and thirties, who look very concerned and upset as they watch the events on the boob-tube... We see what looks like some Afghani camel driver listening intently to a radio, very concerned over the events.
We don’t see any Muslims dancing in the streets.
Disappointing, but not surprising. Important points that have been missed in all the reviews that I have seen.
To be fair, after the first plane struck, very few people even had an idea of the size of the plane. Nobody was thinking "terrorism"...we were all thinking "accident".
After the second plane hit, everyone was thinking "terrorism", but only a few people who followed terror news had an idea of which terrorists might be responsible. At the time, a Timothy McVeigh type was still a real possibility to many people.
So I consider the fact that "muslim" or "arab" was not mentioned to be historically accurate. The complete absence of their mention is mildly PC, but not overly PC.
The reaction from the kook elements of the audience is to be expected. I have relatives that feign sickness everytime Bush is shown on TV...its really quite childish. Its almost like they feel its their duty to express their displeasure.
After the second plane hit, everyone was thinking "terrorism", but only a few people who followed terror news had an idea of which terrorists might be responsible. At the time, a Timothy McVeigh type was still a real possibility to many people.
I thought about the very same thing this morning.
I know we were aware that terrorism had taken place, but for that first few days after the attack we were still trying to put pieces together.
We had grounded all aircraft for 24 hours, and the American Psyche was in shock that such a thing could have happened. We never ever would have thought that airlines would be used as missiles.
As a matter of fact it took me almost a week to figure out how to say Osama Bin Laden. How sad that I know how to say it now. Hopefully soon he'll be assuming room temperature.
I went to see World Trade Center early this afternoon. There were only 40-50 people in the theater and nearly all of them were police officers and fire fighters. From the viewpoint of merely concerning the survival of Sgt. John McLoughlin and Officer William Jimeno and the courageous actions of retired Marine SSgt. Dave Karnes, who left his job in Connecticut and traveled to New York City and located the two officers deep within the pile of rubble, it was a good movie. It shows the fear and terror that their families went through that day, the courage and determination of these two men to survive everything they went through, and the courage and honor of SSgt. Karnes as he stopped by his church to pray before heading in to help.
As a sidenote, Dave Karnes returned to the Marine Corps and has served two tours of duty in Iraq. The second Marine who accompanied him into the debris field has never been identified. SSgt. Karnes only knew him as "Sgt. Thomas".
I was stuck on a cruise ship in Alaska at the time. CNN was the only news channel the ship got.
I am hoping to see the movie soon.
Report from Ground Zero, by Dennis Smith (Retired firefighter) chronicles the rescue of the police officers, and the Marine who assisted them.
Thanks for the info on the book, I'll check it out.
My big concern about this film:
No matter how good a drama it may be, no matter how authentically it portrays the heroism on 9/11, if it leaves open the door to the "controlled demolition" theory of 9/11, then it is worthless.
It would be of equal moral value to a film about Jews during WW2 that left open the possibility that there was no Holocaust.
Why on earth should a serious work have to address the delusions of every kook in the world?
No serious person gives those nutcases a second thought.
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.