Warning: This Article Contains Major Spoiler Alerts--Then again, nobody seems to want to go see this movie anyway, so I'm not sure what difference that makes.
The movie I'm talking about is "Remember Me," and its ending is causing quite the debate.
This would make it the most debated critical and commercial flop since Battlefield Earth.
Here's why--
(Again, spoiler alert.)
The movie ends with the film's protagonist (played by Robert Pattinson) going to the World Trade Center on 9/11 to visit his father, and dying in the terrorist attacks.
Now, here's where the controversy begins:
The movie has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. It would appear that it's the first movie that includes 9/11 in its plot, but is NOT what someone might call a "9/11" movie. In other words, 9/11 is basically used as a plot device.
Obviously, this has some people up in arms.
The filmmakers say that they only meant to show how life is fleeting, and we have to be grateful for every day we have.
So, you may ask, why couldn't they have illustrated this same point by having their main character die in a car crash or some other less historically relevant way?
I don't know, but honestly, I don't really find it offensive.
To be honest, the twist ending sounds like the only interesting part of the movie.
It's not uncommon now to see movies where World War II or Vietnam are used as plot points. Anytime you see a movie that deals with teenagers and takes place in the 60's, you know at least one of the main characters is going to be sent off to war. It may be cliche, but it's not offensive.
So it stands to reason that if you're doing a movie about New York in 2001, 9/11 is going to play a part--how big a part it plays is up to the filmmakers.
I think that artistically it's unique--at this point, I'm sure this will change in the future as the tragedy moves farther away in time--to see a movie that's not about 9/11 but includes 9/11.
All that being said, I can see how people may feel that this was used to evoke emotion, and in that way, it could be construed as manipulative. To that, I refer back to my previous example--aren't movies like Jakob the Liar just as manipulative for taking other historical mass tragedies and using them to wring a few more tears out of their audiences?
I think perhaps what people are really upset about is that such a huge event in recent history is attached to what is basically a third-rate movie. It was probably a shock to see such a twist come out of what has only been billed by Hollywood as a relationship drama.
Either way, I think it's a nice opportunity for people to talk about how we continue to deal with 9/11 artistically.
It's just a shame such a lousy movie was what gave us the opportunity.
The movie I'm talking about is "Remember Me," and its ending is causing quite the debate.
This would make it the most debated critical and commercial flop since Battlefield Earth.
Here's why--
(Again, spoiler alert.)
The movie ends with the film's protagonist (played by Robert Pattinson) going to the World Trade Center on 9/11 to visit his father, and dying in the terrorist attacks.
Now, here's where the controversy begins:
The movie has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. It would appear that it's the first movie that includes 9/11 in its plot, but is NOT what someone might call a "9/11" movie. In other words, 9/11 is basically used as a plot device.
Obviously, this has some people up in arms.
The filmmakers say that they only meant to show how life is fleeting, and we have to be grateful for every day we have.
So, you may ask, why couldn't they have illustrated this same point by having their main character die in a car crash or some other less historically relevant way?
I don't know, but honestly, I don't really find it offensive.
To be honest, the twist ending sounds like the only interesting part of the movie.
It's not uncommon now to see movies where World War II or Vietnam are used as plot points. Anytime you see a movie that deals with teenagers and takes place in the 60's, you know at least one of the main characters is going to be sent off to war. It may be cliche, but it's not offensive.
So it stands to reason that if you're doing a movie about New York in 2001, 9/11 is going to play a part--how big a part it plays is up to the filmmakers.
I think that artistically it's unique--at this point, I'm sure this will change in the future as the tragedy moves farther away in time--to see a movie that's not about 9/11 but includes 9/11.
All that being said, I can see how people may feel that this was used to evoke emotion, and in that way, it could be construed as manipulative. To that, I refer back to my previous example--aren't movies like Jakob the Liar just as manipulative for taking other historical mass tragedies and using them to wring a few more tears out of their audiences?
I think perhaps what people are really upset about is that such a huge event in recent history is attached to what is basically a third-rate movie. It was probably a shock to see such a twist come out of what has only been billed by Hollywood as a relationship drama.
Either way, I think it's a nice opportunity for people to talk about how we continue to deal with 9/11 artistically.
It's just a shame such a lousy movie was what gave us the opportunity.
Comments
Post a Comment