MovieChat Forums > Reign Over Me (2007) Discussion > My Biggest Problem with this Movie

My Biggest Problem with this Movie

posted 17 years ago by Hdny42
21 replies | jump to latest

Grief is a universal and powerful emotion, regardless of the reason of why one is grieving. It is because of this that I feel Mike Binder tried lamely to capitalize on the topic of 9/11 and its familiarity to the world. My whole reasoning for this opinion is that if you take Charlie's character and just substitute in that his wife and children died in a car crash, a fire, or anything, his grief and that main element would be the same. Before anyone thinks this has to do with me being over sensitive about the attacks (I knew people that died, being from Long Island, but I also think United 93 was the best film from 2006) I would hope to put that out of anyone's mind.

It bothers me greatly that because we know more people and families were affected by 9/11, it somehow is considered preeminent in regards to grief and loss. In terms of nearly 3,000 people dying and the loss for their families, it was a travesty of unheard of proportions, but I do not think that a father who loses a child to murder is in any less pain than a father who lost his child in 9/11 (and that goes for any other familial relationship). While 3,000 people is a terribly large amount of people, it is less than every year die of heart disease and cancer; while those family members (and victims) do not have the added anger caused by murder and not plain death, the loss is no less painful and is felt by more people and so is more familiar to the general public. And so my question is, why did Mike Binder choose 9/11? To choose it, instead of giving the character a grief-point that happened within a year or even several months of the time-line in the movie, he had to go back over six-years (at the time of the movie's release) to bring up a moment that everyone knew about and could feel.

In my eyes, the problem with choosing the terror attacks of 9/11/2001 is because it just seems like an attempt to grab headlines or to get extra kindness from reviewers: who wants to be seen as standing against a movie that stands in memorial to 9/11? Who wants to be seen as shallow, unfeeling, and unable to sympathize with all those who were affected during 9/11? Some of these charges were brought up after the (in my opinion) fantastic "United 93" came out, but that movie HAD TO (for its very topic) deal with 9/11, while Mike Binder could have written a movie that was the same in every way with even a generic airline crash, all the 9/11 element has to do with is having people understand what the circumstances were of the death; somehow we look at Adam Sandler's character as a man who has suffered something beyond the USUAL pain. To me, the contrast was made greatly in the movie itself (though, in my opinion, quite unintentionally, as I do not give too much credit to Binder in this regard) when Don Cheadle's character's father dies. Yes, it is almost universally considered more painful to bury a wife and/or children (and in Sandler's case it was certainly worse as it was ALL his family in one swipe, wife and children) than a parent, BUT the pain of loss is still traumatic, whether it be a parent due to natural conditions or an entire family brutally murdered by unfeeling terrorists. In reality though, does Adam Sandler's character have more right to grief than Don Cheadles? Does Adam Sandler's character have more of a right to withdraw from life, and would be quicker to get our sympathy because he lost his loved ones during 9/11?

I venture that this movie would have been received much more harshly if the only plot element changed was that Adam Sandler's family members had died in a generically hijacked plane and if (somehow) a scenario in such a light could be made completely devoid of 9/11 connections; or if his entire family were murdered. I say murdered because I think there is (perhaps) an extra layer of grief there than if his family members were to die in a plane crash with a cause where no one was to blame, like if an engine fell off. If that ONE element (and so obviously, all 9/11 references and times it comes up would be excised) were changed, I think the movie would have been viewed entirely differently, and that Mike Binder took the easy way out by relating his movie to 9/11; he attached the grief of his character to something famous (or infamous) that we all knew about, and so in my mind he completely trivialized the deaths of all those who lost their lives on 9/11, and insulted their families. Those people had no choice, but Binder picked 9/11 over a generic loss scenario due to the hope that it might sell more tickets or get him more prestige. Since his story-line is original and not a true-story, I cannot think of any other reason that 9/11 was chosen as the reason except to have the audience give Adam Sandler's character the preeminent right to grieve.

Life is an exceptionally painful experience for everyone in different degrees. And while there are instances in history (the Holocaust for example, in many members of my family were shipped from Hungary in cattle-cars and murdered) that are understandably upsetting for such a number of people, I ask now the question if there is truly an element of preeminent grief. Looking at things now, I say that there are certainly times when people will (and I hate to be generic, but I may pinpoint here teen and pre-teens) be over-dramatic and grieve over nothing, but when it comes to death it is hard to decide where the line is in terms of "right to preeminent grief." Sure, if someone dies at 96-years-old there is generally a more uplifting period after death because it is a chance to celebrate their life and memory, and no one at ALL says "and he/she was too young, just in the fullness of life!"

My best friend who was as a brother to me died of a tachycardia brought on by Wolfe-Parkinson-White syndrome when we were both 15-years-old, and it was the worst death I have ever experienced (it was earlier during 2001, the same year of the deaths in the film). Where on the grief level do I show up? Am I lesser because I am not a direct family member? Do I have less right than someone in 9/11 because I have no one to blame, and that person could say "well it was your friend's time," and that in 9/11 the people were victims? I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I bring them up because I believe they flash through our minds whether we realize them or not; if the cause of death was no issue, Mike Binder's movie would have never even mentioned how his family died, just that they did, and we as the audience in this scenario would feel just the same amount as pity (or any emotion any other viewer felt) and empathy as we did during the actual movie. But is that the truth, or is the hidden notion of preeminence of grief real?

To a certain extent I do believe that the idea of one person's grief being given more weight than that of another is true. Whether (as I mentioned) it is because we think the person who died lived a full life, or that we think the person was partly responsible (ex: they drove drunk, or committed suicide), or whatever, people sub-consciously assign weight to the grief of people and give different values. My problem is, I don't know why that is or if it is right to do (even though it is probably a human emotion, and impossible to stop), but it happens regardless. Consider the parent of a child who commits suicide; does that parent have less right to be decimated with grief and loss than if their child dies a natural death? Does the parent of one who dies a natural death have less right to be angry and torn up than if their child is murdered by another human being? And if that child is murdered, does it matter how the courts see it (meaning, if the court considers it 1st degree murder, does that mean those parents can grieve to more of an accepted extent than the parents of a victim of manslaughter?)?

These questions are hard to ask and many may call me heartless for thinking of them, but they do exist, right? I do not believe I am crazy, and I DO think Mike Binder did something wrong here. I am fine with 9/11 stories and do not believe it is "too soon," but at the same time I don't understand why the 9/11 element played an important role at ALL in this particular story. This was not a story of 9/11-specific grief, but one of a man afflicted by it to a certain level who had to come to grips with it. In reality though, we as society cannot decide how much or how long ANYONE has a right to grieve about anything. Sure, we can feel incredibly uneasy if a person equates the death of a beloved turtle to that of someone's family member, but that isn't the cut and dried example I am speaking of right now. As I said, I knew people who died in 9/11, and I ask if the family members of the victims have more of a right to grieve than the family of my 15-year-old best friend who died that same year? Do the parents of my friend have more of a claim to grieve due to his young age than someone with an older child or older family member? Again, I think these questions are unanswerable, but I DO believe they exist on a level, and I think Mike Binder is the one who opened the can of worms here (even if it existed before somewhere).

By making the movie as he did it and making the one element 9/11 centric, Mike Binder asked the question of whether a famous circumstance of the death of one's family gives them more right to be upset and withdraw from society than if the deaths had been for a reason he invented. Would Don Cheadle's character have heard and been torn up by the deaths of Adam Sandler's family if they died in a car accident en-route to a skiing trip?

I apologize if anyone has found this post offensive in the slightest way, as that is not at all my intent (and I apologize also for its length). However, I think these are reasonable questions to ask because it is not fully necessary that the story deal with 9/11 in the way that it does, and because 9/11 and horrible acts in themselves (wars, genocide, murder) bring up questions about how we deal with loss as a society, as certain social groups, and as individuals. Only the most liberal of people is able to consider all people without judgment regarding grief (meaning that those people, beyond judgment, do not mind that a person treats the loss of their dog as equivalent to the loss of a family member; they fully accept that loss is different to each person and everyone deals with it in their own way. They think that relatively (in comparison) the one who has lost the dog might feel their grief in a way that the parent feels the grief over their child (even if most people would feel that it is a bit foolish to equate a dog tot he loss of a child). It is almost impossible to use facts and reason when looking at FEELINGS, since one can never completely devalue the feelings of others. If one were to argue whether or not 9/11 happened, they would be arguing facts and the person who said it did not happen would be wrong. However, if they were arguing how much it meant to each of them, then it is impossible for either of them to be "wrong," even if one feels something completely averse to the way normal society thinks (or is expected to think). Regardless it is difficult when one does not believe in the idea of it ever being anyone's "time," to die (although if someone dies of a heart-attack at 96-years-old, it is easy to understand the idea that the person lived their full life. IE: even if that person smoked or drank for years, few people would lament, "If only they'd lived healthier...it wasn't their time yet.").

In closing, I again hope I have not offended anyone. I am not saying Mike Binder is a bad person or anything, but I am casting doubt as to why he needed to use 9/11 as his story element (as a prospective writer I am asking this) when he did not have to. Considering I do not know if his movie would have been nearly as well received if the ONLY thing changed was the 9/11 element, it does make me suspicious of his motives, and it also makes me upset that one can put out a movie that would (perhaps) be considered sappy or mediocre or whatever if it was fiction without a tie to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. There are a million questions regarding loss that will always afflict humanity, and I do think this movie brings up some of those questions, but I believe it does so completely unintentionally. I think that, if not for the element of 9/11, perhaps the movie WOULD have meant to ponder on some level the expectations and allowances of society concerning grief and those who deal with it. Mike Binder, in my view, brought 9/11 into his story for very suspect reasons and profited from it. I cannot say what his motives were in doing it, and I don't believe he meant to hurt anyone, BUT I do believe he did consciously attempt to profit off 9/11; he used it as a plot device that saved him the time of having to create a fake plane crash, and insured that the audience would be shocked and hurt by knowing themselves exactly what happened on 9/11, and having their own memories. I again disclaim that I do not want anyone to think I am attacking Mike Binder, I am just trying to pose a question about his methods. Grief is a difficult topic to attack for a story or screenplay, and I commend him for doing so, BUT (in my opinion) he took the easy way out by leaching onto a well-known terrorist attack so that the audience would know what happened the characters, trying to make the audience bring the lives of fictional people into closer focus and understanding. It is (again, in my opinion) the "easy" way out as no new event is needed and I think it is just wrong.

Regardless of how one feels about this movie, Mike Binder chose to attach 9/11 to it and there is no doubt in my mind that just that one fact changes the way it is judged by critics and regular viewers. To bring up such a terrible crime against humanity (more specifically Americans, and even more specifically concerning all that I knew and saw, so many people from the NYC metro area) just so that people would say, "Oh that was horrible, I understand why he's upset!" is wrong; it is a weak reason to invoke such horrors. The loss of those we love is such a common human theme that it would have at most taken only a few pages to create a fictional plane crash that would have the same effect on the script. The only thing is, people would look at the movie without any hang-ups, like the ones regarding the 9/11 inclusion. It would not have taken long to establish what had happened and should not take too much effort as a writer or director (Binder did both) to make us feel the character's pain even if we don't know that the crash is true from personal experience.

People cried in theaters when Bambi's mother died (that is a spoiler, so I am sorry, but most everyone knows that Bambi's mother met a hunter and didn't come out the winner) because the story and the animators did a fantastic job of making the audience CARE. If Mr. Binder felt he could not do this for his story and Adam Sandler's character without using 9/11, then he is not saying much for his faith in his abilities. I myself believe it did not come from a lack of confidence in himself, but from a desire to give his movie more weight than traditionally would be associated with a movie from Mike Binder. I have nothing against the man, I just question the tactic, his motives for using it, and his execution of it. We all grieve at some point in our lives, and whether or not we lose people in a famous terror attack or if they die sitting on the couch should not matter in terms of how we feel the pain. When all is stripped away and on its most basic level, loss is loss. This movie refuses to strip that layer away and suffers as a result. Perhaps my theory is wrong and those that have lost loved ones due to 9/11 really should have a lot more acceptance from society than do others who endure a painful loss.

Whether I am right or wrong I am upset at Mike Binder and think he made the wrong decision, and that 9/11 should have given his movie no shield from due criticism. It should not give the audience MORE empathy for his character than would arise with a fictional event, as he is fictional himself and it is a movie; it would certainly be far easier to assess grief rationally without adding 9/11. A truly powerful and unique human emotion such as grief could have been dealt with in an entirely remarkable and courageous way, but Mike Binder chose to go another route, and his movie suffers for it.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

[–] lorrigirl 17 years ago

tl;dr

[–] Hdny42 17 years ago

I'm sorry, I don't know what that means...

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

[–] roy_here2002 17 years ago

Good point Heathnyy5

I support everything you wrote.

[–] markd-2 17 years ago

Holy novella Batman!

I can understand you being a little disturbed by the fact that 9-11 was used as vehicle to explain Charlie's emotional status, however you need to take into consideration that the majority of the movie-going public has not had to feel the emotional effect of their entire family being murdered by a crazed individual, or killed in a horrifying crash (car, airplane, etc). In fact, I would bet that anyone whom has experienced this wouldn't have even thought to see this film once learning of the synopsis.

However, because of its magnitude and the subsqeuent media exposure, almost everyone can identify with the feeling of loss and hopelessness of 9-11. Using it as a reference to why this man is the way he is, is quite acceptable and understandable, because we can sense the pain that he is suffering because we all felt it, whether or not we had any personal attachments to that day or not.

I do not believe the writer & director exploited the events of 9-11 at all, except for maybe the part where Charlie was exonerated of any criminal charges because he was a personal victim. In fact, I was so into his character, until that scene, I almost forgot during the majority of the film how he got to be that way. I was only concerned with how he was going to get out of it, and what a hell of a friend he had.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nam-turk 17 years ago

I disagree because the specific reference to that incident didn't come up until Sugarman is telling Johnson about when he and Fineman stopped being friends. Even then, he says "September 12th." Furthermore, Fineman rarely ever discusses his family or that day. It's not like the audience is beaten over the head with it.

[–] pandabr87 17 years ago

I understand what you are saying, but I think you should go back and watch the Special Features on the DVD. The director explained that he wanted to show the other side to the tragedy of 9/11, that there are still people out there who are still living that day over and over, that haven't picked up their lives yet. How can you say that he profited from 9/11 and condemn him for it? Did you think that United 93 was made for the sole purpose of telling a story? What about the World Trade Center movie? I believe they profited off of 9/11 too, did they not? That's pretty hypocritical of you, don't you think?

<3Divine

[–] Hdny42 17 years ago

A hypocrite is saying one thing and doing another, what you're saying is that I'd be having double standards. I do not mean that to sound rude, I'm just saying that I am averse to being called a hypocrite, especially when my actions do not earn the name. However, this is no double-standard.

Both "United 93" and "World Trade Center" (I hated the Oliver Stone film, by the way) are true stories that factually deal with the events of 9/11. You cannot tell the story of Flight 93 or the two main characters in WTC without what happened in the United States of America that fateful day. "Reign Over Me" tells a fictional story that is mainly about the friendship between two people when one of them is suffering deep grief over losing their family.

"Reign Over Me" tells a story that could just as easily be achieved without referencing 9/11 in any way. The story could even have been set anywhere in the world, not just New York and that one specific event.

It is possible to argue that "United 93" and "World Trade Center" are trying to take advantage of the disaster and that they should not have been made, but one cannot argue that they could have been made without the elements of 9/11 in them. What bothered me about "Reign Over Me" is not that it shouldn't have been made, but that it could have been made with 99% of the story intact, just have a different event that brings on the tragic loss of the family and the grief. There was absolutely no reason the tragedy was used as the grief event, unless it is somehow understood to be the pre-eminent cause of grief, but I believe that the character could have acted exactly the same having lost those three he loved in a car crash, plane crash, or murder. I do not know how you can really compare "United 93" or "World Trade Center" to "Reigning Over Me" because one was fictional and so did not need to have anything to do with 9/11 if Binder had decided he didn't want it. The story did not REQUIRE the tragic events of 9/11 for any reason at all, other than (as I said) potentially to make money off the subject. I admit that it is a dark prospect, but I really don't see ANY other reason 9/11 had anything to do with this movie. It's not like large plane crashes aren't in themselves shocking or fairly rare and that he could have been just as devastated, or if it had to be planned as well, it could even be a plane that was bombed; even if it reminded us of 9/11, there was no need to specifically put it in other than to profit off of it.

It is not at all hypocritical of me to have this opinion and the fact that you disagree with me does not necessarily make me in the wrong; it is just my opinion. I'm sorry we disagree, but if you believe that I am hypocritical I'm just not sure what your definition of the word is.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

[–] pandabr87 17 years ago

Dude... seriously?

Stop pooping your pants over it lol.

It was a good movie, a good concept, it was touching, and made you think, made you remember where you were at the time when 9/11 occurred, and that's all that mattered to me.

Also it doesn't matter if those other movies were true stories or not, everyone associated with that movie PROFITED FROM A TRAGEDY. That's why I don't understand why you're complaining about this movie, and not those.

Double standard, hypocrite, whatever.. you go the gist of what I was trying to say.

<3Divine

[–] macdino 17 years ago

I have to disagree but can see the argument that you make. I dont think the director is deliberately using 9/11 to make his movie more sympathetic but you are right it could easily have worked without any reference to 9/11.

I think genuinely he wanted to show that 9/11 is still hurting people and many still have trouble moving on. I think movies like this help us to not forget that although it happened more than 6 years ago now, that we should never forget.

That day changed our world possibly forever and we hear of this war on terror every day but it could be easy to lose sight what started it all and that people are still personally affected.

Movie makers have always told stories surrounding real life events, i.e. the holocaust, various wars, previous terrorist atrocities and this will not be the last movie that deals with the events surrounding 9/11 and its aftermath. We wouldnt accuse Stephen Spielberg of profiting from the Holocaust by making Schindlers List so I think its a bit unfair of accusing Binder of profiting from 9/11. Maybe it was too soon to make this movie I dont know, how much time should we wait?.

I think United 93 and World Trade Center were made for similar reasons to help us appreciate what people went through. They were fact based or in the case of United 93 as close to fact as we can know based on the various phone conversations between passengers and loved ones and the flight data recorders, but they both served to tell us the stories of the people involved directly that day and what they went through that day.

Reign over me deals with what probably many thousands of people have gone through since in dealing or in this case not dealing with their loss that day.

I think only the director can answer why he used 9/11 as the catalyst for Charlies problems, but he does explain this wether truthfully or not. I cant answer as I dont know the guy personally but I would hope he made the movie for the reasons that I beleive and not the reasons that you beleive.

[–] Hdny42 17 years ago

I think everyone is making a mistake again when comparing this to United 93, World Trade Center, and now Schindler's List. Each of those movies was a TRUE story that could not be told without the disaster. Each of them was made in concert with survivors, or the families of victims.

A better connection could be made to the movie Titanic (even though that obviously needed to have the disaster in it) because it brought fictional people into a real event. However, Reign Over Me is not ABOUT 9/11, it is a story about grief that could have worked with or without 9/11. As I said, this movie would barely be changed at all if the catalyst was changed from the 9/11 attacks to a generic plane crash, or any way that all his family was killed at one time as a result of non-natural causes.

I am not saying that anyone who makes a movie or book about a tragedy is capitalizing on it, and I think even World Trade Center (which was an awful movie) could not have been made without the tragedy because it was telling the SPECIFIC story of two Port Authority Police Officers who were involved in the attacks and survived; their story could not be told without 9/11. United 93 was the story of that plane and what happened to it on that day, it could not have been told without 9/11, and many families of the victims pitched in to help make the movie, giving the director (Paul Greenglass) information about their loved ones, and their permission and cooperation with the movie.

Schindler's List was based on the book, and was also a true story where many of the survivors who were still alive were in contact with Steven Spielberg and were even shown at the end of the movie.

All these circumstances are completely different from Reign Over Me, and I don't know why people are having trouble seeing that. Reign Over Me brought 9/11 in for reasons only known to Mike Binder, while the other movies COULD NOT have been made without 9/11 or the Holocaust because those stories are actually ABOUT 9/11 and the Holocaust. Reign Over Me is fiction and so does not have to include 9/11 at all, but it does anyway. I am not saying Mike Binder did anything wrong, just that I would personally like to know why he made that choice when he did not have to, and that until I know why I am assuming that he did it to boost notoriety about his movie, insuring that it would be news and in the process even making it harder for critics to write bad reviews.

I do not believe it is "too soon" after 9/11, because as I said I enjoyed United 93 as a brilliant and powerful film. I am from New York and most of us still remember very well where we were and what happened on 9/11, and it is impossible not to remember it every time one is near Manhattan and sees the remaining gap in the skyline; there is still nothing there after all these years.

While I am not a fan of this movie, it does not have to do with the 9/11 aspects but for my own reasons. If someone made a movie tomorrow about 9/11 and tried to make it about the disaster in and of itself (a la Pearl Harbor, although I'd hope that the movie focused on actual people who really existed, unlike the dreadful Michael Bay movie...oh, and Michael Bay should not be anywhere near a 9/11 film, neither should Jerry Bruckheimer) I would not protest that it is too soon. It has now been seven-years since the events of 9/11/2001, and if you compare the time between then and now to seven years between the end of World War II (1945) and 1952 and remember how many World War II movies were made in that time (and even before then, while the war itself was raging) it makes the debate more academic.

I think as a society we have become too touchy regarding the subject and that is why people are so loathe to make a movie about 9/11 (where about 3,000 people died) while in the comparable time after WWII, hundreds of movies were made about a war where MILLIONS of people died. I think it is fine if movies are made that deal with 9/11, it is just my opinion that there should be more movies made about the tragedy itself and its impact before people like Mike Binder decide just to bring the elements of 9/11 into a movie when they absolutely do NOT have to do it. Mike Binder used 9/11 on his own whim, not out of necessity, and that is something I object to. If someone wants to tell the story of things that happened that day or directly related to it afterwards, I am not going to complain, but I just think that when people like Mike Binder add it as a plot element just because they CHOOSE to do so we are allowed to ask why it was done. His story is fiction and works JUST as well without a single word about 9/11, and so I have just cause to question his motives. This is NOT United 93, World Trade Center, or Schindler's List, it is a completely different animal. Reign Over Me used plot elements regarding 9/11 by choice to tell a story that could have been told just as well without them. Each of the other three movies tells a story that requires that the tragedy be told along with it. It is a completely different situation and I would hope that even Mike Binder would know that.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

[–] macdino 17 years ago

I agree you should question his motives as I said I hoped the motives were genuinely what he said. Basically he wanted to make a movie about how those events could have affected people and yes this particular film would have worked wihtout any mention of 9/11, simply losing your entire family in any tragic circumstances would have worked in the same way.

The point I was trying to make is that I didnt think anyone would deliberately use the events of 9/11 and tag it to a movie just to improve the movies box office appeal. Maybe I am naive in thinking that, who knows?

I think there is a possibilty that some people watching this movie may have seen themselves in Charlie or a friend or a family member, that is going through similar issues. If it helped those people to go out and seek help then I cant see it as a bad thing.

But yes you have every right to question Mike Binders motives and I never said you shouldnt, I just felt that you may have been unduly unfair, but then again you might be right on the money, which would be a real shame

[–] osu_1996 17 years ago

I mean no disrespect, but writing novellas to prove your point, or make your point more worthy, just discourages people from trying to see your point. It could be made more succinctly, and effectively, at the same time.

In regard to your opinion, I strongly disagree. I do not in anyway think that the tragedy of 9/11 was exploited in this movie. As another poster replied, for most of the movie, you forget that this was the result of that event.

The reality of it is that you cannot know, nor could the audience, if Charlie's response/grieving would have been as strong, as long lasting, had he not lost his family in the manner in which he did. He did not lose them to just any plane crash, or hijacked plane, or any such event. He lost them during a careless, thoughtless, act of violence against our nation. I think this fact helps explain why he dropped out of society more so than other possibilities.

I am a little bit older than you, but there are some days when I still get saddened, and near tears, just remembering the day's events. I am a GenXer and was naive enough to believe that I would go through my life without ever having one of those "I remember where I was when..." moments as all previous generations had. That belief was crushed on 9/11. If I had/have still, such a strong emotive from 9/11, how would someone who actually lost their entire family be even now?

Sure, he may have been able to get to the same point using some other tragedy, but why should he have had to. I think this movie has helped many of us remember that there are families out there still dealing with this grief.

I am sorry that the movie did not bring the same emotion to you, but that does not mean the film was wrong for using a 9/11 background in the story.

[–] luuu 17 years ago

I don't understand why you are SO butthurt that the storyline of this movie involves 9/11. Yes, you are right, the story is more about grief and friendship than 9/11. But I believe that other messages can be taken from this movie that ARE directly connected to 9/11.

I, like you, am a New Yorker and know many people who were lost in the tragedy, as well as brave people who worked on the WTC in the aftermath. However, that is what helped me to find more meaning in this movie than the obvious message.

I personally loved this movie because it showed that 9/11 was not just a national tragedy; so many people have to live with the aftermath every day of their lives, while so many others were able to turn off the news and go back to their lives knowing that while they were not safe, no one close to them was hurt. Yes, it was a terrible tragedy for the entire country, but maybe with that view alone, one forgets that every single person in those planes and those buildings were loved ones, and those that loved them will never be the same. I thought it was great that the movie took ONE man, rather than an entire nation of people, and showed how his grief took a grip over his entire life.

So yes, technically, this story could have been told with ANY tragic event in place of 9/11. But it wasn't, and those of us who weren't offended by it can try to find more meaning within the movie as it is. Maybe you can see where I am coming from, too.

[–] konichiwabiabia 16 years ago

That was too long to read. I just thought it was funny how one of your paragraphs start with "In closing" and then you have 4 more paragraphs after that.

[–] Hdny42 16 years ago

Yeah, what a moron I am.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

[–] konichiwabiabia 16 years ago

cool, as long as we are in agreement.

[–] phnx-5 16 years ago

Dude, It's just a movie.

I understand what you're saying but I think you're overreacting just a tad too much. I personally, loved this movie. It was one of the first movies in which I could really connect and 'feel' for the characters. Adam Sandler was brilliant.

[–] amirfite-1 16 years ago

I have to disagree with your statement and hope that you and others read this. 9/11 needed to be used in this movie because it would be different if he lost his kids and wife to a murder or fire rather than 9/11. The difference is you still see 9/11 images on tv, you still hear about it on the radio, and you still read about it in the newspaper. So imagine what it would feel like to see, hear, or read about your families death so often. Let's say his family died because they were murdered; he wouldn't hear, see images, and read about his families death over and over again like 9/11. It would have probably been on the news and in the paper only a couple of times. Binder using 9/11 made Sandler being so crazy and acting weird actually believable because losing all of your family in a tragedy that you hear over and over again could make a man want to forget and not get close to anyone that would make him bring up or talk about that horrible day.

To sum it all up Mike Binder needed a tragic event that was highly publicized and familiar to people because his character was playing a man who went crazy because he always heard and saw reminders of his families death. Let's not forget the only reason Sandler's character becomes friends with Cheetle's is because he never met sandler's family; so Sandler thinks Cheetle won't talk about them.

[–] Hdny42 16 years ago

A plane crash, like TWA Flight 800, can often become infamous and end up on the news on TV, on the Internet, and in the papers for months or even years after the fact (especially if the crash, like Flight 800, leaves so many people asking questions and working out conspiracy theories...none of which I believe, as an aside). Not only that, it brings in the added bonus of survivor guilt, a la Sandler's character having a ticket for the flight but not being able to go for some reason, or coaxing his wife to take the kids on a vacation and he would fly down to join them or something of that nature.

Your argument, though well thought out, still does not change my belief that Mike Binder chose the attacks of 9/11/01 in an exploitative manner. He had absolutely no need to use 9/11, and his story is not specifically connected to it in anyway: it is about grief and its power over people's lives and how they cope with it. I feel that 9/11 was used in a cheap way to bring more people to the theater because it is a seminal event that we are all so well aware of. If Binder had used a fictional traumatic plane crash it would not have had the same connection to the audience prior to the movie, as the 9/11 attacks surely do. Do we as an audience feel any less for characters in movies who are affected by fictional catastrophes? For example in "Batman Begins" Bruce Wayne's parents are murdered right in front of him; the audience feels compassion and empathy for young Bruce, and the event becomes the catalyst for his later transition into Batman. It is no remarkable feat of Christopher Nolan's story-telling that enabled the audience to care about Wayne and his predicament, it was standard movie drama that either involves the audience or does not based on its own clarity, quality, and power.

In "Reign Over Me" Mike Binder made a choice that showed less confidence in the abilities of an audience to feel empathy for his character(s). I feel that the choice was either exploitative, lazy, or both and feel that this is a fairly generic film that played off the 9/11 controversy (even though it was told so many years after the fact) to get people in the seats. Do I know for a fact what Binder's intentions and motives were in making the film, and making 9/11 such a major element of the plot? Of course I don't, but that doesn't mean I can't call it like I see it, and now it seems to me that Binder made a choice that was not based on necessity, but want, and the inclusion of 9/11 due to want just doesn't sit well with me, and I would think it would sit poorly with a lot more people (especially New Yorkers) if they viewed it at all like I do. I may be cynical, but it doesn't mean I'm not right in this case.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

[–] stahltim 16 years ago

I don't understand the big deal about using a recognizable tragedy as a vehicle for instant audience empathy. If it helps people get into the story, good. If it helps make more people see your movie (which helps get your messgae out there), good. It also does help tell the story contrary to your belief. The characters around Sandler's character instantly and immediately remember/recognize the tragedy and therefore immediately show empathy and understanding. Whether you like it or not, I do not remember the dates of any other plane crashes. I don't know the magnitude of life lost in any other plane crash. If Sandler's character went around and people understood what happened based on vague information like dates then it wouldn't be believable unless it was 9/11.

Oh and by the way people frame fictional stories around factual events (tragedies) all the time...I hope you are posting similar walls of text on most WWI, WWII, Vietnam War, Korean War, etc movies.