We'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too...

[tzikeh]

Has anyone noticed a marked increase, since 9/11, in movies about the destruction of Manhattan? Is this some kind of weird, backwards-like catharsis bubbling up? Maybe I'm over-thinking things, but it does seem like the past six years (or maybe five--there was a distinct absence in the twelve months or so following) there has been an overabundance of movies in which Manhattan suffers some outrageous catastrophe. I'm not sure how I'd go about researching this, but it's something that's been on the backburner of my mind for at least a year and a half, if not two years, so I know there have been several.

Is it just me? Because I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's just me.

Comments

[sizequeen.livejournal.com]

Did you watch the trailer. Seeing those people run down the stairs as fire rained down on the building defintiely reminded me of stories about what happened in the Towers on 9/11.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I watched both the teaser and the trailer. And it looks like a great conceit for an epic disaster film -- to do a random-dude camcorder of what would otherwise be shot on a massive, omniscient view scale is innovative. The movie itself doesn't bother me, but I've been thinking about this for some time and this latest one just set off the post to see if I'm imagining things.

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think that Manhattan virtually ALWAYS buys it in post-apocalyptic scenarios and always has -- Charlton Heston didn't wind up "Planet of the Apes" by wandering by the Sears Tower, for instance. I definitely think there's been an increase in post-apocalyptic interest, fictionally, since 9/11, and for pretty obvious reasons, but I think New York probably isn't a bigger part of that trend/genre than it was before.

Big points of love for Jericho here, as the only post-apocalyptic scenario I've seen with a nationwide basis that makes it clear New York City made it though just fine.

[falzalot.livejournal.com]

I think alot of it is just what's recognizable. I mean, NYC got it in both Armageddon & Independence Day, too. It's like when monsters attack Japan, they almost always destroy Tokyo.

They played the teaser for this b4 Transformers, and I've been dying to see the movie ever since. :->

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Hm - it could be a conflation of that, yeah -- that NYC is generally one of the cities (if not *the* city) that buys it in destructo-movies, and there has been an increase in the end-of-the-world movies since 9/11.

Must ponder further. But seriously, movie-Manhattan has been taking a fucking beating these past few years.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

:nod: I'll be very interested to see it, too.

[no-detective.livejournal.com]

I've had the same feeling, but I can't decide if it's an objective increase or just my hyperawareness of such plots since then.

Btw, do you think the cathartic purpose of such movies works for New Yorkers and/or people who actually witnessed the attack? (Disclosure: I'm not American, I was living in New York when 9/11 happened but not anywhere close to the site, I didn't see the towers fall "in person" - and I'm still more likely to get offended by the use of evocative destructive imagery in the media than find it appealing, patriotic, or cathartic in the least.) It seems to me the movies function best as an imaginary therapeutic conduit to those audiences for whom Manhattan is mostly imaginary as well.

[lanthano.livejournal.com]

I always assumed that the disaster movies in the late '60s and '70s featured New York because the city was going bankrupt and city government was so corrupt.

And I remember the rash of natural disaster movies in the '90s, things like Volcano, Dante's Peak, and Twister, and those took place elsewhere. And there were also the asteroid/aliens from space movies, which were all about uniting under the national government.

So I definitely feel New York has been targeted much more post-9/11, even if it's faux Manhattan in something like Heroes.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

I am, wow, way behind on answering this comment because my inbox is a mess.

And, pathetically, my answer is basically "I don't know". I think it's complex. This may not make sense, but 9/11 is still so surreal for so many people; I know that there are people who rewatch the footage of it happening because they still can't wrap their brains around it being really, really real, that it couldn't REALLY have happened, even six+ years later. And maybe fictionalized acounts of destruction are soothing in that it fits into their mental picture of "it couldn't really have happened"?

I seriously don't know.

[no-detective.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think you're quite right about that. I'm afraid I was oversimplifying: it's not just a perception of Manhattan/urban environment as (sort of) imaginary, but also of the attack (on American territory) itself, and I think your description of that mental process is very true. Urban destruction is difficult enough to comprehend for people who live in those environments and perceive them as "realistic" - I remember not being able to wrap my head around the reality of the NATO bombing back home in 1999 - let alone those who know cities better through the narratives of cities than actually being/living in them. Plus, national identity narratives are by definition mythical so I won't even try to drag them into this comment.

The interesting thing is: whenever the "mythical", larger-than-life urban destruction narrative is appropriated and used as an illustration in other narratives (from political speeches to movies), I find it kind of distasteful; it seems to betray the reality of that event by staying "safely" in the surreal territory - exploiting the myth of 9/11 by keeping it mythical, when the myth really should be questioned instead. But when the destruction narrative is on a more human scale, like a personal description (inevitably peripheral, and therefore more realistic-sounding) of the experience, that's fine... if the narrative is about real events. ;)

In other words, I won't be seeing Cloverfield (at least not on the big screen) because it seems to use certain elements of the "realistic" technique to create a "surreal" (alien/monster) narrative about a city that's fairly recently suffered real destruction. That kind of narrative should be great for anyone in need of aforementioned catharsis, and many others who can enjoy the thrill of the "realistic" cinematic view of destruction, but... not my cup of tea. Though I'd LOVE to see the opposite: a surreal, fantastic narrative of a real event, provocative rather than soothing, a la Pan's Labyrinth - which I strongly recommend, btw.

(Uh, sorry - didn't mean to continue such an old discussion, but it appears I have many thoughts on the subject. That'll teach you to answer comments from November! *g*)