It's too soon, and too raw.

Regardless of our instant world and our instant communication, artistic sensibilities and processes haven't changed all that much.

Think about the average gap in moviemaking about violent events. With the exception of the WWII genre of contemporaneous films that were even at the time of their production considered "home front" movies with little realism and a lot of morale-building, there's usually a gap of about 5 years, or more, before serious movies are produced about events like this. The Holocaust took even longer.

Even Vietnam had a gap, with the notable exception of The Deer Hunter (1978), though I think of that movie as more about the effects of brutality in warfare on warriors, with Vietnam as a convenient setting. It could have been set during any modern war. The most trenchant anti-war satires of the Vietnam era, M*A*S*H* and Catch-22, were set in less recent wars.

We have seen serious print non-fiction, including a heartrending group of dramatic monologues called With Their Eyes, and several good pieces of fiction about 9/11. We will begin to see movies probably in the next 3 to 5 years. It takes a while for the trauma to percolate through the artistic community. The best art is not engineered, but appears in dreams or is dictated by a familiar but unnamed voice whispering in a writer's ear. One can apply craft to that vision or voice, but it has to appear first, and it will only appear in its own good time.

In the case of something like 9/11, the enormity of the event compounded with the fact that we can actually identify most of the individuals who were killed, injured or involved makes it much more of a nightmare for someone who seeks to portray its emotional reality. To portray emotional reality: that's what art does.

So it takes a while before the inner eye can look, and the inner voice can speak. It will come.