Hollywood gains from terror
"United 93," "World Trade Center" point to startling trend in film industry
Subtle Exclamations
Phillip Porras |
“AWWWW…”
That collective moan you may have heard on August 10th was actually Hollywood bigwigs expressing disappointment in the fact that a massive trans-Atlantic terrorist plot involving liquid explosives onboard various American-bound flights had been foiled before coming to fruition.
If the in-flight attacks had been carried out as planned, certainly a film adaptation would be in the casting process as we speak; but, thanks to the clever work of some pesky anti-terrorist investigators, potential filmmakers can only be left wondering, “What if?”
Such is not the case with 9/11.
Disturbing as it may be, imagine if you will the following scenario: it is the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, and a Hollywood executive turns on the 54-inch flat screen television inside of his multi-million dollar Hollywood Hills home just in time to witness the second plane crash into the World Trade Center.
He stares with his mouth gaped as his super-ego moves into overdrive, desperately struggling to maintain a front of shock and horror as his id franticly repeats the same phrase over and over: “This is going to make a great f#@$ing movie!”
And, according to many critics, it did.
Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” was released earlier this month on the heels of “United 93,” which opened in April.
Whereas “United 93” maintained a low-budget feel, complete with a cast of mostly unknown actors, Stone’s film was released without a hint of shame or pretense- — this was to be considered a major Hollywood summer film, complete with Nicolas Cage in a starring role.
The release of these two films marks a five-year gap between the actual tragic events of 9/11 and their cinematic adaptations.
However, would anyone else be willing to bet that there were probably at least twenty or thirty 9/11 related scripts already floating around Hollywood by the middle of 2002?
But Tinsel town played it well.
Rather than prematurely releasing any 9/11 films, the industry treated the situation as though it were a bottle of fine wine — they were going to let it sit for a few years and then, when the timing was right, unleash their treasured bottle all over American audiences.
That time is now.
More recent world events such as the London bombings of last summer, the ongoing Iraq war, and the current situation between Israel and Hezbollah have all helped to make 9/11 seem like something from a distant past.
The “taboo” label has now been removed, thus opening the door for the Hollywood one-two combination that was “United 93” and “World Trade Center.”
With the 9/11 films now out of the bag, Hollywood is most certainly banking on the current wars to provide material for what will be another barrage of money-making films which we should expect to see in theaters around (by my best estimate) 2010.
A struggling screenwriter who may be lacking in imagination only needs to turn on CNN for a few hours each day in order to find ideas for a great fact-based script that Hollywood will profit immensely from.
Fantastic marketing, however, will convince moviegoers that a tragedy inspired film is honestly nothing more than a celebration of heroism.
A production company only has to whisper that a portion of a film’s proceeds will be donated to charity, and with that, all is forgiven.
But just how much money is really being given back?
Take, for instance, “World Trade Center.”
If you paid money this summer to watch this film, but perhaps feel dignified because you heard Oliver Stone was donating proceeds to various 9/11 charities, consider the extent of his generosity: only 10 percent of the box-office sales from the film’s opening weekend were to be divided amongst four charities.
What about the rest of the money? That will be going to movie executives who desperately need to upgrade the 54-inch flat screen television they’ve had since 2001.
Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>
|
