Three weeks.
Has it already been three weeks?
In some ways, it’s felt like the whole world has been holding its breath in the 20 days since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Much has been written about September 11th and the aftermath of it by every major and minor outlet in the past few weeks. Part of that is an attempt by the writers to sort out feelings about these events on a personal level. Another part of it is figuring out the role of the media at a time like this. Are we here just to entertain? Are we also allowed to vent our feelings? As difficult as it is for us to sort out our own role, that’s nothing compared to the dilemma Hollywood faces in the days, weeks, and even months ahead.
As ol’ Charles Halloway said, and as some guy named Shakespeare said before him, "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes."
Everyone felt a bit like that at first, as folks rushed out to consult Nostradamus via fake quatrains and the Book of Revelations, looking for proof that this was the beginning of the end. Numerologists had a field day, and people sent out all sorts of mass e-mails, like we were all looking to somehow justify the hysteria we felt on the verge of giving into. People went back to church in droves. Others sought out the wisdom of CNN, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, or the Fox News Channel.
Over and over, we saw two amazing accomplishments of human engineering topple, cascading ripples of smoke blanketing the great man-made canyons of New York City. As the Pentagon burned and a conspiracy was laid out for us, we all felt a range of emotions.
Here at AICN, we (Moriarty and Harry) have watched as the tragedy has begun to affect our cultural landscape. We started to talk about what we were reading in our e-mail, about what we were hearing on the phone as we spoke with our friends, and about what was starting to happen in town. And we started talking about art and imagery and responsibility. We’ve seen trailers pulled, movies pulled, films desperately scheduling reshooting ($22 million worth for SPIDER-MAN alone), and digital cleanup crews have been hired to erase our collective scar. It’s been a profound example of plastic surgery of the mind, something Hollywood seems proficient at.
At first, this annoyed us.
Why would the industry change by covering its eyes and pretending that the WTC had never existed? Why would the industry just bury its head in the sand? Art and entertainment are our mirrors. People use art for any of a thousand reasons, to elicit every possible reaction there is. People watch movies because they’re happy or because they’re sad or because they’re in love or because they’re pissed off, and they look for different emotional release each time. That’s why so many genres exist, and why it’s impossible to predict hits. People see a film, and they react, and that interaction is what makes this medium so special, so worthwhile.
Films Being Pulled: Shows being pulled or delayed is one thing, but now certain pro-censorship advocate groups are sensing the frenzy and pushing their own agendas past the point of good reason. Requests are apparently being sent in to video stores to pull films like "Die Hard", "Deep Impact", "Independence Day", "Armageddon" and the "Earthquake in New York" mini-series from their shelves and getting cable/regular TV networks to never show them again. There's also two films still out in theatres with a continuity flaw - both "Final Fantasy" and "AI" features scenes and shots with the towers in them - as both films are set in the future this seems out of context. Thanks to 'SWERJ'
That item appeared on Garth Franklin’s exemplary site Dark Horizons On Monday, Sept. 17. Almost immediately, we began to get a barrage of letters asking if it was true, asking how to stop it, asking who was behind it. Whoever scooped Garth sent him the fuel to start a fire but no focus for the flames. None of these alleged “certain pro-censorship groups” are identified, and the fact that they’re supposedly sending requests to video stores hardly equals the same thing as stores responding to those requests.
Besides, the idea that DIE HARD or ARMAGEDDON or any of a hundred other titles that suddenly became “sensitive” will vanish from shelves and never appear on TV again is, to put it bluntly, stupid. Not showing them at the moment or in the immediate future might be considered sensitive to the feelings of a bruised and healing citizenship, but not showing them ever again would be unthinkable. Or at least, it would be unthinkable to anyone who believes in the curative powers of art.
We tried to wait, tried to be patient, and we have done our best to sit this one out. We waited to hear from the mainstream, the “professionals.” First,Elvis Mitchell weighed in with an editorial in THE NEW YORK TIMES, while Patrick Goldstein did the same for THE LOS ANGELES TIMES. They both discussed the idea of the end of the action movie, of a shift away from anything violent, of an industrywide change that had to be coming, a shift to the innocent, a hope for the musical and light adventure. The editor of VANITY FAIR declared “the death of Irony.”
And this just plain left us confused.
We watched and waited for an editorial that would ring the bell of reason, but none came. Our first impulse? We decided to write our own. Moriarty at his Labs, Harry at Geek Headquarters. We were going to scream at it all. We had seen so many lives lost pointlessly, and we couldn’t stand to see our arts compromised by the same horrific action. Our paranoid minds started playing with the horror of filling out paperwork to rent “high risk films.”
TUTTLE
The paperwork... couldn't stand the
paperwork. Listen, this old
system
of yours could be on fire and I
couldn't even turn on the
kitchen
tap without filling out a 27B/6...
bloody paperwork.
SAM
(mildly)
Well, I suppose one has to expect a
certain amount...
TUTTLE
Why? I came into this game for the
action, the excitement. Go
anywhere, travel light, get in, get
out, wherever there¹s trouble, a
man alone. Now they've got the
whole country sectioned off and you
can't make a move without a form.
-- BRAZIL, Terry Gilliam, Charles McKeowan, and Tom Stoppard
(1985)
As we imagined a world like Terry Gilliam’s bureaucratic nightmare come to life, we remembered that the film deals with invisible terrorists, and we asked each other, “Would BRAZIL be appropriate today?”
And as our heads swam, we set aside our keyboards, realizing that we had to write a special piece, something unlike what we had done before. We decided to get serious and contact everyone on the trusty e-mail Rolodex.
We wanted to see what Hollywood thought of all this. Instead of us spouting off about what should or shouldn’t be, we wanted to open up the conversation to the creative community at large. What motivated you to change your poster art, Mr. Lurie? How does it feel to have ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK pulled from video stores, Mr. Carpenter? We envisioned a decent top story for a Monday morning.
But... it grew.
From an initial selection of 10 to 15 professionals, it has swelled now to over a hundred. We didn’t know what to expect in terms of feedback, but for many it has turned into a cathartic experience. An unobtrusive e-mail staring at them, asking them the same questions they were asking themselves. No cameras, no eyes to stare as they wrote. They sat alone in a room with a keyboard with no publicists or handlers around them.
And they answered.
We sent each person roughly the same letter, with personal questions included for each artist. Some of the people took the time to answer each question. Others answered in one long discourse. Today, we’ve got a sampling of answers to give you an idea what to expect as the series progresses.
What you’ll read in this series of articles is a direct dialogue between the people who work in this business and you, the people who watch their films and read their books and tune in for their TV shows. This is a way for us to facilitate a discussion instead of pretending we have all the answers.
The thing that has impressed us the most when reading these responses is the way people set aside that polished Hollywood exterior and simply reacted as people. There is anger in these responses and there is eloquence. There is pain and hurt and also signs of light and healing. Reading and editing these responses has helped us with our own grief and confusion.
We hope it helps you as well.
First off, in light of the events that took place in New York, what do you feel your primary duty is as a writer serving an audience in a Post-WTC America?
Primary duty = Not to write in fear. Not to coddle or massage the hypocritical concept of a bogus "sensitivity" in media that time-out from the horrific WTC news images to sell easy armchair patriotism and SUVs called the "Liberty." Less than a week after the terrorist attack, news coverage focused primarily on how brave TV anchorpeople were "suffering;" these glory hogs being spelled only by an endless parade of religious nitwits braying on about their god’s plan. From my non-partisan religious viewpoint, it looks to me like Allah kicked "God"s ass, this time out. Gun-shy sheep are always quick to make the entertainment industry take it on the chin any time extremists do public damage. Americans have for decades denied the reality of terrorist acts on US soil, always qualifying each new outrage with a convenient disclaimer: "It was a lone nut." "It wasn’t really terrorism." But Hollywood has been warning audiences about
terrorism in our own backyard for just as many decades. It’s time people stopped averting their eyes; maybe they¹ll learn something, or at least put their anger and fear in a more deserving receptacle than movies or books or TV like, for instance, culling all their do-nothing politicians. (DJS/David J. Schow, screenwriter of THE CROW and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 3)
The exact same duty I had in pre-WTC America. Examine my body of work, and you'll see a keen desire to uplift an audience with a positive message rather than bludgeon them with ugliness and nihilism. If there's a theme running through my films, it's that we as individuals can rise above our baser selves and be better than we are. I've always felt, even pre-WTC, that too many films dwell on how horrible we can be to one another instead of how good. Does that mean films shouldn't touch upon tough subjects and the dark side of human nature? Not at all. You can't seek the light unless you contrast it with the dark. "Schindler's List" is a shining example, showing human decency flowering even in the midst of the ugliest possible human behavior. So, for that matter, since you asked about it, is "Saving Private Ryan." (FD/Frank Darabont, screenwriter/director of SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, THE GREEN MILE, THE MAJESTIC)
First, I feel my duty is to keep on doing what I'm doing. I feel my films have dealt in an entertaining way on how ordinary people can deal with evil people if they have no choice but to deal with them. That seems to be a very relevant issue and theme. (WC/Wes Craven, screenwriter/director of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, SCREAM, LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT)
A personal opinion -- I believe that when there has been a great national tragedy such as last week, which has forever changed or ripped apart thousands of lives, artists should take it upon themselves to gauge the appropriateness of their works. Yes it's easy for a writer or artist (or comedian, for that matter) to use current tragic events as source material, but other than initial shock value, is the artist saying anything worth reading or watching? If he's doing it for sensation's sake, he may make a couple of quick bucks, but he's ultimately going to alienate more customers than he attracts. The artist should listen to his or her own conscience first before making a callous statement about someone else's pain. They need to try and remember a time when they felt helpless and scared, and judge how they would have felt if someone was commenting without sensitivity on that. If it doesn't matter to them, then they are more than free to proceed and take whatever consequences come their way. (PD/Paul Dini, screenwriter, co-creator of BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES)
If you were asked to alter past material to somehow reflect the current tragedy, would you feel that was appropriate?
In a film like ours, I would say that it would be appropriate to make changes that were upsetting to the audience. The jokes in question were not meant as social commentary. They were sideward glancing jokes, trying to make fun of the Taliban when they weren't seen as quite so evil. (JCh/Jay Chadrasekhar, actor/writer/director of SUPER TROOPERS, PUDDLE CRUISER)
A: Absolutely not, interim or otherwise. It is a horrifying and dangerous notion. If we start censoring things, the people who have attacked us will have won a great victory. They will have succeeded in tearing down not only our buildings, but the very concepts of freedom that make us Americans. I repeat: if we do this, the bad guys have won. This we cannot allow.
Movies, books, music, or TV are not the enemy. The enemy are extremists who feel empowered by God to fly hijacked airliners into buildings and thereby slaughter thousands of innocent people. Let's not confuse the two.
Do we want to continue to be Americans, to live and let live, or become like the Taliban itself? You will find no greater example of close-minded, dogmatic thought than in that particular group. These are the very people who, in the rush to censor any thought or philosophy that conflicts with their own, recently dynamited to rubble ancient statues of Buddha, the largest such statues in the world. They destroyed these priceless and irreplaceable antiquities out of sheer, dumb arrogance. My stomach churns
in anguish at the thought.
Me, I figure whatever my neighbor wants to do is fine by me, just so long as nobody's censoring anything or flying planes into buildings. "Live and let live" is what makes us American.
Aside from that, the question posed seems to beg another unspoken question, which is whether we should have horror in art at all. Of course we should. The world is not Disneyland, as much as censorious souls like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Donald Wildmon would like to make it so, which means art should and must be allowed the latitude to evoke all aspects of our human dreams and experiences. There is as much need for the image of Linda Blair's head spinning around on her shoulders as there is for Julie Andrews spinning around on the mountaintop singing "The Sound of Music." Horror films and literature can be extremely cathartic for people (not to mention profoundly insightful into the human mind and heart), which is why we love them. Yes, a lot of really crappy, artless horror films have been made (the entire "Friday the 13th" series springs to mind, but, thankfully, I have the right as an American not to watch the damn things if I find them brainless and offensive), but many of our most brilliant works of art and literature reside in the genre. Simply put, the first idiot that tries to banish Mr. Poe, Ms. Shelley, Mr. King, or Mr. Shakespeare will have to do so over my dead red-white-and-blue body. (The revered American fantasist Ray Bradbury, a deeply humanitarian man and no stranger to horror himself, has written many brilliant works addressing society's sick desire for censorship, including "Fahrenheit 451," "Pillar of Fire," and "Usher II"...all highly recommended reading for those in doubt.)
And, oh, by the way, we've had plenty of crappy, artless films rendered in ALL genres -- so once we start, where do we stop? Do we start doing away with westerns, or romantic comedies, or musicals, or religious epics? And by whose standards do we judge? For every book or movie I love that Donald Wildmon finds offensive, I assure you I can do away with one of his for the same reason. It would be an exceptionally pointless exercise. (FD)
Or do you stand behind the work you've created, even if someone finds unfortunate echoes in it?
NBK was a film that mocked how the media fed us certain images. The criticism still applies. My little sister is an NYPD cop – she has been working twenty hour days at Ground Zero. The media continues to feed us this INDEPENDENCE DAY imagery which is clean and spectacular. NBK sought to question. Questioning is always good. (DM/Don Murphy, producer of FROM HELL, NATURAL BORN KILLERS)
That will, and should, be up to the artist. I do hope, however, that film and television-show makers will be sensitive to the victims and their families, and aware that they might be watching. That is my personal view. (BS/Bryan Singer, director of X-MEN, THE USUAL SUSPECTS)
[A]ny picture that helps an audience deal emotionally with violence of this sort is incredibly valuable. This is, ultimately, how we as civilians deal with horrible realities. What will have to change, perhaps, is the idea of simple solutions by single heroes. We'll have to show more of the complexity of issues. We need to know more about both our friends and our enemies that live elsewhere and think and believe very differently from us. Cartoon images just won't cut it anymore. Perhaps for the near future anything that's at all upsetting will have to be, simply for commercial reasons if for no other, avoided. But there will be a need, eventually, to confront everything we've experienced in some sort of cinematic rumination. Censorship right now is not being spoken of. The reality has, ironically, so far outstripped anything a movie might have suggested that for the time being, it seems, those who were trying to pin everything on the film business seem occupied elsewhere. (WC)
There are currently censorship groups forming around the country to try and get rid of 'inappropriate films' with 'insensitive content' from not only video stores, but cable and network outlets as well. As a writer, how do you feel films with similar content to tragic circumstances should be viewed... and how do you think they benefit or harm society?
I’d like to maintain the gentle fantasy that most people are not sponges passive absorbers of whatever is broadcast or published. I’d like to believe that people can exercise choice according to their own tastes, and have the common respect not to foist their choices on others, particularly in a militant way. Zealots are fanatics, whether they¹re crazed enough to destroy buildings or crazed enough to mandate what everyone else should be looking at or reading. Thomas Jefferson was outraged by this very idea. He said, "Are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books shall be sold and what we may buy?" If we do, this isn’t America anymore. The censorship groups you cite have always been lying in wait, and should be ashamed of using the WTC tragedy to grandstand their narrow and picayune agendas.
What’s even more ominous is that CNN is currently running a poll on their website, which asks, "Would you accept more government involvement in your life if it meant more security against terrorism?" That’s really an are-you-still-beating-your-wife kind of pseudo-question, since whether you answer YES or NO doesn¹t matter it stinks either way. It is, in its own way, a kind of terrorist question. (Everybody stop now and go look up "terrorism" in the dictionary. Don’t accept what media tools say; just go look it up for yourself. We’ll wait.) What it doesn’t address is the bald reality that "security from terrorism" is impossible, due to the nature of terrorist acts. "Security from terrorism" is practically an oxymoron. Security is a comforting illusion, not an absolute. But if you answer NO to the CNN question, the perception is that one "supports terrorism." The Spanish Inquisition couldn’t have twisted language any better. (DJS)
Censorship and (even worse, I think) self-censorship is the enemy of all creative thought. Right now video stores are pulling movies off of shelves that contain themes of terrorism. Radio stations are being asked to take certain songs off of their playlists (including "Leaving on a Jet Plane" by Peter, Paul, and Mary). Will "Catcher in the Rye" be taken out of your public library the next time there is a school shooting? This is not to say that there isn't an abuse of our Freedom of Speech. Quite the contrary. But it's more likely to be happening on your PC, not your local multiplex. It's insane that anyone can learn how to make a pipe bomb by pulling it up off the internet. My neighbor, a 15 year-old boy, was recently carded and refused entrance into "American Pie 2" but he can go home and download hard-core pornography for free. People need to know what's going on in their own home, first and foremost. (MSJ/Mark Steven Johnson, screenwriter/director of GRUMPY OLD MEN, SIMON BIRCH, DAREDEVIL)
Look, there are people in the USA today in 2001 who still want HUCKLEBERRY FINN out of libraries. Addressing the lunatic, repressive fringe only gives them legitimacy. If you don’t like a film, don’t give it two hours of your life. Period. Then shut up. (DM)
Hollywood has been reacting to this event in a number of ways. First they began digitally removing the World Trade Center from films, how do you feel about that? Second, they began pulling films with 'relevant' content from release, your reaction? Third, they have canceled and begun reshooting films as a result... again, what do you think?
It breaks my heart to see them removing these shots. I suppose, in time, I will understand the logic. I guess, as a New Yorker, I am still in denial on some level. I can see the logic in eliminating the WTC from films in production, like MIB2 or Spider Man, but why in films that have already been released and are being transferred to DVD? I read on your site this is happening to AI. Is it true? (JF/Jon Favreau, actor/writer/director of SWINGERS, MADE, VERY BAD THINGS)
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, Jon, that was just a suggestion by a reader, although given Spielberg's emminent digital removal of all guns from E.T., it wouldn't be surprising. But as of yet, there are no known changes commencing.
Over-reaction. I could care less. Most movies that deal with terrorism pretty much stink. They are easy villains for jaded studio execs to dust off and trot out every few years. God forbid the suits try and think up anything new. Now they're too scared to even use terrorists. Could piss off the kids and hurt the opening weekend gross. Soon there will be only one bad guy "acceptable" for use in any movie -- Elmer Fudd. He's white, he's stupid, he's non-threatening, he's perfect. 20,000,000.00 a picture for Elmer, soon to be the workin'est man in show-biz. Let's get the ball rolling now. (PD)
It is nothing new. Current events have always affected people's personal and financial decisions regarding the materials they produce and release. (BS)
I think COLLATERAL DAMAGE is just that. I don't need to see that film. I think they should edit out the WT Center in those films. These are escapist films and the audience does not need to be reminded of our loss for those two hours at least. I do think there might be some pleasure in seeing Schwarzenegger kill terrorists. But this current situation is so politically complicated, I'm not sure the movie version is going to do us much good. (JCh)
No opinion – if that is what will affect the film, it must not be a strong film. (DM)
Is there catharsis in images of Americans triumphing over crisis right now, or in horror films where good wins over evil, or are these images too much in light of recent reality?
I think it's wise to juggle the release schedules and the upcoming slate of films to be shot. There is a time and a place for everything. I don't think now is the time or the place for related subject matter. I can guarantee, however, that we will see a hell of an epic about these current events in our lifetime. It has terror and courage and the triumph of the human spirit and, I pray to God, a happy ending. My son will no doubt munch popcorn and cheer at the screen. I'll see you all in the lobby with all the other parents who don't want to fall apart in front of the little ones.
As for now, I couldn't be happier that LOTR is on its way. It is as timely now as when it was written. America today is not unlike war-torn England in Tolkien's time and the cultural context of the myth should ring just as true. This is the entertainment I desire. I want to see Hobbits and Orcs not spies and terrorists. Show me Good and Evil in a way I can stomach. My subconscious will sort out the rest. I'll figure out what the ring represents, and who Sauron is. And I think I speak for all of us when I say that, right now, I feel like a confused Hobbit about to enter Mordor. (JF)
Where do you draw the line with this sort of thing? Should absolute freedom be protected? Should there be times of temporary censorship, or do people need access to all types of art at all times?
Film should be whatever it should be. There are no rules - except one. A film must make a profit. That's the only objective rule behind the making of films. Very few films have ever been made with express intention of losing money. The need for profit is what will decide the content of films in the coming years. Now, profit can be sourced from many audiences - intellectuals, punks, farmers, gays, Christians, kids, skateboarders, zealots, geeks, families etc. etc. - and every audience constitutes "the people". So films can serve the people, the nation, and the world, by doing just what they are already doing - telling all manner of stories, at all budget levels, just so long as they do not sink into overt, cynical exploitation. To limit the content of films in an effort to "motivate" the nation is to indulge in ideological duplicity, to benefit one's belief system at the expense of others. (SN/Stephen Norrington, director (BLADE)
I probably will not be writing anything about Ra's Al Ghul anytime soon, if that's what you mean. He's too close to the mark at the moment. Besides, I doubt DC would let me kill him off, which is what a nasty part of me sort of feels like doing this week. Oh wait, I killed him off in the cartoon. Never mind. The main problem is that superheroes can't save the day in the real world. I don't think there's a person in America who wouldn't have given their eye-teeth to see Superman rescuing people and kicking ass in the middle east last week. But it didn't happen, kids. The superhero can still inspire by example or offer escapism from an all too grim world, and maybe in the long run, that's where they're most effective. (PD)
There is no such thing as ABSOLUTE FREEDOM - You are always limited by Artistic Ability of Finances. I could never direct as well as Roman Polanski, so I am not free to do so. Polanski doesn't have the ability to get financing for Chinatown type films anymore in France, so he is not free to make them. There also is no such thing as temporary censorship. Censors are like Nazis - First they come for the pornographers, then they come for Oliver Stone and Quentin Tarantino, then they come for Disney. They Cannot Be Tolerated At All! (DM)
Censorship should not be allowed, but showing a little sensitivity couldn't hurt. The other day I came across a car ad in a magazine that showed the World Trade Center in the background. I was surprised by the pain I felt upon seeing this innocuous image, knowing those beautiful buildings were no longer there, and being reminded all over again of how many people died. Maybe I'm a sap, but I think taking the World Trade Center out of the "Spider Man" poster is a gracious thing to do. As for rescheduling certain films, fine. I'm guessing the public wants to see things that'll cheer them up right about now rather than remind them, don't you? Reality has dealt us a crushing blow, and I doubt many people want to run out and see a movie about cartoon terrorists blowing things up. Besides, I think our country needs to proceed advisedly and cautiously from here (pray God that we do), and not get caught up in reactionary Rambo-type jingoism. (FD)
No one seems ready to stand up as a media voice to advocate for the curative powers of art.
I don¹t know about "curative;" I don¹t feel the need for a cure; perhaps I¹m not infected with anything. What I do need is creative freedom and access to all varieties of art, unencumbered by the self-serving agendas of politicians or the stormtrooper tactics of those who would police morals. Movies and books are MY religion, and we all know what happens when you mess with people¹s religion... (DJS)
Look, these is an extraordinary moment in American and even world history. The last membrane between the two worlds that have predominated for centuries - have and have not, democratic or autocratic, peaceful or warlike - that membrane has been penetrated and shattered forever. We have, in fact, been thoroughly infiltrated by a ruthless, highly trained and lethal enemy bent on our destruction. We're either going to figure out a way to root them out and/or stop them from what we're doing, or the whole idea of movies, entertainment or even existence will be history.
So let's not sweat the small stuff. Art will prevail as the voice of the people. But before we can enjoy our movies again, we have to deal with the fact that the theater's on fire. (WC)
Before we close for today, there are some letters we got that were hard to break down into individual responses. Peter Hyams wrote us a response that we found moving, that humanized him in a way that 20 years worth of junket events never has. We’re going to close with his thoughts, and with the promise of more of this to come. AICN is dedicated to being a place where discussion occurs, where people can debate these things in an effort to gain some sense of perspective. We’ll be back with our next article on Wednesday morning.
Until then, here’s Peter.
Harry:
I was a ten-year-old child when my stepfather was arrested. He was hauled in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee. He was a symphonic conductor of no renown and even less financial success. He was, at that time, conducting a Russian ballet company...so it made good press. I come from a theatrical family. I am third generation. I grew up in a rent-controlled apartment on the west side of Manhattan. My parents were Socialists...like most artists and intellectuals of their generation. I went to art schools from the time I could spit. All of my friends were the children of the blacklist. This was the 1950's...during A-bomb drills in
Junior High School... fallout shelters...John Foster Dulles...and the aforementioned Black List. I saw far too many lives destroyed, including my stepfather's...by the hysteria and ugliness of that time. It was a nightmare.
This is a long-winded preamble. However...it lets you know who I am...and what forged my beliefs. There are two overriding emotions that I feel more passionately than any others:
One, is anger. I want revenge. I want us to do something about these people. I know that things are going to get worse. I also know that things will never get better until and unless we address the problem of terrorism and the truly evil people who are behind it. I want us to kick some ass.
Two, is fear. Besides the obvious fear of other catastrophes. It is the fear of losing the Bill Of Rights, because it is such an inconvenient document. What separates us from the Ben Ladens, the Talibans, and all the other psychopaths, is the Bill Of Rights. You have to read about the time of the Black List to understand how pervasive and how wrong it was...and what a profound effect it had on American culture. When I read your questions about people swooping down video store aisles and confiscating "inappropriate" films...I get the chills. I don't see the difference between these people and the Arab Fundamentalist book burners.
The proper reactions to what occurred are horror, sorrow, anger, and resolve...not hysteria. If you are serious when you say that "Capricorn One", or any film that suggested government conspiracy, is in danger of being removed from shelves, then we are in more danger from within our society
than from outside it. Films are reflections of their time. Live everything else...film evidences good taste, bad taste, great talent, and a profound lack of it. It simply depends on the film.
If people's sensibilities are altered by the wrenching events of last week, then films will probably evidence that. My guess is that audience tastes will somewhat mirror audiences during World War II. I would bet that you
will see a lot of films where the bad guys are Arabs. I think there will be a bunch of patriotic movies. And...as always ...escapist movies will be what people want. We should not forget that before last week...the economy was spiraling downwards....less than half of the population felt that the President was presidential. The environment was in decline. Most, if not all newspaper reports described a general pessimism.
Obviously, when you have Spiderman cavorting around the World Trade Center towers, it is like salt on a wound. Everyone is now, and shall remain very sore and tender for a long while. If events worsen...then our sensibilities will reflect that. However... just like during the early 1940's...audiences wanted to see bad guys get their asses kicked...beautiful girls get kissed...and jokes told.
If I have made a film that is guilty of being tasteless...racist...vulgar...or anything else that is horrible...then I should be ashamed of myself. It does not matter if it was made during the 1980's or the 1990's... there is no excuse for horrible work. However ...if anyone thinks that the antidote for that is a group of people that will decide for the rest of us, what is allowable, then they should drop what they are doing, and read their high school history books.
I hope this answers your questions for you. If not... please tell me... and I will try to further clarify for you. I also hope that you are feeling better.
Peter Hyams.
Contact Harry or Moriarty if you have any questions or comments about this piece.
|
