The Towers live on … in movies & television, that is

Jim Hill

16 years ago

I wonder if you've ever had an experience like this:

The other day, I was feeling blue. Alice had just gone home after spending almost the entire summer up here in New Hampshire. And I was missing my daughter something fierce. Which is why I decided that I'd try & cheer myself up by watching a little Jay Sherman.

So I dropped Disc 1 in the DVD player and settled back on the couch. But then — as the opening sequence of "The Critic" begins — what's the very first thing you see? The New York skyline with the Towers still standing tall.

And then — just for a moment — my own personal funk was replaced by a duller, deeper ache.

Alright. I know. In the 30+ years that the World Trade Center existed, if you wanted to prove that your motion picture or television show was set in and/or had been shot inside of modern Manhattan, you made sure that the Towers were part of your backdrop.

Which means — if you're a media maven like myself — there's just no getting away from the World Trade Center. The Towers pop up all the time on TV or in movies. And often in the most unlikely of spots. They made an appearance in Disney's 1988 animated feature, "Oliver & Company" …

… And even though Woody Allen is obviously more of a fan of old New York, he still had to include a glimpse of the World Trade Center as part of "Manhattan" 's opening montage.

To be honest, stuff like this — seeing the Towers off in the distance — isn't all that hard to take. It just makes you feel sad or nostalgic for a moment.

But when you come across a motion picture where the World Trade Center is actually a principal location, like Dino De Laurentiis' 1976 remake of "King Kong" …

… that's when things really start to get uncomfortable. I mean, have you watched "Escape from New York" lately? Especially that action sequence where Snake Plissken flies into that city …

… and then lands his glider on top of one of the Towers ?

Watching that scene now … The feeling that you get is really hard to describe. Other than to say that it sort of borders on sacrilege.

To be fair, when John Carpenter made "Escape from New York" back in 1981 and / or when Ronald Neame blew up the World Trade Center as part of "Meteor" 's action-packed finale …

… they had no idea that the Towers would eventually become the site of this national tragedy. Carpenter & Neame were just out to make exciting motion pictures. Which is why they did want they did.

That said, if you look around, you can actually find far more hopeful versions of the World Trade Center's future. Take — for example — "Deep Impact." Which shows Manhattan about to be swallowed by this enormous tsunami …

… But because the Towers are so tall & so strong …

… these 110-story buildings can actually withstand that impact. Indeed, they're the only things still above water as this cinematic cataclysm passes.

Other film-makers also made this same assumption. That the World Trade Center was such an imposing structure that — long after the seas rose (seen here as depicted in Steven Spielberg's "A.I.") …

… and the next Ice Age came …

… the Towers would still be standing.

I genuinely wish that that were the case. That the World Trade Center had had the chance to withstand the test of time. More importantly, that all of those people who were working at the Towers that morning would have had the chance to live out their natural lives.

But then reality intrudes on that fantasy. And I'm stuck back here in the real world. Surrounded by all of these cinematic reminders of what used to be.

So does this same thing ever happen to you ? Do you find yourself being pulled out of a piece of entertainment — a TV show or a motion picture — just because you catch a glimpse of the Towers in the background ?

Your thoughts?