|
|
There's a decent editorial/non-review over at Chud.com that describes Greengrass as being the proponent of "neo-factualism," in which all the details of the event are sifted through and the salient and interesting ones are put on the film, so that character and audience alike can believe what they see.
I have yet to decide if I'm going to see this. First of all, I expect it has one of those "God Bless America, Daddy" type endings in which the American flag waves beautifully in the wind and the innocent eyes are drawn upwards to it. I'm not anti-American, but I find endings such as that to be rather artificial.
Secondly, I'm removed as far away as a North American can get, and I don't mean physically. Even when it happened, I was more surprised than horrified. I didn't generate fear or paranoia as a result of 9/11. I simply didn't care. During 2001, I had just recently immersed myself in the historical details of the Rwandan genocide, and I was somewhat disrespectful of the US, the UN and anybody else other than Romeo Dallaire. So come 9/11, I had a bit of a "Well, they deserved it" attitude.
So this attitude persists in a small way in my head, because it's not like the US took a fucking hint and tried to be a better country as a result. No, they just got more intolerant as a country. Whatever. Enough soapboxing. So my "I don't really care" attitude makes me not really care about the flick.
On the other hand, I'm interested to see how Greengrass handles something this delicate. Will he go the Michael Bay route and have the "God Bless America, Daddy" ending (so named after Independence Day), or will he challenge the audience to question who the real villains are, what the big picture is, what does 9/11 teach us about ourselves? If the film is like that, sign me up. |
|
|