The Negative Reaction to the United 93 Trailer Is Contrived

The news (HT Drudge) is that “Movie Theater Pulls Trailer for ‘United 93‘ after Audience Complaints.”

Please. I’ve seen the trailer on iTunes. It’s also available at this link from the news story if your browser has a compatible movie player (mine didn’t). It is compelling (trailers are supposed to get you interested in seeing the movie, remember?), but certainly not violent, disrespectful, or in any way offensive.

Those who claim “we are not ready for this yet” never will be.

I can’t help noting that the theaters where objections caused the trailer to be pulled were in Hollywood and the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and that Hollywood’s trailer preceded the profanity-laced and violent R-Rated “Inside Man.” So objecting attendees (and I’ll bet there were very few, even in Hollywood) don’t like getting a brief reminder that real violence actually happened on September 11, 2001, and that it will be portrayed on the big screen, even when they’ve just paid $10 to get a heavy dose of on-screen violence themselves. Uh-huh.
___________________________

UPDATE — Reax (will be updated periodically):

• Ed Driscoll weighs in nicely — “….. these are the same audiences that caught the vapors when Mel Gibson armed his sons in The Patriot and predicted that his Passion of the Christ would launch a new pogrom.”
• ShrinkWrapped — “I saw the Trailer for United 93 in the theaters last weekend and it looks like the movie will be riveting, horrific, and excruciatingly painful, yet I plan on seeing it ….. We have not suffered a major attack in almost 5 years now, we are engaged in a very difficult and painful task in Iraq, and too many would like nothing better than to forget. The longer we go without an attack, and the further in time 9/11 recedes, the more necessary it becomes to remind ourselves that we are still facing an implacable enemy.” The objectors don’t want to be reminded.
• Random Jottings makes a great point — “Yeah, right. And it was “too late” to put pictures of the WTC on the news about a day after it happened.”
• Commenter David at Neptunus Lex — “Odd how we “have” to see crap like Farhenheit 9-11 or Syriana but God forbid not something that will help us remember.”
• Also — Insurgent Sarcasm and Neptunus Lex.
• Dr. Sanity hits it out of the park about the objectors — “They are the same people who scream bloody murder every time the topic is raised; every time the images are shown–as if by squelching all discussion about it, they can continue to pretend that it never really happened. They prefer to view the attacks and horrific deaths on that day as something that wouldn’t have occurred if the hated BushHitler hadn’t been in office. Intuitively they understand that if they give credence to its reality; and to the resultant war on terror, they would be supporting Bush.”
• American Barbarian (HT S.O.B. Alliance member Return of the Conservatives) — “Suddenly when a film challenges their editorial point of view they go all jello legged and question if the film should even be made?”
• April 4 — Jim Geraghty at National Review’s TKS catches some objectors to the movie lying about the 9/11 commission’s account of what happened on Flight 93.
• April 4 — Judith Weiss has a great post and a number of great comments at the post. My favorite comment (scroll down at the link to find it): “I’ve seen the trailer. It made me cry. They were doomed but did the right thing, for people they had never met and would never meet. “My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country.” They certainly did.”
• April 7 — Anchoress: “It is chilling, adrenaline-pumping and necessary. But not pleasant. My hands were shaking by the end of the trailer. It’s going to be tough to watch. But then again, The Passion of the Christ was tough to watch too. And I watched it 5 times.”