Alexander

I have it, but I haven't had time to listen to it yet!

What about a person who, while running out of a burning building, helps an elderly person escape or brings a baby with him? That's more apt a comparison to what happened on board that plane. They were hoping to save BOTH their own lives AND stop the attack. I really believe that in their heart of hearts, they wanted to do both...

I tend to agree, though a bit of reflection on human nature suggests that most (probably all) were trying to save themselves first. The thought that they might save others on the ground was probably quite secondary, though that reality likely dawned upon some of them as time went on. Ironically, in failing to save themselves they most likely saved many others. No matter what happened up there, I think they're heroes. I saw the A&E movie a few months ago. Thought it was pretty well done for the most part. Planning to see this one this weekend. Looking forward to it (sort of). Of course, they did not have to all have the same motive. On the other hand, I fail to see how you could think you were saving yourself unless you thought a passenger could fly the plane and was able to get the controls away from the hijackers in a matter of seconds -given the low flying altitude. Do you have any evidence that the passengers thought they could do these things? As I noted before, the film seems to suggest that they did believe that they could take control of the plane, although they were also aware of the risks.

During his recent visit to New Orleans, Bruce performed a version of Blind Alfred Reed's "How Can A Poor Man Stand Such Times And Live" (which I first heard on the recently released fourth volume of the "The Anthology of American Folk Music") with new lyrics referencing the appalling government response to Katrina. He dedicated the performance to "President Bystander." A recording of the song is available from his website: http://www.brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html As to people's biases against Springsteen, I wasn't a fan during the 80s when he was at the height of his fame, but I've gotten into him in the years since (I have most of his albums on vinyl. Only "The Wild, The Innocent, and the E Street Shuffle," "Born to Run," and "Born in the USA" are on CD. Well, those and the ones he's released in recent years that I got as they came out, like "The Rising," last year's "Devils and Dust" and the new "Seeger Sessions"). You're entitled to your opinion of the man and his work, of course, but I have to say that I don't find him to be "fake" at all. If anything, it is his genuine love of music and its making that eventually won me over. It's like the Grateful Dead: You get the feeling that Springsteen would perform just as hard for an audience of ten as he would for an audience of ten thousand. In fact, you get the impression that if his audience dried up completely that he would continue to play at home, just for himself.

So Alex, let me get this straight, you become irrational and inhumane by fighting against the people who are trying to kill you? Give me a break................ So Alex, if someone were trying to strangle you, would you just let them finish the job out of fear of losing your humanity? Did I say that I wouldn't do that same thing they did? Of course not. I'm just saying that the struggle to survive reduces us to our animal insticts. Watch the movie. The mob of howling passengers are depicted literally tearing the hijackers to pieces. Were they justified in their actions? Darn tootin'. Would they be proud of what circumstances forced them to do? No way. Eli Weisel wrote quite elequently about how the conditions in the Concentration Camps turned him and other inmates into animals concerned with nothing but their own survival. He describes a son strangling is own father to death over a piece of bread. It was every man for himself, but that doesn't mean that that anyone would be PROUD of their actions under such circumstances. I'm sure the members of the Donner party felt pretty horrible about what they had to do to survive. I'm sure it haunted them for the rest of their lives. I saw the movie, no hijacker winds up in pieces. One is killed by a mob of passengers, but that is because since they had no serious weapons, it took a number of passengers to subdue the guy who they appear to beat to death. As for "howling" - yes there was screaming in the struggle - it seems you want to degrade the passengers. In the cockpit - there is a struggle. Again I saw no one in pieces. I understand your rationale but it smacks too much to me of equating the victim with the perpetrator. The families of Flight 93 can be proud that the actions of those passengers saved american lives and perhaps the Capitol building. I remember by the way, you stating on the first anniversary of 9/11, that you saw signs saying "We will never forget" and your reaction was "forget what?" Yeah I think I know where you are coming from. Well, you'd be wrong, on all counts. I don't seek to degrade the passengers. If you beat a man to death, however justified, you'd feel all right about it? It wouldn't bother you that you've taken a human life, even if it was to save your own? Then you're a tougher man than I. I'd be weak and would feel guilty about it. Hell, I still feel bad about about running over a squirrel about five years ago.

I should also note that while the passengers fight back, the audience is caught up in the blood-lust of the moment. We're rooting for them, no question. But being, as I am, a critical thinker I am capable of split-screening my lower consciousness in order to fully process the things I see and hear. I watched the film and was caught up in it emotionally, but I was also watching myself watching the film and was analyzing both the film and my reactions to it in real time. So as I was rooting for the passengers, I was also thinking: "My God. Look what people become in the struggle for survival. Truly, nature is red in tooth and claw."

So Alex, let me get this straight, you become irrational and inhumane by fighting against the people who are trying to kill you? Give me a break................ So Alex, if someone were trying to strangle you, would you just let them finish the job out of fear of losing your humanity? Did I say that I wouldn't do that same thing they did? Of course not. I'm just saying that the struggle to survive reduces us to our animal insticts. Watch the movie. The mob of howling passengers are depicted literally tearing the hijackers to pieces. Were they justified in their actions? Darn tootin'. Would they be proud of what circumstances forced them to do? No way. Eli Weisel wrote quite elequently about how the conditions in the Concentration Camps turned him and other inmates into animals concerned with nothing but their own survival. He describes a son strangling is own father to death over a piece of bread. It was every man for himself, but that doesn't mean that that anyone would be PROUD of their actions under such circumstances. I'm sure the members of the Donner party felt pretty horrible about what they had to do to survive. I'm sure it haunted them for the rest of their lives.

The more I think about it, the more apt the Hamlet comparison becomes. Like the hijacker in "United 93," Hamlet is based on a real person (Prince Amleth, a real Danish prince). Like Paul Greenglass and the hijacker, Shakespeare could not have really *known* what was going through Hamlet's mind when he ascribed Hamlet's famous hesitation to him. This is provence of art and art alone. And, as in "Hamlet," nearly everybody dies at the end. All the hijacker lacks is a Horatio to explain his actions...

thanks, Ray. As Chris wants to see pure self-motivation on the part of the passengers, may be our resident humanist Alex wants to see the fullest possible measure of humanity in the terrorists, traits that neither the people nor the film maker intended. The hijacker's hesitation is too obvious to be unintentional. The character reminded me of Hamlet in this way, another character who hesitates before being swept up in a tide of bloodshed and revenge. It is this hesitation, this humanity on the hijacker's part that raises the story of "United 93" to the level of tragedy in the classical (Greek) or Shakespearian sense (rather than the simple human tragedy that it already represents). This is a private struggle for one man's soul carried out on the stage of world events. It doesn't get more tragic than that.

The film suggests that one of the passengers was a (small engine) pilot while another was a retired air traffic controller. As the passengers discuss their plans, it is clear that they mean to take control of the plane and land it. They are not planning on sacrificing their lives to prevent an attack. They are planning on saving their own lives while preventing an attack in the process. The problem is that the plane was flying too low at the point when the passengers try to take over and they are unable to wrestle the plane into a level flying position before it crashes. As for whether the lead hijacker is meant to be sympathetic, I think it's a mixed bag. I never claimed that he's meant to have our sympathy, but rather that he is the viewpoint character. We identify with him, but that doesn't mean we have to approve of his actions. We identify with Uma Thurman in "Kill Bill," but that doesn't mean we condone revenge killing. To me, it looked as though the lead hijacker was hesitating and that the others lost patience with him. They go ahead with the plan without his go-ahead, and once that happens, yes he has little choice except to go through with it. As I said, we root for him to make the right choice even though we know he won't. The fact that he goes through with his role in the plan makes him less sympathetic, but it still doesn't completely rob him of our sympathy. After all, history is full of soldiers who follow orders and carry out morally questionable (and even outright evil) acts, even though there is some small part of them that resists doing so. That's what seems to be happening in this film. As for Dan's quip that I'm looking for the humanity in everybody, even the terrorists...well, yeah. Is there something wrong with that?

Ok. I went to see "United 93" last night. Consider this a SPOILERS warning. If you don't want to have anything in the movie ruined for you, read no further. Ok, so...I thought it was brilliant. Very brave, in so many ways. First of all, the film has no characters. The passengers on flight 93 are never given backstories. We know nothing about them other than what we see and hear on screen. Second, there's really no story, other than the obvious. The film is a real-time account of two things: 1) What really happened among the air traffic controllers and the military during the 9/11 attacks (this can be researched, obviously, because these people are still around and we can talk to them). 2) What *might have* happened among the passengers and hijackers on board the plane. Since no one survived the crash, this part is entirely conjectural (although it pieces together the events in such a way that it seems entirely plausible). This film has no heroes and no villians. The passengers are underplayed to the point where they could be anybody at all (which is the point of the film: This could have been us). The most famous line in the film ("Let's roll") is spoken in the background while a dozen other people talk simultanously. If you're not paying attention, you'll miss it. The hijackers (with one exception, which I will discuss in a moment) come off as scared kids who are barely in control of the situation. The air traffic controllers (many of whom played themselves) perform with such naturalness, that you come to believe that you are actually in the room with them. If anyone is afraid that this film will boost the Bush administration, don't worry. The administration comes off looking like fools. Throughout the film, one of the military commanders is shown on the phone trying to get authorization to shoot down the hijacked planes. But he can't, because no one with authority can be found ("Where's the president? What? When then, where's the vice-president?"). According to the blurb at the end of the film, the military wasn't even aware that United 93 had been hijacked until four minutes AFTER it had crashed. Moreoever, when the military finally does get planes in the air, they go in the wrong direction or don't have ammunition (it's frankly like watching the Keystone Kops). Only the civilan authorities (especially the head of the FAA who orders all U.S. flights grounded) come off as anything other than foolish. The bravest tactic the film takes is making the head hijacker (the only one who doesn't come off as a frightened thug) the viewpoint character. His is the first voice we hear in the film (he's at prayer in his hotel room) and his P.O.V. though the cockpit window is the last thing we see before the film ends. We also follow him throughout the film, and since only he knows what we know, he is the one character we come to identify with. Unlike the other hijackers, who are filled only with the desire to carry out the plan, we can see hesitation in his eyes. We see doubt and regret. We see him put off the hijacking as long as he can, even as his comrades complain. We root for him to do the right thing and call off the mission, even as we know that he eventually will not. In the end, events carry the decision out of his hands. One of the most moving moments, for me, was a scene early on in the film: The hijacker sits in the departure lounge among the people he knows he is going to kill. He looks uncomfortable as he listens to them talking on their cell phones, talking about work and making plans for a future that only he (and we) knows they do not have. As the call is made to board the plane, the hijacker pulls out his cell phone and makes a quick call. We do not know to whom he is speaking, but he says only three words: "I love you." Finally, there is the scene where the passengers attack the hijackers. Seeing previously rational people fighting for survival (terrorists and victims alike) brought to mind Dr. Johnson's maxim: "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." That is the ultimate tragedy of United 93: That all of these people lost their humanity just before losing their lives. It is a profound moment, and it is one that should be experienced by all people. It is a warning of all that we have to lose...

So I take it that you didn't see "The Killing Fields" or "Schindler's List"? How is this film any different? Less than a year after 9/11, cartoonist Art Speigleman ran a full page monthy comic strip about his recollection of the event called "In the Shadow of No Towers." Was that "exploitative and in bad taste" too? I mean, my God, a COMIC STRIP? On 9/11? And yet it works. I would also make the argument that nobody OWNS an event such as this, and that nobody really has the right to decide how best to honor the dead...

Despite the claims that Hollywood "exploits" tragedy, it's difficult to find real examples of movies that "exploited" national traumas. I mean, do people think that "From Here to Eternity" was made "too soon" after the events of Pearl Harbor? Was Oliver Stone's "JFK" meant to "exploit" the Kennedy Assassination? Was "Apocalypse Now" just an attempt to "cash in" on Vietnam? Did "Schindler's List" "exploit" the Holocaust? How about "Munich"? Or "Judgement at Nuremberg"? If anything, Hollywood has been quite sensitive (or cowardly, depending on how you look at it) about approaching these kinds of tragedies, often waiting years if not DECADES before dealing with them on screen. Human beings have ALWAYS dealt with disaster through art. How many magazines plastered the image of the burning towers on their cover the week after 9/11? THAT was exploitation. They were hoping to sell magazines because at the time people would buy ANYTHING even remotely connected to the events of that day. Making a movie that deals honestly with the events of that day isn't exploitation. It's art. And art is supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. It SHOULD make you feel uncomfortable. It's MEANT to. It's supposed to make you confront your feelings about that day. To rip open the wound, but at the same time help it heal all the better for it. It's not exploitive to remember that the passengers on that plane were ordinary men and women, just like you and me, which is what the film is meant to convey (according both to the filmmakers and to the critics who reviewed it). So go see it. Squirm in your seat as you remember watching the towers fall on TV. But remember that you live to remember precisely BECAUSE you watched it all on TV. The people on that plane weren't so lucky.

I haven't seen it yet, but I will. I'm curious to see how it's carried off and how well it stands up as a piece of filmmaking. I certainly don't think it's too soon, especially for this kind of film (ie: one that is done with taste). I'm also interested by some of the reviews I've read that talk about the documentary look and feel of the film. I have a feeling that once people get over the shock of the subject matter, they will be swept up in the story...

I have "Paranoid" and that's it. I love it and would love to get more Sabbath, although as I understand it they have not released individual remasters of the albums (although they are available on a box set). What should I get next? HWright, who is also a Sabbath fan, has recommended one of the recent compilations for the improved sound. He's also recommended the Rhino Ronnie James Dio (possibly two disc) set, which includes some of his Sabbath material along with his solo hits. Any recommendations on how to approach the Dio material as opposed to the Ozzy material?

Well, you can see what his problem is right away: He's clearly unbalanced by being named Hilary...

Gotta love Jack White!

Has it occured to you that he's making the comparison to Redman, Payton, McBride because those are the Verve artists that had a moment in the sun? I don't think that Redman was ever a Verve artist, was he? I thought he was always on RCA until he got bumped and moved to Nonesuch (actually owned by RCA). Same deal with Mehldau. Not sure about Payton, though. Was he on Verve?

Sorry about that...I checked again. It is ONLY available through the website right now. I guess the May 15 date is when it gets general release...

I guess it hasn't come out in the US yet. CD Universe has the release date as May 15, and it's not mentioned on Douglas's own website...

It's really very simple: Everyone has the right to be treated with dignity. There are a lot of people (women, African-Americans, Homosexuals, Mentally Handicapped individuals) who are sick and tired of being causally insulted by people saying things like "retard," "fag," etc. ("Fag" in England as a term for cigarettes is entirely different, btw. It doesn't derive from the word "faggot" as a derogatory term for gays. Rather it derives from the word "faggot" meaning "kindling." It's similar to the fact that the word "dyke" wouldn't be offensive in Holland, where it refers to a manmade structure keeping out the ocean, but is in America where it is offensive slang for lesbians.) Believe it or not, it IS possible to express oneself WITHOUT using either insensitve terms for the handicapped or PC jargon. If a person screws up and calls him or herself a "spaz," he IS using a (rather obscure) perjorative term. May not bother you, but try being a person with CP for a moment. When you really can't control your voluntary muscle movements, the word "spaz" is going to seem hurtful. If respecting the humanity of the individual means losing some time-honored locutions, so be it. There was a time when it were perfectly OK to refer to a black man you didn't know as "boy" or "coon" (among other things). I'm sure there were a lot of people who had to adjust when the Civil Rights movement came along and said, "No more."

It's like Michael Madsen says in "Kill Bill 2:" The number one killer of old people is retirement...

It's hard out here for an egg...

My wife and I were close friends in high school, but we didn't start dating until after she went off to college. On the first night that we "hooked up," my wife says that she "knew" that I was the man she was going to marry. It took me a little bit longer to come to the same conclusion, but not much. About four months into the relationship (and since it was long distance, this was only the third or fourth time we'd actually been together) I asked her to marry me. We didn't actually get married for six years, but we've been together ever since and have one child.

So is it safe to say you're daughter has not yet formed her own opinions and is only repeating what you and your wife say? Oh, no question. She doesn't believe because *we* don't believe. But I always tell her that it's perfectly fine for other people to have different beliefs and that we shouldn't mock them for doing so. Then again, we are talking about a kid who figured out at age five that Santa Claus doesn't exist and spends a lot of time reading about Greek mythology, so she's a pretty sophisticated six year old.