THE LAST time I wrote a column about Sept. 11, I was pretty angry. This time around, you'll be happy to know, that is not the case.
Although it was originally scheduled, the University Programs Council's Cinematheque opted not to show the controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" at Newcomb Theatre on Sept. 11 this year. This was a smart and commendable decision that illustrates that in the midst of this post-Sept. 11 world, where debate rages about free speech and censorship, there still exists such a thing as good taste.
Say what you want about "Fahrenheit 9/11." Call it a groundbreaking exposure of President Bush's agenda, or an inflammatory montage of lies. No one, however, can deny that it's controversial. No one can deny that it makes a lot of people pretty angry.
Sept. 11 is just not a day that anyone should want to make anyone else angry. Screening this film would have done just that.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" purports to reveal how the Bush administration used Sept. 11 to advance its own ruthless agenda. It attacks everything from the president to the Patriot Act and focuses mainly on the war in Iraq.
It is, according to the Los Angeles Times, "an unapologetic and incendiary indictment of the current administration's policies and their implications."
It's not exactly what you would call a feel-good movie.
If nothing else, the film politicizes Sept. 11, 2001. Showing the film on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks politicizes Sept. 11, 2001 even more. It would be nice if, for just one day out of the year, Americans could think about that day without having to think about politics.
There are those who would argue that Cinematheque chickened out, or that they shouldn't have to bow to political, societal or administrative pressure. Some would argue that Cinematheque's decision to cancel the screening is just another example of the oppressive, Orwellian, post-Sept. 11 society in which we now live, where anyone who dares to say anything slightly less than patriotic is branded an evil-doer and publicly flogged. I know that these people are out there, because they're the same people who show up, infuriated, on CNN when someone burns a Dixie Chicks CD or boycotts Linda Ronstadt.
UPC's decision to not show "Fahrenheit 9/11" doesn't mean that they condemn the film. If they did, it wouldn't have been shown on Sept. 9, 10 or 12. The decision to cancel the screening was done out of -- gasp -- respect for those who might have been offended.
The administration, despite receiving a complaint from a parent over the summer about the film's timing, left the final decision up to UPC. This isn't a case of censorship, or a violation of the First Amendment or any of the other buzzwords that the radical left pounce on when something like this happens.
That's what makes UPC's decision so commendable: It's tactful. What a rare quality in today's political environment.
Defenders of people like Whoopi Goldberg and the Dixie Chicks, who came under fire for their politically charged comments, assert that the right to free speech in America is being eradicated in a supersensitive, post-Sept. 11 climate.
Free speech, however, doesn't have to supercede respect. Just because UPC has the freedom to screen "Fahrenheit 9/11" on Sept. 11 doesn't mean that it's a particularly tasteful thing to do.
Despite all of its political implications, Sept. 11 should be a day reserved for mourning without blame. It should be the one day of the year when America shuts up about politics and stops pointing fingers. It should be the one day when we all be quiet, light a candle and remember the people we've lost.
The University Programs Council made a commendable decision in not showing "Fahrenheit 9/11" on Sept. 11. Michael Moore can have 364 days a year in which to stir up controversy. It's nice to have one day off.
Kristin Brown's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at kbrown@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
