Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close may be cashing in on tragedy, but it's in good company
The reaction to Best Picture nominee Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close has not been kind, but it's not alone in commercialising real-life tragedy...
Even though I'm writing this days before the actual announcement, it's pretty safe to say that 9/11 drama Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, will not win the Best Picture award at the 2012 Oscars. In fact, the film may be the most critically mauled ever to be considered for the prize, and no one can discern quite why someone thought it worthy of being nominated. Now, we didn't hate the movie quite as much as everyone else seemed to, but its critics seem to have united in one deafening cry.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is a shameless cash-in on real-life tragedy, and uses the events of 9/11 as a cheap trick to provoke tears and sentimentality among audiences. Even though we didn't despise the film, and it looks destined to be many a guilty pleasure when released on DVD with "2 Academy Award nominations" plastered all over the box, the criticism isn't entirely unfair. Films based on real-life tragedy almost always leave a slightly sour taste in the mouth, even the masterpieces and long-remembered gems.
But are the events of September 11th unique, simply because they occurred so recently? Can we, in fact, look forward to what one book publisher described as 'Holocaust-porn' for our own generation's tragedy. Time has made World War II a distance history lesson for most, and the tragedies, both mass and personal, are now widely considered fair game for subject matter. God knows, people have tried to do the same since 2001, but along with the smattering of allusions and tonal shifts that accompanied moviemaking at the beginning of last decade, there were also those that dared to tackle the tragedy head on.
The two that caught people's attentions, both released in 2006, were Oliver Stone's aptly named World Trade Centre and Paul Greengrass' United 93. Had the film's not been made about the same day, there would be no linking them. United 93, the more critically (if not commercially) accepted of the pair, was a daring docudrama that followed the passengers of one of the planes destined for another terrorist hit. Using transcripts of some of the real phone-calls to relatives, supporting cast who actually worked for the government, and a distanced respect for the subject matter, it will be remembered as one of the better films to be made at the time.
World Trade Centre, however, will not. Largely forgotten out of politeness, the film put Hollywood sheen right inside the towers, and saw the tragedy through Nicholas Cage's movie star eyes. That's the difference between the two - gloss and glamour - and that is also one of the things about Extremely Loud that people are objecting to. Was it a mistake to sentimentalise such shocking, and raw, events for a paying audience eager to revel in other's grief? That's certainly not the reason why many people might experience these films, but the intention, as always, is for the film to make money.
What, for example, makes it different from something like War Horse or Titanic? Both are depicting real-world tragedy, WWII and the sinking of the Titanic respectively, and are about as sentimental and emotionally manipulative as they come. All three films depict the tragedy through individual experiences, also, whether young love, a grieving son, or a horse separated from its master. It's hard to say what has caused critics to turn on Extremely Loud so ferociously, but there's nothing new about commercialising people's heartbreak and misfortune.
What might be the worst example of this shifting attitude towards 9/11 is the Robert Pattinson romantic-drama, Remember Me. For those who haven't seen it, viewers are led to believe that the film is set in present day, until the final moments when Pattinson enters a tower block, looks out the window, and sees a incoming plane. There is no warning, nothing to suggest this might be the film's conclusion, and no reason for its use other than to elicit tears and a final shock-moment for teenage girls in for a good weepy. It's sneaky, and used as shorthand for the senseless loss of loved ones.
The holocaust, wars, and natural disasters are all cinematic sub-genres in their own right, and it's not unthinkable to guess that 9/11 is destined for the same fate. Type the date into a search engine and there are countless top 10's floating around, each collating films that have dipped their toes into an event not yet 15-years-old. When will the universal understanding that it's no longer 'too soon' hit the film industry? No one can say, but the reaction to Stephen Daldry's adaptation proves that the time has not yet come.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is a shameless cash-in on real-life tragedy, and uses the events of 9/11 as a cheap trick to provoke tears and sentimentality among audiences. Even though we didn't despise the film, and it looks destined to be many a guilty pleasure when released on DVD with "2 Academy Award nominations" plastered all over the box, the criticism isn't entirely unfair. Films based on real-life tragedy almost always leave a slightly sour taste in the mouth, even the masterpieces and long-remembered gems.
The two that caught people's attentions, both released in 2006, were Oliver Stone's aptly named World Trade Centre and Paul Greengrass' United 93. Had the film's not been made about the same day, there would be no linking them. United 93, the more critically (if not commercially) accepted of the pair, was a daring docudrama that followed the passengers of one of the planes destined for another terrorist hit. Using transcripts of some of the real phone-calls to relatives, supporting cast who actually worked for the government, and a distanced respect for the subject matter, it will be remembered as one of the better films to be made at the time.
World Trade Centre, however, will not. Largely forgotten out of politeness, the film put Hollywood sheen right inside the towers, and saw the tragedy through Nicholas Cage's movie star eyes. That's the difference between the two - gloss and glamour - and that is also one of the things about Extremely Loud that people are objecting to. Was it a mistake to sentimentalise such shocking, and raw, events for a paying audience eager to revel in other's grief? That's certainly not the reason why many people might experience these films, but the intention, as always, is for the film to make money.
What might be the worst example of this shifting attitude towards 9/11 is the Robert Pattinson romantic-drama, Remember Me. For those who haven't seen it, viewers are led to believe that the film is set in present day, until the final moments when Pattinson enters a tower block, looks out the window, and sees a incoming plane. There is no warning, nothing to suggest this might be the film's conclusion, and no reason for its use other than to elicit tears and a final shock-moment for teenage girls in for a good weepy. It's sneaky, and used as shorthand for the senseless loss of loved ones.
The holocaust, wars, and natural disasters are all cinematic sub-genres in their own right, and it's not unthinkable to guess that 9/11 is destined for the same fate. Type the date into a search engine and there are countless top 10's floating around, each collating films that have dipped their toes into an event not yet 15-years-old. When will the universal understanding that it's no longer 'too soon' hit the film industry? No one can say, but the reaction to Stephen Daldry's adaptation proves that the time has not yet come.
Comments
Post a Comment