Last week, the infamous Fox News published a scathing claim against J.J. Abrams.

Writer Roger Friedman weighed in with his movie review of “Cloverfield.” His article waved its banner of criticism with the headline: “‘Cloverfield’ : Horror Film Not Sensitive About 9/11.”

While the article did qualify as a film review when it eventually discussed parts of the movie, a good third of Friedman’s fallacious factoids were dominated by the theme that “Cloverfield” even carries reference to 9/11.

However, a claim of this magnitude raises an interesting question: is there a line between artful expression and tasteless representation?

There is a fine line to draw between being artful and having respect for actual events. Recall when the original “Spider-Man” movie came out in theaters. The film’s trailer featured a shot of a helicopter full of villains suspended in a giant spiderweb. Holding the web up were the Twin Towers.

Respectfully, after Sept. 11, the trailers were pulled and replaced. That type of action is understandable. However, blatant representations of 9/11 have been produced in the areas of film and literature in years following, and they have been hailed as vital pieces of art. Consider the fact that when Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” came out, Friedman described it as “elegant, powerful, moving and genuinely personal.”

The argument presented is that a movie where the Twin Towers are actually attacked is “elegant,” but a film where the Towers are not even featured is a slap in the face to the people of New York City. The duality of such a claim is beyond the realm of contrary positions because the reality of these films is that they are contrary genres.

“Cloverfield” is not a movie about a historical event. If there needs to be an attack on movies of that genre perhaps critics could look to other celluloid endeavors like “Pearl Harbor,” “We Were Soldiers” or even “Saving Private Ryan.” All of those were based on real, traumatic events. Ask yourself why the gore in “The Passion of the Christ” is heart wrenching, but the blood spewed in “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street,” is meant to be comical.

The answer lies in context.

All moviegoers become part of a certain organization when they purchase their tickets. Between the time when the previews roll and the popcorn bag reaches empty, those seat dwellers are transformed into art appreciators able to articulate their expectations, and that is what should drive criticism. The expectations that viewers have when they view a painting, read a book, listen to music, or even watch a movie, weigh heavily on their critiques. Those expectations should be derived from the context the art was created in.

“Cloverfield” is a movie about a giant monster attacking New York.

The giant monster movie was never intended to make commentary about politics or terrorism. At most they make allusions to the threat of nuclear power (nuclear energy usually makes small, cute animals grow into big, building-bashers). However, “Cloverfield” is not even a finger wag at nuclear power. “Cloverfield” doesn’t finger-wag anything. So where does Roger Friedman find the evidence for his claim?

Perhaps it is in his observation that “downtown New York City is destroyed.” If anything, it can be said that Mr. Friedman did actually watch the movie. He was able to observe that a monster did, in fact, destroy things. He was in the theater. Still, does a monster, a fictional creation of fantasy and imagination, really bare likeness to reality? The answer may be yes.

It would be a lie to say that all stories come purely from the writer’s imagination. A writer is merely a person who has made observations and constructs a fictional account to convey a message. It would be impossible to create a story which is not in some way derived from reality. Imagination has its limitations and, unfortunately, one of them is experience. The truth is that no person is creative enough to come up with an idea that has not been seen before. There is simply no new news under the sun.

However, that does not mean that people have not found new ways of thinking about subjects or even new ways of expressing their ideas. Is there a chance that “Cloverfield” derives its New York attack on the events of 9/11? You would have to ask writer Drew Goddard that question. Of course he could have simply seen “Godzilla” starring Matthew Broderick. That movie featured a giant lizard tearing down New York. If “Cloverfield” took place in Ottumwa, Iowa, would there even be a debate?

The truth of the matter is that our own expectations and the context in which a piece of art is created should be the tools used for critique. Injecting assumptions and accusations into a completed work leaves room for the audience to miss the point.

For the sake of everyone, acknowledge that art can carry a message, admit that art draws from reality, but in the end, recognize “Cloverfield” was fiction.