I understand the frustration of seeing a film and a production company abandon the actual locale of the original incident.But between the unions and the enormous hassles of shooting anywhere in New York...why wouldn't they take a friendlier, more accommodating and efficient route?Some incredibly great films have been done in New York I'll admit... but you really have to see it from the eyes of the investors, producers and availability of ready and willing talent. And that the logistics of any film undertaking in New York has to be prohibitively expensive and frustrating.I'd ask DeNiro, Pacino or Woody Allen what they think.

This film, if taken standing alone, that is, without the horrifying context in which it was born but as just another plot in a million plots, is really a mediocre "B" movie potboiler. It's focus is Carolyn McCarthy, the wife of a man slain in a brutal random shooting incident on a Long Island Railroad commuter train. Her son was with the father and was also shot, but recovered from his wounds. Mrs. McCarthy went on to win a seat in Congress with a one plank platform on gun control.Here is my problem with this film. This is a story that took place on Long Island. Six New Yorkers were killed on this black day. Many more were injured. This case shook the local population to its core. It could have happened in any suburban bedroom community in America, but it didn't. It happened here.It most certainly was not a Canadian story. Canada has very little gun violence. It's black population did not originate as Canadian slaves. "Black Rage" as a legal defense is never employed as it was by the counsel for the shooter in this case. This was decidedly an American story, tied to the urban and suburban population of Americas most vital city. The people of Long Island have a big stake in the movie industry. Many of us work in it. Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who was employed as a paid advisor on the film, and whose constituency could have used the work, travelled to Canada all star struck that Hollywood was paying attention to her instead of making some deals that would have put the interiors into Kaufman Astoria or Silvercup Studios and the exteriors right onto the tracks of the actual railroad where it all occurred. All of this was possible, and she had the clout to do it.When you watch this movie and you see the train go by, note that "VIA" on the sides of the cars stands for VIA Rail Canada. That train was one of the first vehicles to take our production jobs out of our homeland in search of Canadian government subsidized labor.Since then, hundreds of films have followed the tracks across the border. New York ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani did not lift a finger to keep the making of "Rudy!" in New York. So scenes of one of America's most fateful days, 9/11/01, were shot in Canada. Oh, Canada! Oh well.Me, I'm working on a new production about fur trappers in a battle with the mounties far up in the Canadian wilderness. I'm planning to shoot in Brooklyn. Why not? It's got trees!Chris Zizzo// Christopher G. Zizzo Film & Videotape

At the time, this TV-movie was actually a bit of an event. This is the story of a woman whose husband and son are gunned down on a subway; only the son survives. Thus begins her crusade to run for Congress on the sole issue of gun control. This is a mediocre TV movie; the two things that distinguish it are a relatively good acting job by Laurie Metcalf (good for TV, that is) and the relative restraint Sargent uses (no big funeral scenes, for example; the gunning down is also mostly offscreen). All the old tricks of emotional manipulation are firmly in place.The movie was a bit famous at the time. Barbra Streisand was executive producing, and Charlton Heston, in his capacity as NRA President attacked the movie, sight unseen. Streisand returned in kind. The movie in its original broadcast had a Prudential Insurance commercial shoved in the middle starring the real gunned-down son. This movie, if it's remembered at all years from now, will be remembered for politics rather than dramatic quality.