There is a common adage that exists in discussing the current age: “9/11 changed everything.” This is a statement that is often linked to politics and everyday behavior, but one might be willing to ask what else 9/11 has changed. Does a distinct and identifiable shift exist within prominent areas of culture, altering even contemporary cultural fiction? Fictional films are arguably one of the most prominent mediums in which cultural phenomena and social commentary flourishes; therefore, this concept of 9/11 and change warrants study.
Has 9/11 changed film? By looking at particular films, pre- and post-9/11, I can explore such a question. Certain films may trigger a yes response, while others indicate nothing has changed for the most part in cinema. Film is an integral part of the United States; it serves as expressionism for its people, its culture, and ultimately, as a business, its economy. Therefore, if film changes, then it could be suggested that the United States has changed with it.
There is no simple way to think through this, and in all honesty, a brief article may not do it justice, but at the very least, it can stimulate some thinking. The primary genre in which 9/11 has impacted film is largely the action and war genre. These films have specific conventions; they usually feature a clear protagonist or hero and a clear antagonist or villain. These films often have clearly defined problems solved by the end of the film. Do complications of modern day war affect these conventions? Unfortunately, the answer is more likely yes and no.
Films such as Black Hawk Down, Collateral Damage, and We Were Soldiers, all released after 9/11, appear to follow suit of pre-9/11 filmmaking, featuring clear cut American warriors, whereas other films, such as In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, and The Hurt Locker seem to question black and white clarity and instead offer concepts of flawed and psychologically damaged warriors.
While The Hurt Locker bristles with intensity on the battlefield, its most important scenes take place on the home front. Was there a more tragic scene on film last year than when Jeremy Renner’s character confronts his greatest enemy: the normalcy of everyday life? The clueless expression and inability to choose a cereal revealed so much about the film’s most important character without firing a single shot. This type of film, paired with this type of thinking in war films, was certainly a contrast to the more pro-war films of the early 2000s. This shift may have had more to do with the United States’ military campaigns in the Middle East as opposed to 9/11 itself, but it could be argued, no less effectively, that with a new age of military strategy would also come a new age of thinking about the military, a thinking surely to be explored in its film culture.
This type of dialogue is not an easy topic, and at the very least should not be limited to an introductory article. My goal, with any and all film discussion, is just that: discussion. Film is important. Don’t let the stale summer movie season fool you! Film is a venue to explore the self as well as the collective; to not use it as such would simply be a shame. 9/11 has such a deep and lasting impact on every American, and while initially the changes in film may have been superficial, such as deleting images of the World Trade Center from posters or the films themselves, it now seems that films, particularly war films, are evolving. This is most likely a question still too fresh to answer, and we may only be seeing the initial stages of new millennium filmmaking.
If the answer is not exactly clear, that may be ok, because the question itself may be the problem. Study and discussion of post-9/11 film should not be isolated to merely identifying change or difference in cinema, but it should rather delve deeper into attempting to understand the changes within America itself. Changes that have undoubtedly been reflected in contemporary cinema.
Related Articles:
Space Oddity: A Review of Moon
In Jack We Trust: A Review of Casino Jack and the United States of Money
Authors bio is coming up shortly.
Great essay! I think that a way to mark changes in war films since 9/11 is also to examine what impact, if any, the eventual failure of the “War on Terror” and downfall of W and his hawks. Did war films shift after 9/11 and then shift again once the US military response to 9/11 became such an obvious failure?
Insightful?:
1 
0
I think that just might be it, Michele. Initially, i.e. 2001-2, war films like Black Hawk Down, etc., appeared to be ok with war, marking things as clearly ok, but as time went on, and certainly in the past year or two, war films, or films dealing with terrorism have found themselves more or less examining the gray area.
Insightful?:
0 
0
I see a lot of parallels between the war films of today and those of the Vietnam era. Themes surrounding the moral ambiguity and psychologically damaging effects of war permeated through the Vietnam War films. The original First Blood was a story about a decorated soldier trying to assimilate himself back into society and ultimately failing. Platoon, Casualties of War, and Apocalypse Now delved deeply into the psychological stress that soldiers endure and the moral decisions that they make. Today these same themes are found in films like Brothers, The Hurt Locker, and The Green Zone. In short, controversial wars beget controversial films.
Insightful?:
1 
0
Ross, you hit it right on the head. There are plenty of connections with Vietnam films and films about the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. First Blood was a pretty unique film, and before the other installments in the series went crazy, it stuck pretty close to home, and the action isn’t outrageous. It really is about a soldier who has been abandoned by his country and finds himself alone and psychologically damaged. If that doesn’t scream contemporary parallels, I don’t know what does!
Insightful?:
0 
0
Bem. I am impressed by the content of your article; you obviously possess a depth of knowledge about the film industry. I found your article to be well written, informative and quite intelligent. I look forward to reading more of your articles!
Insightful?:
1 
0
I look forward to a continuation of this topic, Ben. We of the Vietnam generation waited FOREVER for films that reflected the complexities of that period of our history. I would argue that DEER HUNTER was the first to tackle that subject and that because of its beautifully structured three acts, it gave us a before / during / after examination that never shied away from the harsher truths of war. It managed to be both specific to Vietnam and present a generic truth at the same time. IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH had a similar feel to it for me. Because it starts with the whole gung-ho feel and evolves into something much more complicated and engaging it DOES get to a post 9/11 perspective, I think. In any case, it’s a discussion worth having and I’m encouraged to see you take on the topic. GOOD beginning…keep it up!
Insightful?:
0 
0
I definitely feel that, to a certain extent, war pictures will carry different undertones to them in the post-9/11 era. Unless it’s a WW2 film, it’s hard to feel truly supportive of the protagonist (or in this case, soldier) when you can’t help but question the ethics behind the conflict in which they are engaged in. Like the article says, it is no longer black and white, the enemy is not clearly identified, so as a result it’s definitely harder for the viewer to know what they’re supportive when they don’t know why!
Insightful?:
0 
0