FLYING UNITED
The Dallas Observer's Robert Wilonsky has an answer to those who say that the film "United 93" is "too soon," as if art must obey a reverse statute of limitations to allow Republican demagoguery to continue unabated (with such demagoguery unwittingly aided by the - understandably - Bush-hating families of some of the victims of September 11th).
"Those who will forever view United 93 as a case of too much way too soon cannot and will not be placated by sincere gestures. They are right to say that none of us needs to be told once more what happened that day; we're reminded of it each time George W. Bush invokes the date to explain or excuse his actions since then. But that is precisely why United 93 needs to be seen: Even as a work of fiction, it wrests from politicians' sweaty hands the cynical battle cry that date has become and shrinks September 11 down to a human-sized tragedy. Those killed in the planes and in the towers and in the Pentagon are eulogized here--mourned over, cried for, at last CONSIDERED."
Bravo. So, let me get this right. It's OK for George Bush to mutter the phrase "9/11" as a fear tactic and a terror tactic - that's neither too soon, too much, too tasteless, or too anything, but when a filmmaker actually dares to SHOW what that phrase actually MEANS, he is ripped apart by the Bush parroters for making, "too soon," a film about September 11th? What kind of horseshit is this? No one owns history. No one owns tragedy. I remember Charles Krauthammer writing an article in which he blasted the victims' families for claiming (so he thought) that "9/11" belonged to them. No, it didn't, said Krauthammer - it belonged to none of us, and to all of us (what he really meant was that it belonged to George Bush). The ACTUAL truth is that no human mind has a monopoly on pain or memory, and that no voice can claim exclusive dominance over victimhood so as to control the speech of others - ESPECIALLY the government. It is, after all, the government, ironically (to an idiot, anyway), by robotically bleating "9/11" over and over again, that is planting the message that "it is too soon"; when Bush talks about "9/11" in the manner that he does, he is sending the signal that it is only acceptable for that phrase to be used in our discourse in certain ways: hatefully; as a way of reminding others of the lie that "Iraq attacked us"; as a way of reminding us that the Constitution is just a piece of paper, and so on. As long as Bush blubbers on so, it is not soon ENOUGH for a film like United 93 - which reminds us that - as inconceicably tragic as September 11th was, the day is now in the past - to be remembered, to be learned from, but not to be, as Fitzgerald once said, like the hapless human, the agent that forces us to beat on, like the proverbial current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. The mere act of making United 93 - the mere fact that it ENDS - tells us something Bush and cohorts don't want to tell us - that life can, does, and MUST go on, and that, yes - our world is still here, and we need not destroy it to save it from our own, self-imposed demagoguery that we created to serve our own hysterical sense of self-importance in response to the events of September 11th.
I pray that we see more films, respectfully told, about September 11th. We need to get that date out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of history, where it belongs. For only then can we truly learn what we need to learn from that day (one of the lessons, of course, is that George Bush has poor taste in friends, that he doesn't give a shit about national security, and that the nation is even more vulnerable to a terror attack now than it was five years ago).
Too soon, you ask? Ask yourself this. According to whom? To what? By what standard? The too-sooners among us won't even entertain this line of questioning. If they did - even if they still came up with the conclusion that the film was too soon, then guess what? They'd actually have been forced to think for a few minutes. Which, of course, is the point about art, and about life in general. Don't be so quick to "too soon" your life, and other people's rights away. This mentality is how bad events repeat themselves. Maybe that is what some of the too-sooners want. Don't let them win. Their ignorance already resulted in one tragedy - September 11th. Their arrogance resulted in a second tragedy - Iraq. It is up to God (the real God, not the one who talks to Republicans) to decide when too soon is, folks: not you - get off the stage, and let reality in. Yes, you will lose your power, but is it really "too soon" for that too? I'd bet you'd argue it is, just as you argue - using the same logic- it's too soon for us to hear someone's point of view other than your own. Aah, there's nothing like the blast of fresh air that attends the exchange of new ideas, and the importatation of new points of view, and of learning, wisdom. It's never too soon for THAT kind of blast.
"Those who will forever view United 93 as a case of too much way too soon cannot and will not be placated by sincere gestures. They are right to say that none of us needs to be told once more what happened that day; we're reminded of it each time George W. Bush invokes the date to explain or excuse his actions since then. But that is precisely why United 93 needs to be seen: Even as a work of fiction, it wrests from politicians' sweaty hands the cynical battle cry that date has become and shrinks September 11 down to a human-sized tragedy. Those killed in the planes and in the towers and in the Pentagon are eulogized here--mourned over, cried for, at last CONSIDERED."
Bravo. So, let me get this right. It's OK for George Bush to mutter the phrase "9/11" as a fear tactic and a terror tactic - that's neither too soon, too much, too tasteless, or too anything, but when a filmmaker actually dares to SHOW what that phrase actually MEANS, he is ripped apart by the Bush parroters for making, "too soon," a film about September 11th? What kind of horseshit is this? No one owns history. No one owns tragedy. I remember Charles Krauthammer writing an article in which he blasted the victims' families for claiming (so he thought) that "9/11" belonged to them. No, it didn't, said Krauthammer - it belonged to none of us, and to all of us (what he really meant was that it belonged to George Bush). The ACTUAL truth is that no human mind has a monopoly on pain or memory, and that no voice can claim exclusive dominance over victimhood so as to control the speech of others - ESPECIALLY the government. It is, after all, the government, ironically (to an idiot, anyway), by robotically bleating "9/11" over and over again, that is planting the message that "it is too soon"; when Bush talks about "9/11" in the manner that he does, he is sending the signal that it is only acceptable for that phrase to be used in our discourse in certain ways: hatefully; as a way of reminding others of the lie that "Iraq attacked us"; as a way of reminding us that the Constitution is just a piece of paper, and so on. As long as Bush blubbers on so, it is not soon ENOUGH for a film like United 93 - which reminds us that - as inconceicably tragic as September 11th was, the day is now in the past - to be remembered, to be learned from, but not to be, as Fitzgerald once said, like the hapless human, the agent that forces us to beat on, like the proverbial current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. The mere act of making United 93 - the mere fact that it ENDS - tells us something Bush and cohorts don't want to tell us - that life can, does, and MUST go on, and that, yes - our world is still here, and we need not destroy it to save it from our own, self-imposed demagoguery that we created to serve our own hysterical sense of self-importance in response to the events of September 11th.
I pray that we see more films, respectfully told, about September 11th. We need to get that date out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of history, where it belongs. For only then can we truly learn what we need to learn from that day (one of the lessons, of course, is that George Bush has poor taste in friends, that he doesn't give a shit about national security, and that the nation is even more vulnerable to a terror attack now than it was five years ago).
Too soon, you ask? Ask yourself this. According to whom? To what? By what standard? The too-sooners among us won't even entertain this line of questioning. If they did - even if they still came up with the conclusion that the film was too soon, then guess what? They'd actually have been forced to think for a few minutes. Which, of course, is the point about art, and about life in general. Don't be so quick to "too soon" your life, and other people's rights away. This mentality is how bad events repeat themselves. Maybe that is what some of the too-sooners want. Don't let them win. Their ignorance already resulted in one tragedy - September 11th. Their arrogance resulted in a second tragedy - Iraq. It is up to God (the real God, not the one who talks to Republicans) to decide when too soon is, folks: not you - get off the stage, and let reality in. Yes, you will lose your power, but is it really "too soon" for that too? I'd bet you'd argue it is, just as you argue - using the same logic- it's too soon for us to hear someone's point of view other than your own. Aah, there's nothing like the blast of fresh air that attends the exchange of new ideas, and the importatation of new points of view, and of learning, wisdom. It's never too soon for THAT kind of blast.
posted by EnterCenter at 9:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home