What's New in the World Today?

What's new today?

Let's turn to the Middle East first.  Hezbollah terrorist leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah is still breathing, presumably having been absent when Israel dropped 23 tons of bombs on a bunker believed to be housing Hezbollah senior leadership.  He even sounds partially sane in this report of an interview with Al-Jazeera, apologizing for an attack that killed two Israeli Arab children.

Meanwhile, everyone keeps saying that Israel is poised to invade Lebanon.   Shhhhhh!!  You'll ruin the element of surprise.  Who do you think you are giving advance notice to the enemy like that -- the New York Times?

But enough about the Middle East.  Switching subjects completely, John Podehertz writes in the New York Post that Oliver Stone's new film World Trade Center is not as awful as everyone has expected. Podehertz's criticism is that World Trade Center turns 9/11 into a conventional Hollywood "triumph of the human spirit over adversity" tale -- a reframing of 9/11 that Podehertz views as dishonest:

It is undeniably powerful, an immensely affecting and well-meaning real-life tale of two Port Authority policemen trapped in the rubble underneath the collapsed concourse between the North and South Towers.

Nonetheless, because "World Trade Center" tells a story of joyous survival rather than a story of death, it is a fundamental falsification of the meaning of 9/11 - even though the story it tells is true.

Let's skip to the end of the review:

Because the TV news media decreed nearly five years ago that they would no longer show moving images of 9/11, Stone's recreation has immense power. It is impossible not to cry during the course of this movie. But that doesn't make "World Trade Center" exceptional. Truth to tell, the movie really isn't very good.

Much of the picture is taken up with the suffering and anxiety of the wives and families of McLoughlin and Jimeno, and the ultra-histrionic Stone simply has no idea how to film an ordinary scene in which four people sit in a house together. Instead, he slaps together clichés from World War II pictures and Lifetime's "movies for women" into an unconvincing, clichéd lump.

The movie ends with Nicolas Cage speaking a narration about how on 9/11 we faced adversity but also came together as a people and did nice things for each other. That certainly did happen, and America's emotional unity was something extraordinary to behold, but that is not what 9/11 was about - 9/11 was a day of barbaric mass murder, not a day of hope.

Despite his conclusion that World Trade Center is no masterpiece, Podehertz has piqued my interest; I'm rather a fan of "impossible not to cry" movies as long as they have an uplifting ending.  Yes, I know that 9/11 was gruesome, horrific, awful, and evil.  But if Stone has managed to put together a reasonably respectful film that conveys at least something positive about two survivors of 9/11, I'll be there.  I might even enjoy it more than I did United 93, which was well done and important, but not a "feel good" movie by any means. 

Not every movie about a dark day has to be profound and equally dark to match the day.  It's not a crime to make a movie that is sad in parts but still allows you a little room to enjoy your popcorn.  We're talking about a movie here -- not a full and complete re-eneactment of the horror of September 11th.  There was enough evil in that day to remember for all time.  It's O.K. for a movie to focus in on a small silver lining of human survival.

Cal Thomas is enthusiastic about World Trade Center in his review, anyway; that clinches it for me.

Back to the news.  National Guardsmen are traipsing around St. Louis handing out water and cookies to senior citizens after a "deadly heat wave."  According to the report, the "high temperature was 97 degrees, but the humidity made it feel like 111."

At risk of sounding insensitive -- is it just me, or are we over-using the National Guard? 

Have we become a nation of softies?  Can't we even survive heat waves anymore without military assistance?  If that's true, heaven help us if we have a real emergency like a major terrorist attack.  Apparently half the nation will die from fright or from lack of air conditioning.

There's nothing wrong with checking on elderly neighbors, but since when did this become the job of the National Guard?  Is there no such thing as friendly neighbors in St. Louis?  Community services?  Church groups?  Neighborhood watch?  Meals on Wheels?  Red Cross?  Salvation Army?  Senior centers?  Fans?  Ice cold drinks?  Ice cream trucks?  Air conditioned malls? 

What if we're actually using the National Guard for something serious the next time a heat wave hits St. Louis?  Will all the seniors perish? 

But I guess Western Europeans are struggling with the summer heat, too, so I shouldn't unfairly single out Americans as weak.  But honestly, people need to think ahead and prepare for routine, predictable "crises" like summer heat.

In other news, George Bush addressed the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and nothing disastrous happened.  While the NAACP still has some political clout, the organization is increasingly dated and irrelevant.  The name itself is a throwback. 

There's much, much more in the news today, but that's enough for me.  For now anyway.  Sorry about the 1,423 big stories I have completely skipped.  You'll have to sort out the rest of the day's news for yourself.  And when you do, drop me a line, won't you?  Why should I have to do all the heavy lifting here?

_________________________

Update 7/21/06:  More reviews of World Trade Center at Michelle Malkin.