In My Humble Opinion Cashing in on tragedy

Author: Daniel Roberts

I have two magazine subscriptions at school, and when I see that folded tube in my mailbox, boy do I get excited. It means yet another chance to put off my schoolwork.

The magazines I get are GQ (yeah, I know) and Entertainment Weekly (for the movie reviews). Both publications recently reviewed "Death of a President" ("DoaP"), a faux documentary about the assassination of George W. Bush. The two critiques were completely polarized, and in this case I agreed more with what GQ wrote - that the film is offensive and inappropriate.

The film, which manipulates actual footage of Bush to show him being shot, implies that killing Bush would be an admirable pursuit. Talk about a lack of patriotism. The film's makers seem to expect that audiences will be entertained by the on-screen murder of Dubya. This makes me feel sick.

Call me old-fashioned, but Bush is our nation's leader, and no matter how much of a joke he is, I find something inherently wrong about a film that would not so subtly hope for his untimely death.

Becoming frustrated over "DoaP" and its subject matter reminded me of two current releases that are far more aggravating to me. I am referring to the two films released this year about 9/11.

The big question surrounding these movies was, "Is America ready yet?" There was much debate on the issue. Some felt that it was still too soon, while others retorted that if it was tastefully done, then it could be acceptable. Since this is my column, and they don't pay me the big bucks to sit on the fence (actually they don't pay me at all), I'll tell you what I think: It is too soon.

Some background info: The movie "United 93" focused on the hijacked plane that did not reach its intended target, thanks to the efforts of civilians on board. The pair's bigger blockbuster, "World Trade Center" ("WTC"), features Nicolas Cage as one of two heroic cops who rushed into the towers.

My claim is not that these films are distasteful. In fact, Entertainment Weekly called "WTC" "scrupulous and honorable," and praised "United 93's" realism, "Each hijacker is a man with a temperament and religious conviction, not a cartoon monster."

Great. But something still feels too creepy about it for me. One message board for "WTC" features complaints about the lack of exciting action shots. This expectation for sensationalized scenes shows that audiences are not yet mature enough to handle these films. Clearly, audience response is just as crucial as creative intention. No matter how nice their goals were, these movies turn a very fresh wound into a Hollywood spectacle of popcorn entertainment.

Do you remember the movie "Pearl Harbor?" It was only loosely about the attack, focusing instead on a heinous love triangle between Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett and (mmm) Kate Beckinsale. The high place this trash earned on my "Worst Movies I've Ever Seen" list is beside the point. What matters is that it came out sixty years after the catastrophe that inspired it. Sixty years! These 9/11 movies began filming a mere four years after the tragedy.

Perhaps what makes me so uncomfortable is that I can still recall exactly where I stood, what I was thinking and how my heart felt when these events took place.

I bet survivors of the 1912 Titanic wreck would have been equally offended if, in 1917, a movie had been made about the crisis. Charlie Chaplin would have played the Leo DiCaprio role, lip-synching, "I'm the king of the world!" (Movies were silent back then, duh).

The movies are already out. The damage is done. My little rant in a small college newspaper will not affect the producers in Hollywood. All I can do is declare that, for what it's worth, I think Hollywood really could have waited a few more years before capitalizing on the disaster of 9/11. That's just how I feel. Now insert witty, comforting one-liner here.