Or Vietnam movies that came out before the end of that war.

Issues seem clear at first, then they become muddled, then, in some instances, they become clear again -- clearly different than first thought.

An easy example: Did any of the early WWII movies touch on what our government knew about Japanese attack plans prior to Pearl Harbor? I'm sure they didn't cover the treatment of Japanese Americans immediately after.

People can make entertaining, compelling movies anytime the want. And when emotions are still raw and the issues are still fresh in people's minds, frankly, it's not the hardest thing to do, not for the talented. (Does anyone doubt that a story about individuals lost in this tragedy can be compelling?)

But perspectives change, often radically, from year to year after an event. People are caught up in whatever emotion is involved in the event, whether it's anger, grief or compassion. Very often, however, new, relevent information comes out much after the fact that changes how the people affected by the events feel about it.

I never doubted that Paul Greengrass or Oliver Stone could make an entertaining and compelling movie covering events surrounding 9/11. My problem with it is that I am not convinced that we, collectively, have made up our minds how we feel about what happened. Let's face it, we still don't *know* what happened. And that has nothing do with conspiracy theories. One only has to look at the recently concluded Moussaoui trial to understand this.

And it's not about a fear of overly patriotic propaganda. I would have as little faith in a movie lambasting the government for 9/11 as would in a late '60s anti-Vietnam movie.

Still, I feel one of the main reasons for these movies (and books) right now is the filmmaker's or writer's desire to tell "their side of the story." For example, I've read that the reason some the families of United 93 victims agreed to cooperate with filmmakers of the TV movie was because they wanted their story told. Can't really fault them for that, but their side of the story is necessarily an incomplete part of the whole picture.

Everyone fights to get their version of events out in the airwaves, in varying degrees, to influence the collective consciousness, to have their part of the story be part of the "official story." Not that anyone has any disingenuous motives, but it makes each individual story a little more suspect.

And now I am done rambling.

RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com