Salon.com has a very good review of “United 93″. Her reaction to the movie is what I imagine mine will be. As she says,
But while “United 93″ offers a horrifyingly realistic evocation of pain and fear, it doesn’t open itself out to any greater, more expansive truth. And it offers us no hope of transcendence. “United 93″ spells out for us horrors that previously we could only have imagined, as if imagining them could never be enough. It’s an expertly made picture that I wish I could stamp out of my mind. What’s the value of artistry that sucks the life out of you?
The review basically praises the filmmaking but says, as you can guess from that excerpt, that the film was very difficult to watch.
I was also surprised to learn that some of the characters are played by the actual people doing those jobs on 9/11:
And some real-life figures, among them air-traffic controllers and military personnel, appear as themselves. Perhaps most notable is Ben Sliney, the manager of the Federal Aviation Administration’s operations command center in Herndon, Va. On Sept. 11, 2001, Sliney had just been appointed to that position; it was his first day on the job, and his performance here suggests a masterly and controlled channeling of the feelings he must have had as he faced this daylight-nightmare challenge: What must it be like when your job is to respond, calmly and efficiently, to the unspeakable?
I wonder what those people felt while making the movie.
(and yes, I’m still not going to see it yet)
April 30th, 2006 at 12:46 PM
Ok, I saw this movie last night with my girlfriend. I was really hesitant at first. My impression going in to it mirrored a professor of mine (retired army) at the military school I am attending. Basically, we thought 2 hours was long, so they must do what most all movies that depict real life do: they pick out a few characters, show their background (both truth and fiction), and follow them through a set of true events that are sensationalized. This is the exact reason why I did not want to see it. I thought to myself, if I ever want to watch anything like it, it should be a documentary that tries to capture the true essence of the events, not some Hollywood interpretation playing on fears and emotions.
But, I wasn’t set against seeing it. So, my girlfriend, who was more curious about it at the time than I was, and I went last night. When we first arrived (about 30 minutes before the movie), it was empty. I figured it would have a small crowd, but to my surprise, it filled to almost capacity. Then it started.
To tell the truth, I was very surprised and completely wrong about my previous assumption. This movie was a documentary. Not a conventional one. It wasn’t narrated as clips of events were shown. It was a glimpse, as true as they could make it, of 6 different places the morning of 9/11 (the flight, 3 regional air traffic control centers, FAA headquarters, and a military air defense station).
They didn’t follow any ‘characters.’ They didn’t show any background. They didn’t show crowds or civilian reactions. They didn’t use Hollywood theatrics (as we have come to know). And what is more surprising is that they used the real people that were that there morning. You did have your share of actors (mostly unknowns), but where they could, they used normal, everyday people. You could tell, it wasn’t ‘scripted,’ as in the normal Hollywood sense. The lines weren’t meant to create superficial tension (they let the events do that), but to just reflect peoples actual thoughts in the situation. And, it was in real time.
I am sure had you been in any of the regional air traffic control towers, the FAA headquarters, or the military air defense, it would have been as close as a mirror image as you could get. The actions, reactions, and speech mimicked what I believed happened at that time at those places. As far as being on the plane goes, it is only a guess to what happened, although their interpretation is as probably as good as any others. The hijackers were portrayed as real people with real fears and hesitation. The passengers were as you would expect to be in a crisis, not as those in a Bruce Willis film or Oliver Stone interpretation.
To tell you the truth, I did get a little sick. I thought about leaving, half way through, but I was able to stay. Others did leave, but not as many as I had expected. The camera work was shaky (intentionally), which can cause some motion sickness.
Overall, I don’t think there was an intended message, be it political, patriotic, etc… I think the scenes were a series of events that were put together to (as best as possible) be unbiased to the events that happened that morning. I think whatever you take from it, is solely from where you stand going in. Some will take it as a political message, some as a patriotic one, some as over-hyped, and some as too overwhelming. It becomes your own manifestation of feelings towards that day, and towards the events.
I am not trying to convince anyone to see it or even give it a good review. It struck me as a recreation, as best as could be shown, not as a movie attempting to give insight we didn’t already know or a new interpretation to something already familiar. I didn’t feel as someone was trying to capitalize on a tragedy, but I do still believe in the best of mankind. Entertainment Weekly said in its review:
“Do we need to see this? No. There’s no right or wrong way to remember 9/11, no shame in skipping the movie-fied sight or prize for those who dare to look.”
I just wanted to let people know, that the thoughts I had going into it were wrong. I am not necessarily glad I saw this movie or upset that I did. I think in the coming years, it will be a good movie to have for people that were too young to remember what happened that day. And a good reminder, down the line, when I am ready to watch it again.
April 30th, 2006 at 12:58 PM
Just FYI, I’ve republished your comment as a new post. It deserves to be it’s own.