United 93

[Pearly Di]

I saw it last night at BAFTA (I'm not a member, but a friend of mine is and she can get me into free screenings, yay).

Incredibly powerful.

All the more so because its drama-doc style is unsensational, meticulously researched and crafted, and sober.

Paul Greengrass directed 'The Bourne Supremacy' (which I enjoyed immensely) and also 'Bloody Sunday', an impressive drama-doc.

'United 93' is not easy watching - it's harrowing and feels so very real that you feel like you're on the plane with them, be warned - but I do think it is an honourable and moral film.

I will NOT be going to see Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' though. Ugh.

From IMDB: The Iraqi-born (but London-based) actor 'Lewis Alsamari', who plays the lead hijacker in the film, was denied a visa by US immigration authorities when he applied to visit New York City to attend the premiere, despite having already been granted asylum in the United Kingdom since the 1990s. The reason given was that he had once been a conscripted member of the Iraqi army - although this was also the grounds for his refugee status after his desertion in 1993.

Ironic, or what.

The youth of the suicide bombers really struck me. They are also shown as very, very scared. But utterly ruthless once they put their terrible plan into action.

What will remain with me from this film is the humanity of the passengers.

What they did that day was incredible. I think this film is a fitting tribute to their desperate courage.

The BAFTA audience was utterly silent and still during the fairly long closing credits. Some people clapped at the end.

[elfshadow]

I would really like to see this movie, but it's hard to find at theatres around here. There are only two in my area that are showing it, and both of them are at least a 45 minute drive away.

I agree about "World Trade Center" though, I saw a preview of it the other day and it just seems like too big of a production to be sensitive. Also it has Nicholas Cage in it. *puke*

[Alatar]

I'm more likely to watch WTC. At least its based on real accounts. United 93 has to be almost entirely fictional.

[Pearly Di]

And the film acknowledges that fact, making it clear that this is a fictional account and the characters portrayed are composites of the real people who died. There was consultation with their relatives.

What United 93 presents is at least plausible. Nobody knows what happened in those last terrible moments: whether the hijackers, realising that their ghastly mission had failed, crashed the plane anyway in one last defiance or died wrestling for control of the plane with the passengers who managed to get into the cockpit.

So I think it's all much of a piece. Plus, I dislike Oliver Stone's directing style but like Paul Greengrass's.

[vison]

I'm more likely to watch WTC. At least its based on real accounts. United 93 has to be almost entirely fictional.

You see before you the words of a gobsmacked person.

Of course it's "entirely fictional". It's a movie. Yet a fictional account of a real event can be truthful in the way that any great tale is.

I simply can't believe that you are implying that WTC is likely to be a more "authentic" movie? For the luvva pete, Oliver Stone? You think he's going to be more "truthful" or less "fictional"?

[Alatar]

I have a huge problem with films that purport to tell a true story, yet do it with complete fiction. This is not the DaVinci code. This is a planeload of people who died in a hijacking. Their children and spouses are alive and will be watching. Nobody knows what happened on that flight, yet it will be spun as a heroic defense of Life, Liberty and Freedom. That's nothing more or less than propaganda.


At least Stone is making a "movie", not a dramatisation of an imagined event. And at least it's "based" on fact.

Yes. I believe Stone's movie will be more truthful.

Its based on the accounts of 2 people who were there. Also, while Oliver Stone is a damn good storyteller he also knows that sometimes truth sells better than lies.

[eborr]

I have no idea who will hold the truth of this.

I have heard from various sources that this is an outstanding piece of work - but for me I don't think I will go see it.

Somethings are just to painful, although apparently for some of the relatives of 93 this film had a postive effect.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm not sure where you're coming from, Alatar. Surely you know that people do have some idea what happened on Flight 93. There were a lot of cell-phone conversations between passengers and their families after the hijacking. It's not a lie to posit that the passengers took heroic action against the hijackers, because we know they planned to; they told people that. We know the guy said "Let's roll" because someone heard it over the phone.

Sure, we don't know and can't know exactly what happened at the very end, but up to that point it's much more than "an imagined event." And if they're portrayed as heroic, well, is it impossible that they were?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm afraid I'm with Alatar on this one. Of all of the events of 9/11, I am the most skeptical about what supposedly happened to Flight 93.

[Lidless]

Agreed.

[Whistler]

Oh, good heavens.

United 93 was produced with the full cooperation and endorsement of the passengers' families. The chief air traffic controller is played not by an actor but by the man himself. In order to avoid "coloring" the action, the director has omitted even such standard movie elements as a musical soundtrack. The characters have neither backstories nor "character development" moments (a staple of disaster films) to tell us if they're "good" or "bad." Many conversations are recreated verbatim. The famous "Let's roll!" line has been buried in the middle of other conversation, rendering it useless as a movie tagline or patriots' rallying cry.

Every review I have read (and I have read dozens) has praised the film for its near-painful objectivity and avoidance of any political/religious/social agenda. This is as close to the real thing as any fact-based movie is ever likely to be.

Yet people still object. Is it possible that some people are simply irked by the idea that, once all the gung-ho claptrap is brushed away, it turns out that genuine American heroes do exist?

[Estel]

I'm just irked.... no, not irked... I'm horrified that they're already making movies about 9/11. It's too soon, but it seems Hollywood has lost that something that says that respect is more important than making money. Maybe they lost it a long time ago, and this is just the most obvious evidence of it.


If 80 - 90% of the profit was going to families and victims, I might feel differently, but that is sadly not the case.

[Whistler]

Movies were being made about World War II while men were still getting their brains blown out in Europe and the Pacific. Nobody called it crass; they considered it the proper payment of a debt.

I understand and appreciate the sentiment, but I can't share it. People in general have the attention spans of gnats and would rather forget the real world and rather crawl comfortably into Americal Idol oblivion.

These things need to be talked about, and right now.

[yovargas]

*agrees with Whistler*

[vison]

Whistler, I agree with you. I doubt that I'll see the movie myself, but every review I've read says it's a terrific movie.

As for Alatar's comments: the movie makers had enormous cooperation from the victims' families. It isn't intended to be a "summer blockbuster", but something quite different. From what I've read and heard, it has succeeded in being a moving movie experience, a film about ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. The actual events, as far as they are known (and as Primula says, a lot IS known) needed no dressing up, no big stars, no thundering music, no "Hollywood" emoting. It isn't being spun as propaganda, no flag-waving, but is a plain, bald telling of an epic tragedy.

Estel, what amount of time would be "proper" in your opinion? Myself, I can't remember any time ever when Hollywood was "respectful", and since it is the business of Hollywood to make movies I fail to see any reason to be surprised or to object. If the movie troubles you, don't go to see it. If enough people feel as you do, it will flop and that will be that. Maybe some of the families are getting some of the proceeds, I don't know. Jeez. I can see that being "spun", those awful people cashing in on their heroes' deaths!!!


Now, guyz, Lidless and Voronwë, you can't possibly mean you are buying into the conspiracy stuff about Flight 93 at all? For the luvva pete. I can't properly express in words how disheartening that is to me.

Oliver Stone? Sure. He's famous for respectful, tender, historically accurate movies all right. JFK anyone?

[Whistler]

Vision, what amazes me is that, given the subject matter, even crazy Oliver Stone is (apparently) minding his manners and restraining himself. He says that his film has no agenda, and the reviews I've read agree that it does not. I hate to recommend anything produced by this flake, but I may end up having to do so.

Back to this "too soon" business. In other language, it simply means, "Let's discuss this many years from now, when it doesn't really mean that much any more and we can view it as a simple historical curiosity." Intentional or not, this is an effort at trivialization.

[vison]

There is surely some need for people to talk out the story of 9/11. There is no use putting it all under glass and making it untouchable. There are bound to be tellings that are offensive to some. But it is now part of the national fabric, just like the Civil War and the Revolution.

This tale differs in that it happened to America, it wasn't something Americans went out and did, if you follow me. It was a hard blow.

I also think there is some danger of those events taking on too much importance. However, that's another topic.

[Alatar]

I wonder how people would feel if a film was made of Iavas' conspiracy theories and given the same weight of accuracy that United 93 is being accorded?

I believe United 93 was probably shot down. I believe it was the right move by the military given the circumstances. I'm not saying there weren't brave people on the flight, or that they didn't attempt something, but I remember the news reports on the day.

Of course, its much more moving to believe the "official" story than to accept the tragedy of a government being forced to shoot down civilians. I'm sure the film is wonderful and moving. However, the style and lack of soundtrack etc elevate it almost to the level of pseudo-documentary.

I just don't believe it.

[vison]

Alatar, I think there is something you should know: Elvis and his Mum, along with John Lennon and John F. Kennedy, were on that plane. That's why it was shot down.

For the luvva pete.

Where's Xhen when I need him?

[JewelSong]

I heard Elvis was flying the plane.

Thurman Munson was the co-pilot.