\n
\n
Thomas Riegler | Vienna<\/p>\n
\u201cMirroring terror\u201d:
\nThe impact of 9\/11 on Hollywood cinema<\/h4>\nIntroduction: \u201cLet us look in the mirror\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\nI<\/span>n a 1927 essay film theorist Siegfried Kracauer stated: \u201cFilms are the mirror of the prevailing society\u201d (McCormick, Guenther-Pal 99). Again in 1948, he reinforced this argument: \u201cFilms supplement real life. [\u2026] They stir our awareness of the intangible, and they reflect the hidden courses of our existence. They point out situations that are often difficult to grasp directly but show, under the surface, what we think about ourselves. [\u2026] Films mirror our reality. Let us look in the mirror\u201d (Von Moltke, Rawson 72). In the course of this article, Kracauer\u2019s theme of the cinematic mirror is adapted to sort out various manifestations of socio-political anxieties linked to 9\/11 as well as the processing of the terror related trauma and the reaffirmation of America\u2019s ideological underpinnings (individual and economic freedom, faith, family). As Kracauer indicated, this engagement is less overt or outspoken, but conveyed indirectly via metaphor, sentiment, and atmosphere. Read this way, \u201cunder the surface,\u201d the post 9\/11 Hollywood pictures express how US society and culture underwent profound changes since 2001: From freedom towards security and paranoia, from perceived stability towards uncertainty.<\/p>\nTo start with the origins of the cinematic depiction of terrorism, its modern understanding\u2014as a form of politically motivated violence aiming to achieve mass coverage\u2014was first adapted in the 1970s. Back then terrorism had not yet struck the US directly, the entertainment industry looked abroad for inspiration. Major events like the Munich hostage massacre or the Entebbe rescue mission were re-enacted (21 Hours at Munich<\/em>, 1975, Victory at Entebbe<\/em>, 1976). John Frankenheimer\u2019s Black Sunday<\/em> (1977) was exceptional, because it featured Palestinian terrorists targeting the Super Bowl finale (Prince 22\u201328).<\/p>\nThis distanced perspective on terrorism radically changed during the 1980s, following the Iranian hostage crisis (1979), the American involvement in the Lebanese civil war (1982\u20131984), and the resulting confrontation with Shiite extremism. The US became increasingly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts and suffered a string of traumatizing attacks as well as hijackings. As a result, the depiction of terrorism hardened: Its perpetrators were coined as arch enemies of the American Dream, and lacked any legitimate cause (Palmer 164).<\/p>\n
The end of the Cold War brought a brief period of easing: Instead of ideological or religious zealots, apolitical terrorists dominated. Fitting the climate of political correctness of the post-Cold War years the movie terrorists of the 1990s are ethnically varied: European radicals (Passenger 57<\/em>, 1992), Irish republicans (Blown Away<\/em>, 1994, The Devil\u2019s Own<\/em>, 1997), corrupt Russian military figures in alliance with resentful Bosnian Serbs (The Peacemaker<\/em>, 1997), and Latin American drug lords (Clear and Present Danger<\/em>, 1994). But most of them were homegrown: disgruntled former employees of law enforcement agencies (Speed<\/em>, 1994) and renegade soldiers (Die Hard II<\/em>, 1990, Operation Broken Arrow<\/em>, 1996, The Rock<\/em>, 1996) (Lichtenfeld 170\u201371).<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/imaginations.space\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/figure_1_Riegler1.jpg\" "\\"figure_1_Riegler\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nFig. 1: Criminals posing as terrorists \u2013 Die Hard<\/em> (1988)<\/p>\nAmong these villains, the jihadist is featured prominently for the first time. His appearance follows in the wake of the bombing of the World Trade Center (1993), the first act of radical Islamist terrorism on US soil. Hollywood reacted swiftly and introduced the jihadist in films like True Lies<\/em> (1994), Executive Decision<\/em> (1996), The Siege<\/em> (1999), and Rules of Engagement <\/em>(2000) to the screen: Fanatical in his hatred of the US, displaying no regard for innocent life when enacting spectacular violence, and rejecting all possibilities of moderation. Thereby cinema highlighted the emerging danger of religiously inspired mass terror on home soil years before 2001.<\/p>\nAfter 9\/11: Escaping into fantasy, history, and past conflicts<\/strong><\/h4>\nI<\/span>n the immediate period after September 11, 2001, the overriding executive mantra was: \u201cNo more movies of mass destruction.\u201d 45 film projects were either cancelled, substantially altered, or postponed. Some commentators even argued that Hollywood was to blame for 9\/11, because its movies had prefigured, even \u201cinspired\u201d the terrorist perpetrators (Maher). Director Robert Altman, for example, claimed that such an atrocity would have been unthinkable, \u201cunless they\u2019d seen it in a movie\u201d (Coyle). There were also promises that Hollywood would provide henceforth a \u201ckinder, gentler\u201d form of entertainment \u2013 but as Jim Hoberman has remarked, \u201caudiences, though, were not buying it\u201d (Hoberman). During the first months after 9\/11, action flicks like Die Hard<\/em> or True Lies<\/em> were rented three times more frequently than before, as if the often agonising inefficacy of real life counterterrorism had to be compensated for in the sphere of entertainment (McCorkle 171). The sense of insecurity also boosted patriotic and warlike themes\u2014shortly after the US invasion of Afghanistan began on 7 October, 2001, \u201cHollywood started to march to a military beat\u201d (Newsweek). US box office charts were topped by war movies like Black Hawk Down<\/em> (2001), Behind Enemy Lines<\/em> (2001), and We Were Soldiers<\/em> (2002). \u201cThere\u2019s a greater understanding now of how you would feel if your country was under attack,\u201d a director commented on the reasons for this trend (Andson). None of these war movies engaged with the topic of terrorism and instead re-enacted clear cut battlefield victories in Vietnam as well as US contributions to flawed UN interventions in the Balkans and Somalia in the early 1990s\u2014but it did not matter anyway: \u201cRevisiting past conflicts while America waged a new one, they appear as much about<\/em> the US after 9\/11 as Vietnam and Somalia, their historical and geographical locales\u201d (Carruthers).<\/p>\nBefore the terrorist strikes, such films would have been read as a plea for a reluctant US role in world affairs, but after the terrorist attacks the plot lines were perceived as pro-interventionist\u2014reflecting George W. Bush\u2019s proclamation of the War on Terror as an endeavour that \u201cwill not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.\u201d In case of Black Hawk Down<\/em>, shortly before the release in December 2001, a postscript was added. It suggested that Washington\u2019s decision to withdraw from Somalia in 1993, as well as its decision not to intervene in Rwanda and Bosnia, \u201cwas part of a reluctance to wage war that eventually emboldened America\u2019s enemies to attack the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.\u201d That idea was dropped, as director Ridley Scott concluded it was \u201ca good time\u201d for releasing the movie: \u201cWe saw that these soldiers were like firefighters and the police officers and the rescue workers, in that they are all people who would go into burning buildings or under fire without thinking of themselves, but only about their duty\u201d (Malanowski).<\/p>\nThe wave of military related films soon ebbed away after the highly controversial US invasion of Iraq in 2003\u2014both the World War II epic Windtalkers<\/em> (2002) and the pro interventionist Tears <\/em>of the Sun<\/em> (2003) were low grossing. Commentators found it difficult to determine whether audiences perceived films that glorified the might of the American military as morally ambiguous or if they were simply war-weary after watching real-life combat on the news (Holson).<\/p>\nIn the wake of the terrorist attacks, some experts had warned of a strategic \u201cpact\u201d between Hollywood and Washington promoting patriotism and even jingoism\u2014just like in aftermath of Pearl Harbour (1941). Shortly after 9\/11, Jack Valenti, longtime president of the\u00a0Motion Picture Association of America, had indeed assured that the industry would answer the call: \u201cMany people in Hollywood are veterans that fought in other wars and they are ready to fight again if their country needs them\u201d (Valenti). But in retrospect, the response proved to be more ambivalent than straightforward propaganda.<\/p>\n
A major part was in fact pure escapism: Monumental struggles between the forces of light and darkness were extremely popular after 9\/11. In reference to the Lord of the Rings<\/em> (2001\u20132003) trilogy, critic Lev Grossman explained the fascination of this matter\u2014especially in comparison to the murky struggle against terrorism: \u201cTolkien gives us the war we wish we were fighting\u2014a struggle with a foe whose face we can see, who fights on the open battlefield, far removed from innocent civilians. In Middle Earth, unlike the Middle East, you can tell an evildoer, because he or she looks evil\u201d (Grossman). Similarly, one of the reasons why the Harry Potter<\/em> (2001\u20132011) and The Chronicles of Narnia<\/em> (2005\/2008\/2010) franchises struck a note with audiences was that the stories engaged with notions of war, leadership, dangers of power, heroism, and personal sacrifice\u2014all relevant in uncertain times. \u201cYou could look at the Harry Potter series through the veil of 9\/11,\u201d a New York Times<\/em> critic explained. \u201cIt became very difficult not to, with the idea of Lord Voldemort as the evildoer of all evildoers who was going to try to take down [the world]. And the apocalyptic ending reaffirmed that for me\u201d (White).<\/p>\nThe simple narrative of the superhero myth was also favoured as if the events had instilled new belief in the need of lone and all-powerful individuals rising up to the challenge. Commenting on the Superman remake Man of Steel<\/em> (2013) and questioning the cultural reasons behind the current burst of the genre, Joe Queenan argued that \u201csuperhero movies are made for a society that has basically given up. The police can\u2019t protect us, the government can\u2019t protect us, there are no more charismatic loners to protect us and the Euro is defunct. Clint Eastwood has left the building. So let\u2019s turn things over to the vigilantes\u201d (Queenan).<\/p>\nChristopher Nolan\u2019s Batman trilogy was the trendsetter for this realignment of the previously goofy superhero genre: It became darker, pessimistic, and pseudo-realistic. In Batman Begins<\/em> (2005), Gotham City\u2019s water supply and public transport system is attacked in order to spread a toxin that instils fear and chaos. The Dark Knight<\/em> (2008) put forward the \u201cJoker,\u201d who terrorises Gotham City with such elaborate schemes that Batman has no other option except to fight \u201cfire with fire.\u201d According to Douglas Kellner, the Joker is presented \u201eas the spirit of anarchy and chaos of a particularly destructive and nihilistic nature. In the contemporary context, the Joker represents the spirit of terrorism and the film is full of iconography related to 9\/11\u201d (Kellner 11). In The Dark Knight Rises<\/em> (2012), Batman has to take on the masked mercenary Bane, who aims to destroy Gotham City in a nuclear explosion.<\/p>\nThe more ironic Iron Man<\/em> movies (2008, 2010, 2013) feature the hero, Tony Stark, flying in his mechanical suit pounding a radical-Islamic group called \u201cTen Rings.\u201d Iron Man 3<\/em> finally introduces its leader, a Bin Laden look-alike superterrorist called the \u201cMandarin\u201d, who hacks himself into TV airwaves to present threatening messages. But ultimately, he is revealed as an actor hired to portray a menace to deflect attention from an out-of-control scientific programme. This sort of plotline exemplifies the contradictory nature of the studios approach to 9\/11: \u201cThey want to tap into the powerful reactions those events induced, while dodging the complex issues and especially the political arguments that might turn off ticket buyers\u201d (Dragis \u201cBang Boom\u201d).<\/p>\nWhile 9\/11 references in superhero movies are diffuse and not direct assertions, there is a major shift in the representation of the central characters that captures the pessimism of the post 9\/11 mindset. Whether it is Batman, Captain America, Superman, Iron Man, Spiderman, Wolverine, or Thor, these heroes suffer setbacks and humiliating defeats \u2013 in fact, they all come across as flawed, traumatised, and ultimately ambivalent, but nonetheless they keep doing what is \u201cnecessary\u201d (Pollard 183).<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/imaginations.space\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/figure_2_Riegler.jpg\" "\\"figure_2_Riegler\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nFig. 2: Recalled to duty\u2014Captain America. The First Avenger<\/em> (2011)<\/p>\nAccording to some critics, Hollywood\u2019s exploration of the post 9\/11 world had started in earnest with Steven Spielberg\u2019s War of the Worlds<\/em> (2005): A modern adaptation of the classic extraterrestrial invasion story by H. G. Wells, The Guardian<\/em> labelled the film \u201ethe first piece of multiplex fodder ripped straight from the rubble of 9\/11\u201d (Preston). Spielberg remarked on the connections of his film to reality: \u201cI think 9\/11 reinformed everything I\u2019m putting into War of the Worlds<\/em>. Just how we come together, how this nation unites in every known way to survive a foreign invader and a frontal assault. We now know what it feels like to be terrorized\u201d (Abramowitz). Overall, similar to the Cold War era, there was a string of alien invasion scenarios brought to the screen: Skyline<\/em> (2010), Cowboys and Aliens<\/em> (2010), Super 8<\/em> (2011), and Pacific Rim<\/em> (2013). According to director Paul Haggis the Transformers<\/em> series (2007-2011) offered a \u201cfantasy where the message is that if we can\u2019t win over there, we can win it at home on our screens\u201d (Jaafar 20). In these films two races of good and evil robots battle each other right in the middle of downtown Chicago. The teenage hero, who is told by an officer, \u201cYou are a soldier now,\u201d absorbs the lesson of the struggle quickly: \u201cNo sacrifice, no victory\u201d (Jaafar 16-21). The same message was picked up by World Invasion: Battle Los Angeles<\/em> (2011) and Battleship<\/em> (2012), where the US-military has to fight full scale alien invasions. On the other hand, the more anti-imperialist leanings of James Cameron\u2019s Avatar <\/em>(2009), so far the highest-grossing film of all time, suggested that after almost a decade, a majority of the public had turned away from the Bush doctrine (O\u2019Hehir). President Obama\u2019s subsequent shift from interventionism to drone strikes and special forces missions was addressed in Star Trek: Into Darkness<\/em> (2013): Here, Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) chooses to capture terrorist mastermind Khan, who bombed Star Fleet\u2019s main archive building, for trial instead of killing him extrajudicial with a long range torpedo.<\/p>\nRevisiting the past also offered an approach for filmmakers: By depicting the crusades (Kingdom of Heaven<\/em>, 2005), by replaying the myths of the ancient world (Troy<\/em>, 2004, Alexander<\/em>, 2005, 300<\/em>, 2007, Immortals<\/em>, 2011), or by reimagining American history and legends (Gangs of New York<\/em>, 2002, Alamo<\/em>, 2004, The New World<\/em>, 2005, Good Night, and Good Luck<\/em>, 2005, Flags of our Fathers<\/em>, 2006, There will be Blood<\/em>, 2007, Lincoln<\/em>, 2012) the present day situation could be addressed in an indirect way. For example, film scholar Stephen Prince suggested that 300<\/em>\u2014a comic book adaptation featuring the heroic last stand of the Spartans against the superior Persian army\u2014uses contemporary conflicts as templates, \u201cand it provides and an argument and a justification for waging war against Iraq and Iran\u201d (Prince 291). Slavoj \u017di\u017eek instead proposed a very different reading by setting the rigid, \u201cfundamentalist\u201d Spartan identity in contrast to the \u201cmulticulturalist different-lifestyles paradise\u201d of the Persians (\u017di\u017eek 2007).<\/p>\nThe pitched battle scenes in movies like 300 <\/em>offered clarity and oversight lacking in the \u201creal\u201d world, as well as the certainty that the forces of good will eventually triumph. \u201cThis is our way of dealing with 9\/11 and how we feel about those foreigners, and those terrorists, whom we are trying very hard to define\u201d, a film historian told the New York Times<\/em> under the headline: \u201cAt the movies, at least, good vanquishes evil\u201d (Waxmann).<\/p>\nNew age of fear, horror, and dystopia <\/strong><\/h4>\nI<\/span>n a 2008 piece for The Atlantic Monthly<\/em> Ross Douhat argued that after 9\/11 Hollywood returned to the \u201cparanoid, cynical, end-of-empire 1970s\u201d (Douhat). There are indeed many similarities between the 1970s and the 2000s: Both were decades of political and social crisis, producing, among other results, a pessimistic cultural outlook. For instance, after 9\/11 Hollywood envisioned the dark, amoral world of unregulated and destructive corporate power in a similar way to the 1970s: The Manchurian Candidate<\/em> (2004), Syriana<\/em> (2005), Blood Diamond<\/em> (2006), Shooter<\/em> (2007), Michael Clayton<\/em> (2007), War Inc.<\/em> (2008), Nothing But the Truth <\/em>(2008), State of Play<\/em> (2009), and Fair Game<\/em> (2010) are populated with powerful schemers, who use every means necessary to enhance power, profits, and personal gain. \u201cAmerica isn\u2019t a country; it\u2019s a business,\u201d a thoughtful hitman declares in Killing Them Softly<\/em> (2012), and turns to one of his colleagues: \u201cNow give me my money\u201d (Scott \u201cOne Bad Turn\u201d). Another distinct 1970s character also returned\u2014the vigilante: Man on Fire <\/em>(2004), The Punisher<\/em> (2004), Hitman<\/em> (2007), The Brave One<\/em> (2007), and Jack Reacher<\/em> (2012) show lonely avengers going on wild rampages.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/imaginations.space\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/figure_3_Riegler.jpg\" "\\"figure_3_Riegler\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nFig. 3: A thoughtful hitman\u2014Brad Pitt in Killing Them Softly<\/em> (2012)<\/p>\nAnother major parallel to the 1970s is the boom of horror. Since 2001, a retro-trend brought remakes of almost all classics, often made by their veteran directors. Notably, George A. Romero returned with Land of the Dead<\/em> (2005), Diary of the Dead<\/em> (2008), and Survival of the Dead<\/em> (2009). Romero integrated certain contemporary influences into his movies: \u201cThe idea of living with terrorism\u2014I\u2019ve tried to make it more applicable to the concerns Americans are going through now\u201d (Beale). As during the 1970s, in post 9\/11 horror, evil lurks in remote places at home, mostly in red state territory and in the shape of ignorant, reactionary or retarded backwoodsmen, whose \u201cappetite\u201d for slaying youngsters seems insatiable. This reflects the tensions and divisions within American society\u2014whether it is about the difference between city and countryside or diverging opinions on morals, religion, and politics. Thus, like in the classics, the main characters find themselves suddenly beset by savage strangers and deadly threats (Wrong Turn<\/em>, 2003, The Devil\u2019s Reject<\/em>, 2005, Turistas<\/em>, 2006, Hatchet<\/em>, 2007). Some of the recent horror films even had a distinct trademark of their own: Hostel<\/em> (2005), Hostel: Part II<\/em> (2007), or Saw<\/em> (six parts between 2004 and 2009) feature explicit and up-close violence that is administered on the victims in lengthy sessions. Critics labelled this \u201ctorture porn\u201d (Edelstein), while director Eli Roth remarked that his two Hostel <\/em>films were simply made through the lenses of 9\/11 and the War on Terror (Braxton).<\/p>\nThere was also widespread demand for disaster movies: Unlike its 1970s predecessors, the post 9\/11 films neither provide moral rallying points nor successful counterstrokes, but appear utterly pessimistic: The US government is too slow to respond to the rapid climate change in The Day after Tomorrow<\/em> (2004). When Earth is hit by a series of quakes and mega-tsunamis in 2012<\/em> (2009), elites are concerned solely with their own survival: While leaving the rest of mankind to perish, they survive on board of pre-constructed arks. More realistically, Contagion <\/em>(2011) evokes the spectre of a swiftly collapsing order as a result of a spreading killer virus. A pandemic that turns humans into zombies causes global apocalypse in World War Z<\/em> (2013)\u2014not so much a film about the undead, but a concrete take on government inadequacy and public panic in the face of overwhelming disaster. \u201cThe general premise is that anything can happen, in any kind of scenario, on any given day,\u201d director Marc Forster commented (World War Z production notes).<\/p>\nA threat from the outside is realised in Red Dawn<\/em> (2012), where large parts of the US fall prey to ruthless North Korean invaders: The conservative leaning film hints that the country has left itself open to Communist occupation, because of weak foreign policy, squandering military might, and economic decline (O\u2019Sullivan). Rise of the Planet of the Apes<\/em> (2011) depicts mankind in the role of the oppressor until mutated chimpanzees and gorillas throw off their shackles and spread havoc: \u201cIt\u2019s the end of the world as we know it, and the animals feel fine\u201d (Dragis \u201cApocalypse\u201d).<\/p>\nOn a more personal level, Taking Shelter<\/em> (2011) features Curtis LaForche (Michael Shannon), a young husband and father, tormented by apocalyptic visions that spell danger to his loved ones. In the progress, LaForche becomes more and more obsessed with providing security for his family, and this paranoia threatens to unravel everything he cares about (Scott \u201cSplintering Psyche\u201d). Once Armageddon has passed, the struggle for survival continues even more mercilessly in dystopias like I Am Legend <\/em>(2009), The Road<\/em> (2009), The Book of Eli<\/em> (2010), The Hunger Games<\/em> (2012), Oblivion<\/em> (2013), and Elysium <\/em>(2013). Supposedly, even god \u201cgot tired of all the bullshit\u201d\u2014and so he sends an army of angels to destroy mankind in Legion <\/em>(2010). Pictures like these stress that the only hope for humanity lies in virtues such as love, self-sacrifice, and faith\u2014typical cultural reactions to states of uncertainty.<\/p>\n9\/11 arrives on the screen<\/strong><\/h4>\nD<\/span>rawing up a conclusion on the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks, Jim Hoberman observed on Hollywood\u2019s output that \u201cthe events of 9\/11 were to be avenged but not relived.\u201d While it formed the emotional background for all kinds of escapist adventures, there was considerably less interest in depicting the actual event. Thus, the first films relating to 9\/11 did this in a consciously distanced way, aiming not to attract controversy. According to the New York Times<\/em>, the trauma \u201cquietly arrived, writ small in a series of new pictures that have no political content but that are suffused with a deep, enduring sense of grief born in the tragedy\u2019s wake\u201d (Farber). First came The Guys<\/em> (2002): It featured a journalist helping a FDNY captain who lost nine men in the Twin Towers to compose eulogies. Spike Lee\u2019s 25th Hour<\/em> (2002), released 15 months after the terrorist attacks, follows a convicted New York drug dealer on his last day of freedom before beginning a seven-year prison sentence (LaSalle).<\/p>\nIt took more than five years for the entertainment industry to tackle 9\/11 directly: In United 93<\/em> (2006) Paul Greengrass retold the story of the hijacked flight that did not reach its intended target on September 11th<\/sup>. Instead it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, supposedly because the passengers revolted against the hijackers. Since United 93<\/em> is all about civilian heroism, the motivation and personal background of the terrorists remain completely obscure to the viewer. Oliver Stone\u2019s World Trade Center <\/em>(2006) did not even show the planes hitting the towers, instead focused on the miraculous rescue of two survivors from Ground Zero. The Great New Wonderful<\/em> (2005) presented a series of vignettes of incidents taking place concurrently around Manhattan \u2013 without mentioning 9\/11 (Abramowitz, Horn). The event was further domesticated in the buddy movie Reign Over Me <\/em>(2007), where two former college roommates meet up again by chance on a Manhattan street corner. One of them has lost his family on 9\/11 and is unable to cope with the tragedy (Prince 120).<\/p>\n9\/11 forms the emotional climax in the love drama Remember Me<\/em> (2010): Tyler (Robert Pattinson) is last seen in his father\u2019s office on the 88th floor of the World Trade Center and it is later revealed that the date is 11 September 2001. For that, the film was criticized as \u201cappalling\u201d and \u201cexploitative,\u201d because it uses 9\/11 as \u201ca simple plot device\u201d (White). Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close<\/em> (2011) focuses on an eleven year old New Yorker coping with the loss of his father in the rubble of the World Trade Center. According to Manohla Dragis the film \u201cisn\u2019t about Sept. 11. It\u2019s about the impulse to drain that day of its specificity and turn it into yet another wellspring of generic emotions: sadness, loneliness, happiness. This is how kitsch works\u201d (Dragis \u201cYoungster with a Key\u201d). Like many other 9\/11 movies, the 40 million dollar production was not well received at the box office, but gained an Academy Award nomination nonetheless.<\/p>\nThe obvious preference for escapism was again confirmed by the success of the safely immersing Cloverfield<\/em> (2011): It reimagined the terrorist strikes as a sudden devastating attack by a giant monster that topples skyscrapers and major landmarks. A similarly spectacular action showdown in the middle of Manhattan can be found in the superhero film The Avengers<\/em> (2012). The images of urban destruction turn it, according to Jim Hoberman, into a watershed\u2014Hollywood is \u201cno longer afraid to tackle 9\/11\u201d: \u201cThe Avengers<\/em> demonstrates how completely 9\/11 has been superseded by another catastrophe, namely the financial meltdown of September 2008\u201d (Hoberman).<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/imaginations.space\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/figure_4_Riegler.jpg\" "\\"figure_4_Riegler\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nFig. 4: Space invaders target downtown Manhattan in The Avengers<\/em> (2012)<\/p>\nFrom commentary to historization<\/strong><\/h4>\nA<\/span>s mentioned, a direct examination of 9\/11 was a sort of taboo in the early stages. Terrorism related films like Collateral Damage<\/em> (2002) and The Sum of All Fears<\/em> (2002), which had been produced before 2001, were suddenly out of touch with the new paradigm. The Sum of All Fears<\/em> was much noticed because it displayed the nuclear destruction of Baltimore, but when it came to the depiction of the enemy\u2014European Neo-Nazis\u2014the film was criticized for being implausible. Hereupon, \u201c9\/11 rang down the curtain on Hollywood\u2019s theatre of mass destruction, at least for a while,\u201d Stephen Prince noted (70). But with growing distance, filmmakers began to focus on the War on Terror, its progress and implications, both domestic and international. Stephen Spielberg chose a historical analogy to place a comment on the counterterrorism struggle: His film Munich <\/em>(2005), the adaptation of a novel telling the story of the Israeli revenge for the massacre of its athletes during the 1972 Olympics, explored the cycle of violence engulfing the Middle East. Beyond that, it could also be read as critique of the futility of the War on Terror, with a final lingering shot of the Twin Towers in the distance (Alford 145). Among other issues, Syriana<\/em> (2005) explored how the corruption of the oil business indirectly fuels terrorism, while Charlie Wilson\u2019s War<\/em> (2007) explored the CIA\u2019s collusion with jihadists in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.<\/p>\nIn productions like these, counterterrorism came across increasingly as an amoral struggle in the shadows\u2014an obvious reaction to the Abu Ghraib scandal and revelations about suspects disappearing in a secret CIA prison network. In Body of Lies<\/em> (2008), agent Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio) is such a shadow warrior, who sets up a fictitious terror group, equips it with fake bank accounts, and plants messages in fundamentalist chat rooms \u2013 in order to flush out an Al Qaeda mastermind (Stevens). Gavin Hood\u2019s 2007 film Rendition<\/em> took on the opposing perspective by depicting an Arab as the victim of unlawful US vigilance. Although being married to an American wife, he is abducted and sent to a North African country for interrogation. While witnessing the brutality inflicted, the local CIA liaison officer begins to doubt the agency\u2019s methods: \u201cIn all the years we\u2018ve been doing this, how often can you say that we\u2018ve produced truly legitimate intelligence?\u201d (Alford 150). The Kingdom<\/em> (2007) can be seen as an alternative scenario in its depiction of a successful cooperation between Western and Middle Eastern police forces (Scott 28 Sept. 2007). Due to disappointing box office results, the adaptation of terrorism related themes decreased between 2009 and 2012. Unthinkable <\/em>(2010), a movie about an FBI interrogator caught in the moral dilemma of a classic \u201cticking bomb\u201d scenario, was released direct-to-video.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/imaginations.space\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/figure_5_Riegler.jpg\" "\\"figure_5_Riegler\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nFig. 5: Western jihadist\u2014Michael Sheen in Unthinkable <\/em>(2010)<\/p>\nCompared to this rather slow adaptation of counterterrorism, the war in Iraq arrived on screen with unparalleled speed: \u201cNot since World War II has Hollywood so embraced an ongoing conflict. It took years for pop culture to tackle the Korean wars, and it took time before the country was ready to be entertained by those politically charged conflicts\u201d (Soriano, Oldenburg). Yet most of the Iraq movies did not focus on the conflict, but instead on the homecoming of the veterans, or the plight of military families left behind (Land of the Brave<\/em>, 2006, In the Valley of Elah<\/em>, 2007, Badland<\/em>, 2007, Grace is Gone<\/em>, 2007, Stop Loss<\/em>, 2008). Redacted<\/em> (2007) and The Hurt Locker<\/em> (2008) took on the perspective of GIs hopelessly entrapped in a \u201cdirty\u201d conflict, which they do not understand and often turn their frustration against civilians. Lions for Lambs<\/em> (2007) and Green Zone<\/em> (2010) openly contradicted the official lineage of the Bush administration in regard to the war effort and addressed issues of political accountability and manipulation. But just like the 9\/11 films, most of these productions failed commercially\u2014even the acclaimed The Hurt Locker<\/em> was the lowest grossing Best Picture winner since the fifties (Harris).<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/imaginations.space\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/figure_6_Riegler.jpg\" "\\"figure_6_Riegler\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nFig. 6: Manipulated into the Iraq war\u2014Green Zone<\/em> (2010)<\/p>\nIn comparison, the Vietnam movies of the 1970s and 1980s had the benefit of hindsight and offered an opportunity to reflect from a distance on what had gone wrong (Jaafar 16\u201321). Compared to past conflicts, the Global War on Terror, despite its length, had always remained enigmatic and distant to the larger public. As Luke Buckmasters has pointed out: \u201cThe war on terrorism, as we know it, invokes a muddled sense of time and location. Its themes are both old and new and the enemy is impossible to relegate to a specific geographic area. The trickier enemies are to define, the harder they are to visualise.\u201d (Buckmasters). The surprising box office success of Act of Valor<\/em> (2012) demonstrated that military related themes still resonated with audiences, once they were removed from the messy context of Iraq and Afghanistan. The movie featured supposedly real-life Special Forces operatives on missions in Costa Rica, the Sudan, and Mexico that ultimately thwart the hideous plans of a jihadist network (Pinkerton).<\/p>\n
I<\/span>n a 1927 essay film theorist Siegfried Kracauer stated: \u201cFilms are the mirror of the prevailing society\u201d (McCormick, Guenther-Pal 99). Again in 1948, he reinforced this argument: \u201cFilms supplement real life. [\u2026] They stir our awareness of the intangible, and they reflect the hidden courses of our existence. They point out situations that are often difficult to grasp directly but show, under the surface, what we think about ourselves. [\u2026] Films mirror our reality. Let us look in the mirror\u201d (Von Moltke, Rawson 72). In the course of this article, Kracauer\u2019s theme of the cinematic mirror is adapted to sort out various manifestations of socio-political anxieties linked to 9\/11 as well as the processing of the terror related trauma and the reaffirmation of America\u2019s ideological underpinnings (individual and economic freedom, faith, family). As Kracauer indicated, this engagement is less overt or outspoken, but conveyed indirectly via metaphor, sentiment, and atmosphere. Read this way, \u201cunder the surface,\u201d the post 9\/11 Hollywood pictures express how US society and culture underwent profound changes since 2001: From freedom towards security and paranoia, from perceived stability towards uncertainty.<\/p>\n To start with the origins of the cinematic depiction of terrorism, its modern understanding\u2014as a form of politically motivated violence aiming to achieve mass coverage\u2014was first adapted in the 1970s. Back then terrorism had not yet struck the US directly, the entertainment industry looked abroad for inspiration. Major events like the Munich hostage massacre or the Entebbe rescue mission were re-enacted (21 Hours at Munich<\/em>, 1975, Victory at Entebbe<\/em>, 1976). John Frankenheimer\u2019s Black Sunday<\/em> (1977) was exceptional, because it featured Palestinian terrorists targeting the Super Bowl finale (Prince 22\u201328).<\/p>\n This distanced perspective on terrorism radically changed during the 1980s, following the Iranian hostage crisis (1979), the American involvement in the Lebanese civil war (1982\u20131984), and the resulting confrontation with Shiite extremism. The US became increasingly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts and suffered a string of traumatizing attacks as well as hijackings. As a result, the depiction of terrorism hardened: Its perpetrators were coined as arch enemies of the American Dream, and lacked any legitimate cause (Palmer 164).<\/p>\n The end of the Cold War brought a brief period of easing: Instead of ideological or religious zealots, apolitical terrorists dominated. Fitting the climate of political correctness of the post-Cold War years the movie terrorists of the 1990s are ethnically varied: European radicals (Passenger 57<\/em>, 1992), Irish republicans (Blown Away<\/em>, 1994, The Devil\u2019s Own<\/em>, 1997), corrupt Russian military figures in alliance with resentful Bosnian Serbs (The Peacemaker<\/em>, 1997), and Latin American drug lords (Clear and Present Danger<\/em>, 1994). But most of them were homegrown: disgruntled former employees of law enforcement agencies (Speed<\/em>, 1994) and renegade soldiers (Die Hard II<\/em>, 1990, Operation Broken Arrow<\/em>, 1996, The Rock<\/em>, 1996) (Lichtenfeld 170\u201371).<\/p>\n Fig. 1: Criminals posing as terrorists \u2013 Die Hard<\/em> (1988)<\/p>\n Among these villains, the jihadist is featured prominently for the first time. His appearance follows in the wake of the bombing of the World Trade Center (1993), the first act of radical Islamist terrorism on US soil. Hollywood reacted swiftly and introduced the jihadist in films like True Lies<\/em> (1994), Executive Decision<\/em> (1996), The Siege<\/em> (1999), and Rules of Engagement <\/em>(2000) to the screen: Fanatical in his hatred of the US, displaying no regard for innocent life when enacting spectacular violence, and rejecting all possibilities of moderation. Thereby cinema highlighted the emerging danger of religiously inspired mass terror on home soil years before 2001.<\/p>\n I<\/span>n the immediate period after September 11, 2001, the overriding executive mantra was: \u201cNo more movies of mass destruction.\u201d 45 film projects were either cancelled, substantially altered, or postponed. Some commentators even argued that Hollywood was to blame for 9\/11, because its movies had prefigured, even \u201cinspired\u201d the terrorist perpetrators (Maher). Director Robert Altman, for example, claimed that such an atrocity would have been unthinkable, \u201cunless they\u2019d seen it in a movie\u201d (Coyle). There were also promises that Hollywood would provide henceforth a \u201ckinder, gentler\u201d form of entertainment \u2013 but as Jim Hoberman has remarked, \u201caudiences, though, were not buying it\u201d (Hoberman). During the first months after 9\/11, action flicks like Die Hard<\/em> or True Lies<\/em> were rented three times more frequently than before, as if the often agonising inefficacy of real life counterterrorism had to be compensated for in the sphere of entertainment (McCorkle 171). The sense of insecurity also boosted patriotic and warlike themes\u2014shortly after the US invasion of Afghanistan began on 7 October, 2001, \u201cHollywood started to march to a military beat\u201d (Newsweek). US box office charts were topped by war movies like Black Hawk Down<\/em> (2001), Behind Enemy Lines<\/em> (2001), and We Were Soldiers<\/em> (2002). \u201cThere\u2019s a greater understanding now of how you would feel if your country was under attack,\u201d a director commented on the reasons for this trend (Andson). None of these war movies engaged with the topic of terrorism and instead re-enacted clear cut battlefield victories in Vietnam as well as US contributions to flawed UN interventions in the Balkans and Somalia in the early 1990s\u2014but it did not matter anyway: \u201cRevisiting past conflicts while America waged a new one, they appear as much about<\/em> the US after 9\/11 as Vietnam and Somalia, their historical and geographical locales\u201d (Carruthers).<\/p>\n Before the terrorist strikes, such films would have been read as a plea for a reluctant US role in world affairs, but after the terrorist attacks the plot lines were perceived as pro-interventionist\u2014reflecting George W. Bush\u2019s proclamation of the War on Terror as an endeavour that \u201cwill not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.\u201d In case of Black Hawk Down<\/em>, shortly before the release in December 2001, a postscript was added. It suggested that Washington\u2019s decision to withdraw from Somalia in 1993, as well as its decision not to intervene in Rwanda and Bosnia, \u201cwas part of a reluctance to wage war that eventually emboldened America\u2019s enemies to attack the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.\u201d That idea was dropped, as director Ridley Scott concluded it was \u201ca good time\u201d for releasing the movie: \u201cWe saw that these soldiers were like firefighters and the police officers and the rescue workers, in that they are all people who would go into burning buildings or under fire without thinking of themselves, but only about their duty\u201d (Malanowski).<\/p>\n The wave of military related films soon ebbed away after the highly controversial US invasion of Iraq in 2003\u2014both the World War II epic Windtalkers<\/em> (2002) and the pro interventionist Tears <\/em>of the Sun<\/em> (2003) were low grossing. Commentators found it difficult to determine whether audiences perceived films that glorified the might of the American military as morally ambiguous or if they were simply war-weary after watching real-life combat on the news (Holson).<\/p>\n In the wake of the terrorist attacks, some experts had warned of a strategic \u201cpact\u201d between Hollywood and Washington promoting patriotism and even jingoism\u2014just like in aftermath of Pearl Harbour (1941). Shortly after 9\/11, Jack Valenti, longtime president of the\u00a0Motion Picture Association of America, had indeed assured that the industry would answer the call: \u201cMany people in Hollywood are veterans that fought in other wars and they are ready to fight again if their country needs them\u201d (Valenti). But in retrospect, the response proved to be more ambivalent than straightforward propaganda.<\/p>\n A major part was in fact pure escapism: Monumental struggles between the forces of light and darkness were extremely popular after 9\/11. In reference to the Lord of the Rings<\/em> (2001\u20132003) trilogy, critic Lev Grossman explained the fascination of this matter\u2014especially in comparison to the murky struggle against terrorism: \u201cTolkien gives us the war we wish we were fighting\u2014a struggle with a foe whose face we can see, who fights on the open battlefield, far removed from innocent civilians. In Middle Earth, unlike the Middle East, you can tell an evildoer, because he or she looks evil\u201d (Grossman). Similarly, one of the reasons why the Harry Potter<\/em> (2001\u20132011) and The Chronicles of Narnia<\/em> (2005\/2008\/2010) franchises struck a note with audiences was that the stories engaged with notions of war, leadership, dangers of power, heroism, and personal sacrifice\u2014all relevant in uncertain times. \u201cYou could look at the Harry Potter series through the veil of 9\/11,\u201d a New York Times<\/em> critic explained. \u201cIt became very difficult not to, with the idea of Lord Voldemort as the evildoer of all evildoers who was going to try to take down [the world]. And the apocalyptic ending reaffirmed that for me\u201d (White).<\/p>\n The simple narrative of the superhero myth was also favoured as if the events had instilled new belief in the need of lone and all-powerful individuals rising up to the challenge. Commenting on the Superman remake Man of Steel<\/em> (2013) and questioning the cultural reasons behind the current burst of the genre, Joe Queenan argued that \u201csuperhero movies are made for a society that has basically given up. The police can\u2019t protect us, the government can\u2019t protect us, there are no more charismatic loners to protect us and the Euro is defunct. Clint Eastwood has left the building. So let\u2019s turn things over to the vigilantes\u201d (Queenan).<\/p>\n Christopher Nolan\u2019s Batman trilogy was the trendsetter for this realignment of the previously goofy superhero genre: It became darker, pessimistic, and pseudo-realistic. In Batman Begins<\/em> (2005), Gotham City\u2019s water supply and public transport system is attacked in order to spread a toxin that instils fear and chaos. The Dark Knight<\/em> (2008) put forward the \u201cJoker,\u201d who terrorises Gotham City with such elaborate schemes that Batman has no other option except to fight \u201cfire with fire.\u201d According to Douglas Kellner, the Joker is presented \u201eas the spirit of anarchy and chaos of a particularly destructive and nihilistic nature. In the contemporary context, the Joker represents the spirit of terrorism and the film is full of iconography related to 9\/11\u201d (Kellner 11). In The Dark Knight Rises<\/em> (2012), Batman has to take on the masked mercenary Bane, who aims to destroy Gotham City in a nuclear explosion.<\/p>\n The more ironic Iron Man<\/em> movies (2008, 2010, 2013) feature the hero, Tony Stark, flying in his mechanical suit pounding a radical-Islamic group called \u201cTen Rings.\u201d Iron Man 3<\/em> finally introduces its leader, a Bin Laden look-alike superterrorist called the \u201cMandarin\u201d, who hacks himself into TV airwaves to present threatening messages. But ultimately, he is revealed as an actor hired to portray a menace to deflect attention from an out-of-control scientific programme. This sort of plotline exemplifies the contradictory nature of the studios approach to 9\/11: \u201cThey want to tap into the powerful reactions those events induced, while dodging the complex issues and especially the political arguments that might turn off ticket buyers\u201d (Dragis \u201cBang Boom\u201d).<\/p>\n While 9\/11 references in superhero movies are diffuse and not direct assertions, there is a major shift in the representation of the central characters that captures the pessimism of the post 9\/11 mindset. Whether it is Batman, Captain America, Superman, Iron Man, Spiderman, Wolverine, or Thor, these heroes suffer setbacks and humiliating defeats \u2013 in fact, they all come across as flawed, traumatised, and ultimately ambivalent, but nonetheless they keep doing what is \u201cnecessary\u201d (Pollard 183).<\/p>\n Fig. 2: Recalled to duty\u2014Captain America. The First Avenger<\/em> (2011)<\/p>\n According to some critics, Hollywood\u2019s exploration of the post 9\/11 world had started in earnest with Steven Spielberg\u2019s War of the Worlds<\/em> (2005): A modern adaptation of the classic extraterrestrial invasion story by H. G. Wells, The Guardian<\/em> labelled the film \u201ethe first piece of multiplex fodder ripped straight from the rubble of 9\/11\u201d (Preston). Spielberg remarked on the connections of his film to reality: \u201cI think 9\/11 reinformed everything I\u2019m putting into War of the Worlds<\/em>. Just how we come together, how this nation unites in every known way to survive a foreign invader and a frontal assault. We now know what it feels like to be terrorized\u201d (Abramowitz). Overall, similar to the Cold War era, there was a string of alien invasion scenarios brought to the screen: Skyline<\/em> (2010), Cowboys and Aliens<\/em> (2010), Super 8<\/em> (2011), and Pacific Rim<\/em> (2013). According to director Paul Haggis the Transformers<\/em> series (2007-2011) offered a \u201cfantasy where the message is that if we can\u2019t win over there, we can win it at home on our screens\u201d (Jaafar 20). In these films two races of good and evil robots battle each other right in the middle of downtown Chicago. The teenage hero, who is told by an officer, \u201cYou are a soldier now,\u201d absorbs the lesson of the struggle quickly: \u201cNo sacrifice, no victory\u201d (Jaafar 16-21). The same message was picked up by World Invasion: Battle Los Angeles<\/em> (2011) and Battleship<\/em> (2012), where the US-military has to fight full scale alien invasions. On the other hand, the more anti-imperialist leanings of James Cameron\u2019s Avatar <\/em>(2009), so far the highest-grossing film of all time, suggested that after almost a decade, a majority of the public had turned away from the Bush doctrine (O\u2019Hehir). President Obama\u2019s subsequent shift from interventionism to drone strikes and special forces missions was addressed in Star Trek: Into Darkness<\/em> (2013): Here, Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) chooses to capture terrorist mastermind Khan, who bombed Star Fleet\u2019s main archive building, for trial instead of killing him extrajudicial with a long range torpedo.<\/p>\n Revisiting the past also offered an approach for filmmakers: By depicting the crusades (Kingdom of Heaven<\/em>, 2005), by replaying the myths of the ancient world (Troy<\/em>, 2004, Alexander<\/em>, 2005, 300<\/em>, 2007, Immortals<\/em>, 2011), or by reimagining American history and legends (Gangs of New York<\/em>, 2002, Alamo<\/em>, 2004, The New World<\/em>, 2005, Good Night, and Good Luck<\/em>, 2005, Flags of our Fathers<\/em>, 2006, There will be Blood<\/em>, 2007, Lincoln<\/em>, 2012) the present day situation could be addressed in an indirect way. For example, film scholar Stephen Prince suggested that 300<\/em>\u2014a comic book adaptation featuring the heroic last stand of the Spartans against the superior Persian army\u2014uses contemporary conflicts as templates, \u201cand it provides and an argument and a justification for waging war against Iraq and Iran\u201d (Prince 291). Slavoj \u017di\u017eek instead proposed a very different reading by setting the rigid, \u201cfundamentalist\u201d Spartan identity in contrast to the \u201cmulticulturalist different-lifestyles paradise\u201d of the Persians (\u017di\u017eek 2007).<\/p>\n The pitched battle scenes in movies like 300 <\/em>offered clarity and oversight lacking in the \u201creal\u201d world, as well as the certainty that the forces of good will eventually triumph. \u201cThis is our way of dealing with 9\/11 and how we feel about those foreigners, and those terrorists, whom we are trying very hard to define\u201d, a film historian told the New York Times<\/em> under the headline: \u201cAt the movies, at least, good vanquishes evil\u201d (Waxmann).<\/p>\n I<\/span>n a 2008 piece for The Atlantic Monthly<\/em> Ross Douhat argued that after 9\/11 Hollywood returned to the \u201cparanoid, cynical, end-of-empire 1970s\u201d (Douhat). There are indeed many similarities between the 1970s and the 2000s: Both were decades of political and social crisis, producing, among other results, a pessimistic cultural outlook. For instance, after 9\/11 Hollywood envisioned the dark, amoral world of unregulated and destructive corporate power in a similar way to the 1970s: The Manchurian Candidate<\/em> (2004), Syriana<\/em> (2005), Blood Diamond<\/em> (2006), Shooter<\/em> (2007), Michael Clayton<\/em> (2007), War Inc.<\/em> (2008), Nothing But the Truth <\/em>(2008), State of Play<\/em> (2009), and Fair Game<\/em> (2010) are populated with powerful schemers, who use every means necessary to enhance power, profits, and personal gain. \u201cAmerica isn\u2019t a country; it\u2019s a business,\u201d a thoughtful hitman declares in Killing Them Softly<\/em> (2012), and turns to one of his colleagues: \u201cNow give me my money\u201d (Scott \u201cOne Bad Turn\u201d). Another distinct 1970s character also returned\u2014the vigilante: Man on Fire <\/em>(2004), The Punisher<\/em> (2004), Hitman<\/em> (2007), The Brave One<\/em> (2007), and Jack Reacher<\/em> (2012) show lonely avengers going on wild rampages.<\/p>\n Fig. 3: A thoughtful hitman\u2014Brad Pitt in Killing Them Softly<\/em> (2012)<\/p>\n Another major parallel to the 1970s is the boom of horror. Since 2001, a retro-trend brought remakes of almost all classics, often made by their veteran directors. Notably, George A. Romero returned with Land of the Dead<\/em> (2005), Diary of the Dead<\/em> (2008), and Survival of the Dead<\/em> (2009). Romero integrated certain contemporary influences into his movies: \u201cThe idea of living with terrorism\u2014I\u2019ve tried to make it more applicable to the concerns Americans are going through now\u201d (Beale). As during the 1970s, in post 9\/11 horror, evil lurks in remote places at home, mostly in red state territory and in the shape of ignorant, reactionary or retarded backwoodsmen, whose \u201cappetite\u201d for slaying youngsters seems insatiable. This reflects the tensions and divisions within American society\u2014whether it is about the difference between city and countryside or diverging opinions on morals, religion, and politics. Thus, like in the classics, the main characters find themselves suddenly beset by savage strangers and deadly threats (Wrong Turn<\/em>, 2003, The Devil\u2019s Reject<\/em>, 2005, Turistas<\/em>, 2006, Hatchet<\/em>, 2007). Some of the recent horror films even had a distinct trademark of their own: Hostel<\/em> (2005), Hostel: Part II<\/em> (2007), or Saw<\/em> (six parts between 2004 and 2009) feature explicit and up-close violence that is administered on the victims in lengthy sessions. Critics labelled this \u201ctorture porn\u201d (Edelstein), while director Eli Roth remarked that his two Hostel <\/em>films were simply made through the lenses of 9\/11 and the War on Terror (Braxton).<\/p>\n There was also widespread demand for disaster movies: Unlike its 1970s predecessors, the post 9\/11 films neither provide moral rallying points nor successful counterstrokes, but appear utterly pessimistic: The US government is too slow to respond to the rapid climate change in The Day after Tomorrow<\/em> (2004). When Earth is hit by a series of quakes and mega-tsunamis in 2012<\/em> (2009), elites are concerned solely with their own survival: While leaving the rest of mankind to perish, they survive on board of pre-constructed arks. More realistically, Contagion <\/em>(2011) evokes the spectre of a swiftly collapsing order as a result of a spreading killer virus. A pandemic that turns humans into zombies causes global apocalypse in World War Z<\/em> (2013)\u2014not so much a film about the undead, but a concrete take on government inadequacy and public panic in the face of overwhelming disaster. \u201cThe general premise is that anything can happen, in any kind of scenario, on any given day,\u201d director Marc Forster commented (World War Z production notes).<\/p>\n A threat from the outside is realised in Red Dawn<\/em> (2012), where large parts of the US fall prey to ruthless North Korean invaders: The conservative leaning film hints that the country has left itself open to Communist occupation, because of weak foreign policy, squandering military might, and economic decline (O\u2019Sullivan). Rise of the Planet of the Apes<\/em> (2011) depicts mankind in the role of the oppressor until mutated chimpanzees and gorillas throw off their shackles and spread havoc: \u201cIt\u2019s the end of the world as we know it, and the animals feel fine\u201d (Dragis \u201cApocalypse\u201d).<\/p>\n On a more personal level, Taking Shelter<\/em> (2011) features Curtis LaForche (Michael Shannon), a young husband and father, tormented by apocalyptic visions that spell danger to his loved ones. In the progress, LaForche becomes more and more obsessed with providing security for his family, and this paranoia threatens to unravel everything he cares about (Scott \u201cSplintering Psyche\u201d). Once Armageddon has passed, the struggle for survival continues even more mercilessly in dystopias like I Am Legend <\/em>(2009), The Road<\/em> (2009), The Book of Eli<\/em> (2010), The Hunger Games<\/em> (2012), Oblivion<\/em> (2013), and Elysium <\/em>(2013). Supposedly, even god \u201cgot tired of all the bullshit\u201d\u2014and so he sends an army of angels to destroy mankind in Legion <\/em>(2010). Pictures like these stress that the only hope for humanity lies in virtues such as love, self-sacrifice, and faith\u2014typical cultural reactions to states of uncertainty.<\/p>\n D<\/span>rawing up a conclusion on the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks, Jim Hoberman observed on Hollywood\u2019s output that \u201cthe events of 9\/11 were to be avenged but not relived.\u201d While it formed the emotional background for all kinds of escapist adventures, there was considerably less interest in depicting the actual event. Thus, the first films relating to 9\/11 did this in a consciously distanced way, aiming not to attract controversy. According to the New York Times<\/em>, the trauma \u201cquietly arrived, writ small in a series of new pictures that have no political content but that are suffused with a deep, enduring sense of grief born in the tragedy\u2019s wake\u201d (Farber). First came The Guys<\/em> (2002): It featured a journalist helping a FDNY captain who lost nine men in the Twin Towers to compose eulogies. Spike Lee\u2019s 25th Hour<\/em> (2002), released 15 months after the terrorist attacks, follows a convicted New York drug dealer on his last day of freedom before beginning a seven-year prison sentence (LaSalle).<\/p>\n It took more than five years for the entertainment industry to tackle 9\/11 directly: In United 93<\/em> (2006) Paul Greengrass retold the story of the hijacked flight that did not reach its intended target on September 11th<\/sup>. Instead it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, supposedly because the passengers revolted against the hijackers. Since United 93<\/em> is all about civilian heroism, the motivation and personal background of the terrorists remain completely obscure to the viewer. Oliver Stone\u2019s World Trade Center <\/em>(2006) did not even show the planes hitting the towers, instead focused on the miraculous rescue of two survivors from Ground Zero. The Great New Wonderful<\/em> (2005) presented a series of vignettes of incidents taking place concurrently around Manhattan \u2013 without mentioning 9\/11 (Abramowitz, Horn). The event was further domesticated in the buddy movie Reign Over Me <\/em>(2007), where two former college roommates meet up again by chance on a Manhattan street corner. One of them has lost his family on 9\/11 and is unable to cope with the tragedy (Prince 120).<\/p>\n 9\/11 forms the emotional climax in the love drama Remember Me<\/em> (2010): Tyler (Robert Pattinson) is last seen in his father\u2019s office on the 88th floor of the World Trade Center and it is later revealed that the date is 11 September 2001. For that, the film was criticized as \u201cappalling\u201d and \u201cexploitative,\u201d because it uses 9\/11 as \u201ca simple plot device\u201d (White). Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close<\/em> (2011) focuses on an eleven year old New Yorker coping with the loss of his father in the rubble of the World Trade Center. According to Manohla Dragis the film \u201cisn\u2019t about Sept. 11. It\u2019s about the impulse to drain that day of its specificity and turn it into yet another wellspring of generic emotions: sadness, loneliness, happiness. This is how kitsch works\u201d (Dragis \u201cYoungster with a Key\u201d). Like many other 9\/11 movies, the 40 million dollar production was not well received at the box office, but gained an Academy Award nomination nonetheless.<\/p>\n The obvious preference for escapism was again confirmed by the success of the safely immersing Cloverfield<\/em> (2011): It reimagined the terrorist strikes as a sudden devastating attack by a giant monster that topples skyscrapers and major landmarks. A similarly spectacular action showdown in the middle of Manhattan can be found in the superhero film The Avengers<\/em> (2012). The images of urban destruction turn it, according to Jim Hoberman, into a watershed\u2014Hollywood is \u201cno longer afraid to tackle 9\/11\u201d: \u201cThe Avengers<\/em> demonstrates how completely 9\/11 has been superseded by another catastrophe, namely the financial meltdown of September 2008\u201d (Hoberman).<\/p>\n Fig. 4: Space invaders target downtown Manhattan in The Avengers<\/em> (2012)<\/p>\n A<\/span>s mentioned, a direct examination of 9\/11 was a sort of taboo in the early stages. Terrorism related films like Collateral Damage<\/em> (2002) and The Sum of All Fears<\/em> (2002), which had been produced before 2001, were suddenly out of touch with the new paradigm. The Sum of All Fears<\/em> was much noticed because it displayed the nuclear destruction of Baltimore, but when it came to the depiction of the enemy\u2014European Neo-Nazis\u2014the film was criticized for being implausible. Hereupon, \u201c9\/11 rang down the curtain on Hollywood\u2019s theatre of mass destruction, at least for a while,\u201d Stephen Prince noted (70). But with growing distance, filmmakers began to focus on the War on Terror, its progress and implications, both domestic and international. Stephen Spielberg chose a historical analogy to place a comment on the counterterrorism struggle: His film Munich <\/em>(2005), the adaptation of a novel telling the story of the Israeli revenge for the massacre of its athletes during the 1972 Olympics, explored the cycle of violence engulfing the Middle East. Beyond that, it could also be read as critique of the futility of the War on Terror, with a final lingering shot of the Twin Towers in the distance (Alford 145). Among other issues, Syriana<\/em> (2005) explored how the corruption of the oil business indirectly fuels terrorism, while Charlie Wilson\u2019s War<\/em> (2007) explored the CIA\u2019s collusion with jihadists in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.<\/p>\n In productions like these, counterterrorism came across increasingly as an amoral struggle in the shadows\u2014an obvious reaction to the Abu Ghraib scandal and revelations about suspects disappearing in a secret CIA prison network. In Body of Lies<\/em> (2008), agent Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio) is such a shadow warrior, who sets up a fictitious terror group, equips it with fake bank accounts, and plants messages in fundamentalist chat rooms \u2013 in order to flush out an Al Qaeda mastermind (Stevens). Gavin Hood\u2019s 2007 film Rendition<\/em> took on the opposing perspective by depicting an Arab as the victim of unlawful US vigilance. Although being married to an American wife, he is abducted and sent to a North African country for interrogation. While witnessing the brutality inflicted, the local CIA liaison officer begins to doubt the agency\u2019s methods: \u201cIn all the years we\u2018ve been doing this, how often can you say that we\u2018ve produced truly legitimate intelligence?\u201d (Alford 150). The Kingdom<\/em> (2007) can be seen as an alternative scenario in its depiction of a successful cooperation between Western and Middle Eastern police forces (Scott 28 Sept. 2007). Due to disappointing box office results, the adaptation of terrorism related themes decreased between 2009 and 2012. Unthinkable <\/em>(2010), a movie about an FBI interrogator caught in the moral dilemma of a classic \u201cticking bomb\u201d scenario, was released direct-to-video.<\/p>\n Fig. 5: Western jihadist\u2014Michael Sheen in Unthinkable <\/em>(2010)<\/p>\n Compared to this rather slow adaptation of counterterrorism, the war in Iraq arrived on screen with unparalleled speed: \u201cNot since World War II has Hollywood so embraced an ongoing conflict. It took years for pop culture to tackle the Korean wars, and it took time before the country was ready to be entertained by those politically charged conflicts\u201d (Soriano, Oldenburg). Yet most of the Iraq movies did not focus on the conflict, but instead on the homecoming of the veterans, or the plight of military families left behind (Land of the Brave<\/em>, 2006, In the Valley of Elah<\/em>, 2007, Badland<\/em>, 2007, Grace is Gone<\/em>, 2007, Stop Loss<\/em>, 2008). Redacted<\/em> (2007) and The Hurt Locker<\/em> (2008) took on the perspective of GIs hopelessly entrapped in a \u201cdirty\u201d conflict, which they do not understand and often turn their frustration against civilians. Lions for Lambs<\/em> (2007) and Green Zone<\/em> (2010) openly contradicted the official lineage of the Bush administration in regard to the war effort and addressed issues of political accountability and manipulation. But just like the 9\/11 films, most of these productions failed commercially\u2014even the acclaimed The Hurt Locker<\/em> was the lowest grossing Best Picture winner since the fifties (Harris).<\/p>\n Fig. 6: Manipulated into the Iraq war\u2014Green Zone<\/em> (2010)<\/p>\n In comparison, the Vietnam movies of the 1970s and 1980s had the benefit of hindsight and offered an opportunity to reflect from a distance on what had gone wrong (Jaafar 16\u201321). Compared to past conflicts, the Global War on Terror, despite its length, had always remained enigmatic and distant to the larger public. As Luke Buckmasters has pointed out: \u201cThe war on terrorism, as we know it, invokes a muddled sense of time and location. Its themes are both old and new and the enemy is impossible to relegate to a specific geographic area. The trickier enemies are to define, the harder they are to visualise.\u201d (Buckmasters). The surprising box office success of Act of Valor<\/em> (2012) demonstrated that military related themes still resonated with audiences, once they were removed from the messy context of Iraq and Afghanistan. The movie featured supposedly real-life Special Forces operatives on missions in Costa Rica, the Sudan, and Mexico that ultimately thwart the hideous plans of a jihadist network (Pinkerton).<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nAfter 9\/11: Escaping into fantasy, history, and past conflicts<\/strong><\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nNew age of fear, horror, and dystopia <\/strong><\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n9\/11 arrives on the screen<\/strong><\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nFrom commentary to historization<\/strong><\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/imaginations.space\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/figure_7_Riegler-1024x576.jpg\" "\\"figure_7_Riegler\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/imaginations.space\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/figure_8_Riegler.jpg\" "\\"figure_8_Riegler\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n