Or lack thereof. This past Friday, Paramount Pictures announced that Oliver Stone will be directing what will be the first high-profile film about 9/11, based on the actual events surrounding the rescue of two police officers (one of whom will be played by Nicolas Cage) trapped in the rubble (for details on what happened, see Rebecca Liss’ 2002 report in Slate).
Rachel Abramowitz in the LA Times has an overview of the fears many are already expressing that Stone, who’s been known to make the odd inflammatory political statement and come up with the occasional revisionist conspiracy theory, will, oh, pour vinegar on the still gaping wound in our national psyche. Others, like Slate‘s Mickey Kaus, seem less worried that the film will be controversial than that it will simply be bad (and, despite the fact that it will almost certainly be timed to hit theaters around the fifth anniversary of the attacks, will anyone really want to watch it?). Renee Graham in the Boston Globe defends the choice of Stone as a director.
As for us, we’re having a hard time getting hot under the collar about this. Stone’s been off his game for quite a while now ("Alexander" was so good-bad it was almost bad-bad again, but our infinite appetite for kitsch saved it for us), and even then, the subject matter is still so tender we can’t imagine that he would (or could, given the story arc) have the balls to use the film to make political jabs. If anything, the film will probably be boring, with Nicolas Cage running around, furrowing his brow into the shape of an Oscar.
+ Stone, Cage to Team Up on Film About 9/11 (AP)
+ An Unlikely Hero (Slate)
+ Stone assesses Sept. 11 project (LA Times)
+ Keep Oliver Stone Away from 9/11! (Slate)
+ How will Stone’s history play 9/11? (Boston Globe)