September 20, 2005
Oliver Stone Moves Forward on 9/11 Film
So it seems director Oliver Stone has begun on his untitled 9/11 film, which starts shooting in NYC sometime mid-October. Stone promises the film "will be a 'positive' story," focusing on two Port Authority cops -- one played by Nicholas Cage -- trapped under the rubble of the WTC, and not the politics sorrounding the event. On CNN Showbiz Tonight, Cage explained how the film intends to treat the story as responsibly and ethically as possible: "This is not an exploitive movie. This is not in any way an action film.It’s a true story based on fact... And it is very positive about the human condition, and that is what drew Oliver to it and it’s the kind of movie he does the best...I don’t even think you’re going to see the buildings in the movie actually."
According to Cindy Adams, the film will not depict planes hitting the WTC, opting instead to show TV viewers reactions. And understandably, Stone faces a few NYC restrictions, including only having access to establishing shots, skyline shots, outdoor location shots and driving shots as well as being prohibited from dressing “the streets with dirt and debris and ash and people's belongings and falling bodies.”
Stone waited to start pre-production after the anniversary and claims the staff is taking an “enormous” pay cut, with a portion of the movie profits to be donated to victim funds (we wonder what constitutes "enormous" in Hollywood). While many appreciate Stone’s sensitivity (and/or somewhat relieved that at least Jerry Bruckheimer isn’t directing), other feel that a 9/11 film is still too close to the event. Gothamist also wonders whether a too-sensitive approach to September 11th only takes away from the actual event, but at least the film will mostly be shot in NYC, whereas other 9/11 projects prefer Toronto or Morocco.
|
Well judging from all the tourists I have to schlep through at Ground Zero to get to work, I'm sure it will have a nice big audience. That audience won't include me though, ever.
Oliver Stone can shove it.
"...with a portion of the movie profits to be donated to victim funds..."
How about this. Scrap the movie and donate ALL funds towards WTC victim funds.
You know what's funny? People get upset at vendors selling 9-11 merchandise near the WTC site. But somehow Oliver Stone and Nicholas Cage can make a movie and while some are upset, they are not seeing it as equally exploitive.
Jack, interesting point. But does that mean no one is ever allowed to write a book or direct a movie about 9/11 (or any tragic event), lest it seem "exploitive"? In which case, there would never be any films, books, or art regarding unfortunate events and wars because all the proceeds and efforts should help the victims?
what if there are no profits associated with the movie at all? or what if they're only donating box office profits and not dvd sales, etc?
Jack - Who exactly are you talking about? Most people don't even know that this movie is being made, they haven't had a chance to get upset yet. What are they supposed to do, take to the streets in protest before the film even begins shooting?
and Jack:
what right to 'the people' or any victims have to any say or input about how a movie's profits should be divided knowing that they've invested no money it?
Let's not forget that this being Hollywood there will be no accounting profits, so you're arguing over nothing.
Too bad he won't be able to do a movie about the bombs planted in the Towers. 911truth.org
"Jack, interesting point. But does that mean no one is ever allowed to write a book or direct a movie about 9/11 (or any tragic event), lest it seem "exploitive"? In which case, there would never be any films, books, or art regarding unfortunate events and wars because all the proceeds and efforts should help the victims?"
R, nice straw man argument that I never made. I think there have been more than enough good documentaries and true investigative films on 9-11 to warrant a semi-fictionalization/dramatization so soon after the fact.
Should there never be any semi-fictional/drama based versions of what's happening? Sure. That's okay. But not 5 years after the fact. It's simply too soon and when all is said and done, it's simply not warranted--at this point--to do stuff like this. Let's face the reality that 9-11 is one of the most overexposed and overdocumented events in recent history. Yes it was tragic, but at the same time I strongly believe that 60-70% of the 9-11 material being pushed out nowadays is simply cashing in on a tragedy and not much else.
Also, considering Oliver Stone's investigative streak, why not fund--or co-produce--something like an investigative documentary on his take on this.
Much respect to Nicholas Cage, but there's nothing seeing Nick Cage under a pile of rubble will ever add to the discussion of 9-11 at this point.
Also, hr said...
"what right to 'the people' or any victims have to any say or input about how a movie's profits should be divided knowing that they've invested no money it?"
You're right. Nobody has the right to tell anyone what to do with their money. But the other side of the coin is as a movie patron--who will no doubt be subjected to the marketing frenzy surrounding this film--I do have a right to call 'bullshiznit' on things like this. It's simple crass and self-congratulatory.
And hey. I have no business telling Oliver Stone what to do with his money. But what business does any celebrity have telling me--and other consumers--that we should donate funds to whatever cause they are shilling for; good or otherwise.
If Jerry Lewis can go on TV and tell me to donate to a cause, I can then simply call baloney on ego-cases like Oliver Stone creating a dramatization based on a tragic recent event.
Whaaa!!!!!!!!! I don't like Oliver Stone! Whaaa!!!!! I'm a big baby.
jesus, if more people thought like jack and less like hillary clinton and every other politician, soccer mom, and focus on the family type group, people would vote with their wallets on cultural issuance rather than trying to get someone to outlaw it for "the children."
Remember when Nicholas Cage was cool? Remember Wild at Heart? Red Rock West? Raising Arizona? Rumble Fish? Valley Girl? Fast Times?
I saw a preview for a godawful movie he is going to be in soon and it made me think: when did Cage suddenly become such a hack? Was there a movie that sent him over the edge? If so, my vote: "Con Air/The Rock" (same movie basically).
Wasn't there already a fictionalized account of World Trade Center attack? I believe it was called the 9/11 Commission.
You people will pay to see a famous ship sink and make it the highest money making flim of all time, but refuse to see a movie of events that happened 5 years ago?
So, It's ok when the suvivors die of old age, but its wrong when they are still alive?
I have the rare ability to see both sides of this story. I am a native new yorker for well over 30 years and still live in the city, however I am also very much involved with the making of this film, so i can easily see both sides of the controversy.
First off... most of this film is being done in L.A. NOT in nyc. there's only a few weeks of filming here and about 3-4 months there. NYC is just being used for establishing shots and very few actual scenes. I am not permitted to say where those scenes are. For those saying at least they're filming it here... they're only filming 18% of it here... the other 82% is on a backlot in hollywood
Now... as for my feeling about this? At first I was thinking here's another exploitative film about 9/11. Hollywood making money on the tragedy of others. I began to realize though (and it has nothing to do with my involvement with this film) that if you take away 9/11... you have to go a lot further than that. 9/11 was 5 years ago (at least when this film debuts in 2006). It is now a part of American History. Maybe the darkest part of American history, but history nonetheless. If you stop filming movies about dark moments of our past, you'll have to do all of it. You can't say okay this is okay, this isn't... because everyone is going to have a different belief. Tell Mary from Secaucus who lost her son in the Vietnam war that 9/11 is more painful than that was, well you're wrong. To her it wasn't. Tell Amy from Flushing who lost her husband in the Gulf War that 9/11 was more painful, she'll tell you you're dead wrong... and she's right because subjectively, that affected her more. It's all a matter of perception.
So with that in mind, if you're going to say that we can't film 9/11 than you have to go the rest of the way and remove all movies that depict dark days in American history. Saving Private Ryan, Forest Gump, Platoon should also be removed from the shelves. And for those who say that well this happened on American Soil and those events didn't... that may make sense to you, but most likely Mary's son from Secaucus went into that war drafted. He probably didn't sign up for that tour of duty. He died fighting a war he didn't want to fight. Fact is, it's irrelevant. Someone died. Choosing which death was more significant is impossible. Everyone is right, because it affected all of them equally and tragically. Hate to say it, but you cannot ban any part of history when it comes to film or the arts, no matter how much it may hurt.