Originally Posted by Iteki
That scene doesn't work without it....how else to demonstrate that they live in teh present (obamas on the front page) but in a different reality? Maybe a smoking Statue of Liberty...but nothing would have that kind of impact.
There will be people who will never be able to let go of WTC and 911...hell I still cringe when I see it in old movies, but that's what made it so powerful.
Is "letting go" of 9-11 the objective to be achieved here? Is anyone under the misapprehension that that is what is objectionable in a depiction of the twin towers -- that such depictions can only serve to ruffle those that can't forget about it? What kind of mind set is that?
I dare say that no American who lived that day, or anyone on the globe for that matter, is going to let it go -- banish it to an area of the mind where it no longer matters or has any significance in our lives. Even if this banishing act could be accomplished, is that a desirable goal? If anything, I should think it would remain uppermost in our considerations of anything having to do with global politics or even any human interaction -- it speaks that deeply to our plight and condition as humans on this Earth.
The reason images were altered in the aftermath of the tragedy was not that it was considered offensive -- what is anyone thinking here? The reason was that inclusion of the twin towers represented something entirely different in the scheme of the productions when they were filmed -- now these structures symbolize something altogether removed from the original objective, so that they serve only to derail the flow of a given piece. I might have my objection to this kind of post-production rethinking, but it falls into the realm of editing out that which no longer serves the gestalt, in very much the same way as scenes are trimmed from any effort to maintain the dramatic flow at the desired pace.
In this latest case, FRINGE used the towers as a somewhat cheap visual shorthand, to make a dramatic point about an alternate dimension shift. Yes, it had drama. Yes, it was an instantaneous visual to make a cliffhanger impact. And of course the objection would be NOT that they were shown at all, but that it reduces something of profound impact to a visual punchline in effect. It lightens and cheapens the event to make it fodder for entertainment undertaken as a commercial enterprise.
I don't necessarily myself interpret it in those terms alone, but please let us not be confused here as to why folks might be sensitive to this use of the imagery. Also too, we are dealing with a shortened time span here -- unlike the dropping of Atomic weapons and the holocaust which are at something of a more respectful, reflective historical remove -- some possibly adequate time to digest has been afforded these events, but still, used in the wrong context they can most certainly ignite passions all over again -- a recent very public example was Joan Rivers comparing a rival to Hitler.
I think there is some truth in the contention that FRINGE did intentionally push the envelope with this -- it actually does seem in line with a tone and style of presentation already established, not that there is anything particularly meritorious in that kind of iconoclastic edge, so to speak, simply that they have seemingly achieved what they sought here.