Film at . . . who knows?

Lileks missed his chance to interview Mark Steyn. He was going to ask him why there aren't any movies about 9/11. My guess would be that Hollywood special effects just couldn't do it justice. The sight of those planes flying into real buildings can't be duplicated with miniatures and propane, and the videos of people walking out of the clouds of concrete dust that shrouded lower Manhattan was beyond imagining. The events of that day can't be made more compelling or dramatic. The audience for such a film hasn't been born yet.

I suppose James is right, though, that the story needs to be told. I don't look forward to films about it because they'd probably tell the story the same way that The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now and Platoon told the story of the Vietnam War:

It�s not that Hollywood is unpatriotic or wishes America to lose; they�d bristle at the charge. But they want Bush to lose first and foremost, and after that we�ll see what happens. To make a movie about The War admits that there is a war, and sometimes I think a third of the country rejects this notion out of hand. We�re only at war because Bush made us go to war! or we�re only at war because we don�t let Interpol handle it! or some such delusion. I swear: there are people who see the conflict in such narrow terms that if Bush on 9/1 had announced he was forcing Israel back to pre-67 borders, and the hijackers had heard the news in the cockpit, they would have hit the autopilot and let the planes resume their original course.