A response to Mr Lee
Thank you, Mr Lee, for printing yet another stunning recommendation in your blog. But I must apologize. While on several occassions you have guided your own readers to the hallowed pages of The Recipe, I feel that I have neglected to return the favor. In light of this, I would ask that any readers of The Recipe that have not yet explored the tales of Mr. Lee's life and work in Washington, DC, to do so when they have a few moments to spare.
With that said, I feel the need to further explain my last entry, as well as to question your view of 9/11 profiteering, of which you spoke in a recent post. As stated, I have no problem with the depiction of emotional topics on film, or being incorporated into popular culture. I don't believe that within a society where free speech is held in high regard, any person or event is above critical debate or depiction. Indeed, it our responsibility to understand and challenge the past, and I recognize film's role in helping us with that. Rather, my issue with Mr Stone's latest film is that he does not attempt to break new ground within the framework of 9/11. He does not challenge the accepted American view of the events of that day, nor does he place September 11 within its appropriate historical context, which would include a discussion of what led to the attack on the World Trade Center, as well as the long-term consequences of it. That he has not attempted to do either of these aims is evidence that the American viewpoint of 9/11 has not shifted to a place where it can think critically of the events. Thus, because America cannot think critically of 9/11, it is premature to provide a fictionalized account of it, i.e., bring it further into popular culture.
Mr Stone settles for yet another minute-to-minute recount of the morning of 9/11, which frankly, in the past five years, I've had enough of. I know what happened that morning. I was in New York. For those of you that weren't, I'm sure you caught the footage of the twin towers falling about a billion times since then. Do we really need Hollywood to show us a regurgitation of the CNN reels? This film accomplishes nothing other than reinforcing the cult of 9/11, where all Arabs are terrorists, all policemen are heroes, and everyone that died did so in the name of America and freedom. I don't believe this is true, and to continue it on film will make a critical analysis of 9/11 in the future even more difficult.
And while I commend you, Mr Lee, on boycotting the film out of a disgust of the profiteering of 9/11, I have some news for you. The profiteering began on September 12. President Bush and the GOP have used the cult of 9/11 to push through every bit of their legislation regarding national security or foreign policy. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security? It was necessary to stop another 9/11. Telephone tapping? Again, we can't let 9/11 happen again. Invading Afghanistan? They harbor the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Invading Iraq? Well, we have no evidence to prove Saddam is connected to 9/11, but we sure would like to believe that he was. Allowing Israel to bomb the daylights out of Lebanon? Israel is under attack, just like we were on 9/11.
Without 9/11, George Bush wouldn't have been able to do any of this. Is it profiteering in the financial sense? No (although we could talk here about the plans to rebuild lower Manhattan, but I'll spare you of that). However, you must certainly see that your own political party have used the tragedy of September 11 to their advantage whenever and wherever they could.
With that said, I feel the need to further explain my last entry, as well as to question your view of 9/11 profiteering, of which you spoke in a recent post. As stated, I have no problem with the depiction of emotional topics on film, or being incorporated into popular culture. I don't believe that within a society where free speech is held in high regard, any person or event is above critical debate or depiction. Indeed, it our responsibility to understand and challenge the past, and I recognize film's role in helping us with that. Rather, my issue with Mr Stone's latest film is that he does not attempt to break new ground within the framework of 9/11. He does not challenge the accepted American view of the events of that day, nor does he place September 11 within its appropriate historical context, which would include a discussion of what led to the attack on the World Trade Center, as well as the long-term consequences of it. That he has not attempted to do either of these aims is evidence that the American viewpoint of 9/11 has not shifted to a place where it can think critically of the events. Thus, because America cannot think critically of 9/11, it is premature to provide a fictionalized account of it, i.e., bring it further into popular culture.
Mr Stone settles for yet another minute-to-minute recount of the morning of 9/11, which frankly, in the past five years, I've had enough of. I know what happened that morning. I was in New York. For those of you that weren't, I'm sure you caught the footage of the twin towers falling about a billion times since then. Do we really need Hollywood to show us a regurgitation of the CNN reels? This film accomplishes nothing other than reinforcing the cult of 9/11, where all Arabs are terrorists, all policemen are heroes, and everyone that died did so in the name of America and freedom. I don't believe this is true, and to continue it on film will make a critical analysis of 9/11 in the future even more difficult.
And while I commend you, Mr Lee, on boycotting the film out of a disgust of the profiteering of 9/11, I have some news for you. The profiteering began on September 12. President Bush and the GOP have used the cult of 9/11 to push through every bit of their legislation regarding national security or foreign policy. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security? It was necessary to stop another 9/11. Telephone tapping? Again, we can't let 9/11 happen again. Invading Afghanistan? They harbor the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Invading Iraq? Well, we have no evidence to prove Saddam is connected to 9/11, but we sure would like to believe that he was. Allowing Israel to bomb the daylights out of Lebanon? Israel is under attack, just like we were on 9/11.
Without 9/11, George Bush wouldn't have been able to do any of this. Is it profiteering in the financial sense? No (although we could talk here about the plans to rebuild lower Manhattan, but I'll spare you of that). However, you must certainly see that your own political party have used the tragedy of September 11 to their advantage whenever and wherever they could.
posted by Mr Beerman at 11:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home