Review of chapter 23: "Representing
9/11 in Hollywood cinema,” Eleftheria Thanouli. Routledge Companion to Cinema and Politics, ed. by Yannis Tzioumakis and Claire Molloy.
by Matthew Rodrigopulle
The attacks that took place in the United States of
America on September 11, 2001 were nothing short of tragic. The terrorist
attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center and on the Pentagon in Washington
D.C. definitely changed the world’s outlook on security and life, marking the
events as a touchy subject to reimagine for years to come. With such tragedies
however, came stories too, and as Hollywood always finds, stories can be told
well through the production of films. Although it may be difficult to tell the
events of 9/11 as stories without wrestling a few unrested thoughts, certain
techniques can accurately capture the essence of the stories without negative
reaction. While steps could be taken to improve its writing and formation,
the ideas and arguments laid out in the article, “Representing 9/11 in
Hollywood cinema” by Eleftheria Thanouli, offers a good amount of insight into
the strategic methods of covering 9/11 accurately and sensibly in film.
The article begins with Eleftheria
Thanouli introducing the events of 9/11 and explaining its initial
unattractiveness to being portrayed in Hollywood cinema, despite its
“spectacular nature of events” (Thanouli, 2016, p. 302). Nevertheless, Thanouli
refers to two main Hollywood films based on the events of 9/11 for her
article’s foundation: Paul Greengrass’ United
93 (2006) and Oliver Stone’s World
Trade Center (2006). Although
they both cover the events that took place on September 11, 2001 and have
portrayals of individual heroics, they are both very different in the stories
they follow. Thanouli also emphasizes the differences in the ways they are
told, looking at plot, cinematic and editing techniques, and their endings.
Thanouli proceeds to explain how Robert Burgoyne (2008), in his chapter “The
topical historical film: United 93
and World Trade Center” attempts to
mirror the two films by saying they both offer their audience a way to cope
with the events of 9/11 in different ways. These ways include their visual
aspects and their juxtapositions. For example, Thanouli adds that Burgoyne
states United 93 (2006) has a
“nervous, verité visual style” while World
Trade Center (2006) offers a “a minimal-ist, nearly abstract visual
approach” (Burgoyne, 2008). Thanouli also discusses the work by Douglas Kellner
(2010), in which Kellner argues United 93
(2006) to be the better film of the two, since it tends to stay away from
typical Hollywood film formulas. Kellner explains how United 93 (2006) places a great emphasis on ordinary people being
heroes and the government being an untrustworthy institution for
citizens—things that are unprecedented in modern Hollywood. On the other hand,
Kellner condemns World Trade Center (2006)
because he characterizes it as being sentimental and he believes Stone fails to
touch on the context and reasoning’s for the attacks in the first place.
Thanouli disagrees with Kellner’s statements about World Trade Center (2006) because
Greengrass’s film also did not explore the reasons behind the attacks, yet
Stone is the only one who takes the blame.
Thanouli then categorizes the
film’s similarities into three categories: plot construction, their preference
for anti-spectacular or oblique framing of the action, and their depiction of
“agents in crisis” (Thanouli, 2016, p. 302). United 93’s (2006)
narrative structure uses crosscutting to show the various events that are
taking place during the timeframe of the attacks, such as swapping through
national air defense systems, to the Muslim characters, and to the other
characters aboard flight 93. Stone’s film uses this technique similarly by
switching back and forth through several different narrative paths. Stone’s
film takes the audience through the life of the New York Port Police on
September 11, to the collapse of the towers from various viewpoints, and to the
grievance of family members during the same timespan. Additionally, both movies
portray the images of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center in subtle
ways, in order to avoid any sensationalist depiction of the images that may
affect viewers. United 93 (2006)
portrays the crashes by simply showing the planes’ tracking blips disappearing
and the reactions of traffic controllers. World
Trade Center (2006) represents the attacks by simply portraying a
silhouette of the plane amongst buildings. Thanouli praises this use of
restricted narrative in covering the 9/11 attacks, as it is unlike most other
films and documentaries about 9/11. Whereas other 9/11 films cover the main
events and attacks that have always been broadcasted, these two films place an
emphasis on the subjective experiences that went untold at the time, thus
finding a story in the bigger picture.
Thanouli continues to explain how
both films emphasize the connection of humans and technology during 9/11. In United 93 (2006), the technology of the planes are often crosscut with humans
in the airport to signal a connection, as well as illustrating the dependency
of the humans on phones and credit cards when they are trying to revolt against
the flight’s terrorists. World Trade
Center (2006) similarly emphasizes the power of material objects with
characters hooked on their television screens watching the tragedies of the day
unfold. Thanouli continues to explain how the crisis of individual agency is
something that is apparent in both films. In United 93 (2006), every episode of the plot, including the traffic
controllers not being able to stop the hijackers, to the hijackers being
hesitant about controlling the plane, and the military not being able to take
significant action, all expose human error. Thanouli relates this to Thomas
Elsaesser’s reading where Elsaesser describes the concept of “parapraxis”, or
human error in speech, memory or action (Freudian slip) (Elsaesser, 2013). In
relation to the film’s protagonists, Thanouli explains how they are all set
into a series of events or missions in which they fail, but under
incommensurable circumstances. For example, the characters on the flight in United 93 (2006) must deal with being
behind on the information going on in the world during the hijacking, as well
as how the characters in World Trade
Center (2006) were unable to communicate with people outside of the rubble.
Thanouli concludes her article by explaining that the events of 9/11 are
tremendously difficult to exploit and portray in Hollywood cinema because of
the aftermath that is now engrained in America’s history.
Thanouli’s article is very
interesting and understandable from a reader’s perspective. One thing that I
thought was exceptional was the way Thanouli related certain ideas to exact
scenes in the films she mentioned to further her understanding. An example of
this was when she discussed the subjective experiences portrayed in World Trade Center (2006), where she
stated, “McLoughlin and his team experience the collapse of the buildings from
below the ground, reversing entirely the widespread top-down view of the event
disseminated in the media. The long dark sequences underground…reconstruct for
the viewer an unreachable perspective” (Thanouli, 2016, p. 306). She describes
this scene in detail to visually aid readers with an image that they can follow
along with, inviting them to analyze the film with her. I myself have watched both films, and anyone
can as well to further understand the text. As an individual who was a mere
child in 2001 when the 9/11 attacks happened, I have no recollection of
memories concerning it. Film and video, especially documentaries, have been my
main source of education about the events, and even those just touched the
surface on the events that took place. Her explicit attention to detail when
describing the films allows me to see more of 9/11 than what the media had
simply shown, and I also was able to see that the events of 9/11 sprung more
stories than the typical ones of terror and sadness.
Furthermore, I liked how Thanouli
took a comparative approach to the two films in her article. Rather than simply
breaking down each film and showing how they follow certain structures, she
chose to compare and contrast them, giving readers a different perspective on
both. For example, she compared the two films by stating,
In United 93
the episodic structure becomes more obvious thanks to the relentless
crosscutting…United 93 is not merely
about the eponymous flight that crashed in Pennsylvania…the rest depicts the
national tragedy from the perspective of various air traffic control centers…. Similarly, the rescue of the
two trapped officers under the Towers in World
Trade Center is merely one episode…Oliver Stone plots his 9/11 movie in an
episodic fashion with multiple characters and various potential narrative
paths, loosening significantly the classical goal-oriented Hollywood formula.
(Thanouli, 2016, p. 304)
By comparing the two films, both
content and production wise, it gives readers a sense of relativity to how
films are made, and how they do or do not follow certain structures. Thanouli
did a fantastic job with separating the films from other 9/11 films, and I
truly found it easy to understand. Initially, some of her writing was difficult
to grasp, but after reading the article thoroughly and understanding the films’
parallels, it made more sense, which furthered my understanding as a whole. I
did agree with Thanouli and Kellner’s opinion on how United 93 (2006) is a better film than World Trade Center (2006). After a thorough read, her article made
me reflect on the films and why they thought this to be true. Thanouli’s work
opened my eyes to a new political lens when viewing the film, and I agree with
their statements about how United 93
(2006) uses less typical Hollywood film stereotypes than World Trade Center (2006), which ultimately makes it seem like a more
intuitive work.
One thing that I think Thanouli
could have touched upon more in the beginning was how the main events of 9/11,
which were the terrorist attacks themselves, caused all these side narratives
to form. I understand that Thanouli praised these two movies for covering
narratives that were not normally covered about 9/11, but I still think the
main events are crucial to provide context for her argument, and she should
have discussed it more so the reader can get a full grasp of the situation.
Also, after doing some background
research on Thanouli (“Eleftheria
Thanouli,” 2014), I felt like her foreignness to the impacts of 9/11
hindered her ability to bring this article to its full potential. Although her
past publications prove that she is knowledgeable about film studies, I felt as
though she does not have much authority to discuss the sensitive effects of
9/11 on American politics and cinema since she is foreign to the events.
Thanouli did not personally live in North America during this tragic time, and
although the political landscape of America was projected all over the world
after 9/11, it truly takes personal experience to fully understand its effects.
When Thanouli states,
The extensive debates about trauma and memory that have
been rehearsed in the academic and cinematic discourse…(Elsaesser 1996: 146‑150;
Rosenstone 2006: 134‑153) seem to have instilled a certain knowingness in
contemporary filmmakers about the difficulties with which one approaches the
vanishing past. (Thanouli, 2016, p. 309)
Thanouli is not
necessarily speaking from a qualitative research standpoint. She is basing her
knowledge from what other writers have shared, and therefore her knowledge is
limited. If someone who lived in the US during this time of political unrest
was to discuss this same topic, they may have potentially been able to offer a
better analysis of 9/11’s impact. Despite this, I still believe Thanouli did a
great job with this analysis given her experiences, but I do feel if she had
more first hand experience of 9/11, she would have much greater authority on
the topic, which would make the article more meaningful.
Overall, Eleftheria Thanouli did a
wonderful job highlighting the key strategies used in covering 9/11, a
sensitive topic in film. She broke down the components of both film and the
events into very understandable content that readers, especially moviegoers,
would appreciate. Her critical analysis had some flaws, but she did an
excellent job emphasizing the overall effects of 9/11 on the world and film. I
think Thanouli’s article is a great read for anyone looking to learn more about
the political and cultural effects of 9/11, especially in connection to cinema,
and I would highly recommend it to anyone looking to further their knowledge in
film and politics.
Works Cited
Burgoyne, R. (2008). The Hollywood Historical Film. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Eleftheria Thanouli.
(2014). Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http://www.film.auth.gr/en/tmima/prosopiko/eleftheria-thanouli.
Elsaesser, T. (1996). “Subject Positions, Speaking
Positions: From Holocaust, Our Hitler,
and Heimat to Shoah and Schindler’s List” in V. Sobchack (ed.) The Persistence of History: Cinema,
Television and the Modern Event. New York: Routledge, pp. 145‑183.
Elsaesser, T. (2013). German Cinema: Terror and Trauma: Cultural Memory since 1945. New
York: Routledge.
Kellner, D. (2010). Cinema Wars: Hollywood Film and Politics in the Bush-Cheney Era.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Rosenstone, R. (2006). History on Film/ Film on History. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson.
Tzioumakis, Y., & Molloy, C. (2016). The Routledge Companion to Cinema and
Politics. London: Routledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment