The other day I was cleaning up the DVD and VHS tapes in my son's bedroom when I stumbled across the most horrible of movies...
"A children's version of Titanic?" I thought to myself. "That's dark."
As I read the movie box description I was horrified to find statements like "filled with hilarious antics, fun music and enchanting characters this movie is sure to be a hit with the entire family!" It was as if the Iranian government had released its own version of the "hilarious" events of 1912.
I suppose with a running time of 72 minutes, this film never aspired to greatness anyway. But it got me thinking about how nonchalant the majority of us are in accepting Hollywood's use of real disasters in order to fill seats. James Cameron's Titanic and Oliver Stones' World Trade Center instantly come to mind.
The artist and screenwriter in me understands the use of these tragic events as a compelling premise for a film. In fact, if tragedy is the higher form of thematic concept, then they present themselves as ideal candidates for the big screen. Could it be as simple as mining the graveyards of history's disasters in search of a bigger and better tragedy into which to throw a story?
Whether or not directors or writers approach these topics respectfully or knowledgeably, they run the risk of exploiting the event for financial gain. Given the box office receipts on both of these examples, disaster is good for business. In fact, according to Wikipedia WTC cost $65M to make and took in a Gross of $163M. I don't know what Stone or Paramount did with all their piles of money but I doubt they gave much of it to the grieving families of the 9/11 victims.
That brings me to James Cameron. Not that I don't like the guy. I'm sure under that cold hearted exterior there's a tender soul inside. Undoubtedly a talented director, Cameron gave us one of the most visually stunning and lavish films ever made. And we all ate it up. We cried, we sat at the edge of our seats, we cried more... and at the end of it all Cameron and Titanic went on to gross more than $1.8 Billion...
...Sorry, I needed a moment to collect myself. Oh, and in case we all forgot we're reminded that 1517 people (kids included) lost there lives in the sinking. So what?
Most of us don't think twice about Hollywood co opting our greatest personal and corporate tragedies. And from what I've observed, the lag between "event" and its portrayal in film is dissipating rapidly as well. The first Titanic based movie came out in 1953, 41 years after the sinking. Interestingly, an earlier 1943 Nazi propaganda version was released which "used the sinking of the RMS Titanic as a setting for an attempt to discredit British and American capitalist dealings and glorify the bravery and selflessness of German men."
WTC came out in 2006, five years after 9/11. So at least Cameron waited until the individual and collective memories of his event had faded substantially enough before pursuing his exploitation.
We could wade into even murkier waters if we consider Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List or Amistad, Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down or the grandaddy of them all, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. But I don't think these events meet the same criteria. True, capital is still earned in these endeavours based on the enthralling subject matter, but somehow they don't have the same shameless exploitative qualities. They celebrate heroes, and maintain a respective chronological distance from the event. They may play fast and loose with the facts or change certain names or design composite characters -- but they are essentially dramatic historical narratives which do not hijack the tragic outcome for capital purposes.
I suppose the cuddly mouse on the cover art of Titanic: The Animated Movie says it all:
What else could we ask for?
No comments:
Post a Comment