Remember one of the many feelings on Sept. 11, 2001, was that celebrities,
Apparently some genius in the movie industry thought it would be a good idea to provide a red carpet for the opening of the film United 93, about the hijacked plane bound for the Capitol in Washington, D.C., that went down in Shanksville, Pa., instead thanks to the heroic efforts of passengers and crew. The film opened the Tribeca Film Festival at the Ziegfield Theater, an appropriate venue to be sure, though having anything amounting to "festivities" leaves a bad taste.
Some things just don’t mix, as reporter David Segal points out. The only thing “in keeping with the situation” (to quote Dickens) is the fact that moviemakers have managed to turn such a tragedy into a circus.
First we have Universal Studios proudly proclaiming that they are donating the first weekend’s profit to the proposed United Flight 93 memorial in
Then, in true
Of course this is not the first film about a tragedy and, while not my favorite genre, I can sort of understand their function. Schindler’s List forced you to look at the results of an entire nation (and world) looking the other way. All profits went to the Shoah Foundation. Even Titanic is a study in human arrogance in the face of nature.
Perhaps it is the treatment of the subject matter that makes the movie and all the accouterments in such poor taste. If this were an expose’ of the intelligence bungling of both the Clinton and Bush administrations it would be less sordid. But to watch the events leading up to the senseless death of 44 innocent people amounts to nothing more than voyeurism. It teaches nothing, it reveals nothing. It’s not entertainment. And it’s not even fund-raising.
I agree with the man quoted at the end of the article:
"Well, it took 60 years before there was that movie by
Michael Bayabout Pearl Harbor. Isn't it nice that with the advance of movie technology, it now takes only just five years for a director to cash in on tragedy?