jews, cryptofascists, corporations and bees did 9-11

before i even mention the two most famous conspiracy films of all time, all the president’s men and jfk, i’d like to point out that the ur-text for this particular genre, loose change, was conceived of as entertainment. loose change is dubiously researched, contains innumerable logical fallacies, fails to present any convincing alternate theory and yet, it’s entertaining as hell. that film is a multimedia barrage on the senses, even if one can make no sense of the cockamamie “theory” spouted by an armchair investigative journalist (it bears repeating that this “investigation” doesn’t stand up under even the basic rigors of real journalism). it is compelling in many ways, downright convincing in the insidious way it uses the grammar of a filmic presentation to set a preposterous agenda.

i don’t really want to pile on conspiracy theorists, either, to do that would be just too obvious. no matter how ludicrous they seem, no matter how loosely packed the tinfoil hat, we love conspiracy shit. we are drawn to them. we mock the 9-11 truthers while seriously, actually believing that jfk was assassinated by three or more people from competing nationalities, agencies and ideologies. we take things like the da vinci code at face value, we believe nostradamus accurately predicted hurricane katrina, we are deathly terrified of old dudes shooting pool and drinking beer. although the idea is terrifying, people in general love the idea of a supreme inner sanctum, the world ruled by a secret echelon who would never leave anything to chance; even as we boo the dastardly cabal responsible for hijacking this or that, our imaginations are aflame with possibilities. it’s what we imagine when we imagine striking it rich, the ability to shape our own reality, to eliminate negative externalities.

yes, the reflecting pool is a terrible film that barely tells a story. it has no characters worth investing in and none of the scenarios (outside of the expository presentation of the “controlled demolition” theory) are even remotely believable. the cinematography consists almost entirely of terrible establishing shots and extreme close-ups. the soundtrack is monotonous and fails to score tension or mood. the cast is entirely made up of dour, hangdog losers that take themselves too seriously. it’s incompetently made but on top of missing all the fundamental elements that make a film even watchable, it lacks a genuine sense of urgency or energy that might convince you to watch it to the end.

indeed, one has to wonder who the intended audience for this film was? i imagine they wanted to fabricate some kind of analogy to the story of alex prokop, the polish emigre writer and skeptic who experienced firsthand the government sponsored machinery of propaganda, suppression and erasure of dissidents in the soviet era. he raises objections to the alternate story as a strawman would, asking the most facile questions possible as though he is reading from a truther blog’s FAQ. the character of paul cooper, who becomes a self-styled 9-11 expert after he loses his daughter on one of the hijacked planes, is definitely the character we are meant to most identify with. he’s got principles, values and common sense. he’s got the drive to find out what really happened, cognitive biases and lack of expertise in any related technical field be damned. why should we be convinced by what these two dullards have to say?

because we’re supposed to, i guess. what’s most interesting about the presentation of the alternate theory in this film is that for all the grandstanding about digging for the real story and how the media organs just parrot the line they’re told is that the “truth” is presented in the exact same way. nothing substantial is cited other than the vague notion that we’re not being told the entire story by various official agencies and mouthpieces. in other words, every news story, ever. the “evidence” is given weight by the fact that prokop’s boss is intimidated by the fbi, he’s sued and his newsmagazine is ridiculed on a bill o’reilly style program. alright, i’m convinced. i give. everybody and everything did 9-11. the terrorists were patsies and the government actually puppeteered a terrorist plot flawlessly. this is actually a masterful piece of agitprop.

the problem with this presentation on the whole is that this narrative is occurring in a movie in 2008, nevermind that it would be awfully quaint even back in 2002. even as a response to the entertainment industry’s collective response to 9-11 in every possible political context (see: the west wing, 300, united 93, the shield, 24, the wire, minority report, the bourne trilogy, cloverfield, the 25th hour and so on) it doesn’t even make sense. nine years on, the average person’s interaction with what we think of as journalism has shifted dramatically. we are drip-fed news and not-news constantly, we are updating and revising our own opinions constantly (and publicly). we self-select what perspectives and information we deem worthy of serious consideration, just by nature of the medium of delivery. what is gained from such a flat, lifeless recapitulation of truther talking points? why even bother with the barely one dimensional characters? the whole point of telling these alternate histories is to primarily to entertain and the rich history of such films and television shows informs us that it’s foolish to think otherwise.

no stars, for po-faced naivete, utterly insipid ideas, unconvincing characters, convictions and complete unwillingness to acknowledge the duty to excite or entertain.