United 93 - The Movie

[Dan Gould]

It just so happens that A&E is running a fictionalized Flight 93 film. It is probably very different in approach from the one in question here, but the story is the same. Suddenly, the screams and tense atmosphere created by the film gives way to a commercial: Why would you want an ED tablet that lasts 4 hours when life is full of interruptions?"

Nice, huh? Exploitation? You bet!

It should be noted that the first time that movie ran, iirc, there were NO commercial interruptions. Obviously that is not something that can be sustained subsequently. In fact, what is truly exploitative is the way the cable channel is exploiting the premier weekend of the major motion picture to show their film again. THAT is exploitation. They ought to have found another major sponsor and shown it again without commercials, to avoid the very thing you complain about.

[patricia]

Taking your point, Dan, shouldn't admission to the theatre be free then? Is the money being made from both the fictional television account last evening and the theatre release of the fictional feature film not money being made from tragedy? Isn't the money, in both instances, tainted in a way? The film makers in both cases would not have produced their films, if they didn't hope that they would make a profit.

Although it was disconcerting to see ads last evening for ED treatment products , as Chris mentioned, it was the re-opening of the wounds for Americans that will not heal as a result that bothered me more than the commercials. It's as if moving on, rather than dwelling on the tragedy is to be avoided at all cost.

Nobody wants to minimize the pain that the American people felt when this event happened. But, there are few, if any, who do not remember it, as it was happening. I fail to see how picking off the scab, constantly, is going to result in anything but reviving the anger and hatred and that is not how a country moves forward from tragedy.

How is this different than the Bush Administration constantly evoking 9/11 to justify every move they've made in the last five years?

Edited April 30, 2006 by patricia

[patricia]

up.

This is still current and I think that there is still discussion warranted, since the film is newly in the threatres.

Edited April 30, 2006 by patricia

[Dan Gould]

up.

This is still current and I think that there is still discussion warranted, since the film is newly in the threatres.

A slow, lazy Sunday morning and you need to "up" this thread a scant 30 minutes after your last post?

What are you afraid of exactly, Patricia? That the film will remind people of the ugliness of that day, and suddenly there will be an upswing in support for the war on terrorism?

No one said that the airing of the TV film was "free" - only that it originally had a major corporate sponsor, who got spots aired at the beginning and end, and multiple "billboard" mentions during the broadcast. So it wasn't broadcast at a loss as a public service, and therefore your suggestion that admission to the movie theatre should also be free is misplaced.

Furthermore, if you bothered to read what Ray has posted, and what has been reported in the media, the motion picture was made at a relatively meager cost and with "NO" concern by the studio whether that money is recouped. So in fact, the film was not made "to make money".

[7/4]

Dan is posting so it's time move it to the politix forum.

[patricia]

Actually I posted my original remarks yesterday, not 30 minutes after my first post.

If you read my earlier comment, Dan, the point was not whether or not money was going to be made from either film.

I'm prepared to accept that the films were made for purely altruistic motives, if that will us past the idea that there was a profit motive.

The point I was making was my opinion that with the picking at the scab, almost daily, how is it possible for there to be any healing and moving on taking place?

I was not saying that it was not a tragedy, or that those who died then, or have died since are unimportant, or should be forgotten.

What I am saying is that as with any bereavement, and this was certainly a bereavement, it is not helpful to on a daily basis remind everyone of something that they are not likely to forget.

Again, my comment was not about the money, one way or another.

In my first paragraph I was commenting on Chris' annoyance at the commercial aspect of the A&E Presentation.

I too was musing at the motives of producing the film, aside from it's sincere wish for Americans to remember the people who died on Sept 11.

I do feel that there is an exploitive aspect of both. As for a possible upswing in support created by this film for the War On Terrorism, is that what you think I object to?

This is a forum for opinion and that is mine.

Of course, that is what all media do, for better or worse.

BTW I think that 7/4's post#54 is right.

Edited April 30, 2006 by patricia

[Alexander]

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...

[Dan Gould]

The film is a real-time account of two things: ... 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 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 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.

Thanks Alex.

Here are my problems:

The film maker CHOSE to show the hijackers as "scared kids" and the "head hijacker" with "hesitation in his eyes" etc. etc.

Let me ask you: HOW does the film maker know that he "put off the hijacking as long as he can"? There is NO evidence of any sort of hesitation in the Commission's report. The reason that plane was hijacked later than the others was that it was delayed on the ground.

So, basically the film maker had two choices: Show the hijackers by their KNOWN actions: vicious killers who carried out a plan to kill any crew members that stood in their way of taking over the plane.

OR

Imagine them to be "scared kids" led by someone who doesn't really want to be there and, as Alex describes it, "events carry the decision out of his hands. "

There is no evidence of this. No one KNOWS what was going through their minds, and I honestly do not begrudge the film maker his right to make these choices.

The problem comes when Americans, being the stupid, uneducated people we mostly are, take what is presented on screen as the gospel truth. I can imagine a time in the future when students will believe that the hijackers didn't really want to do what they were doing, purely based on what is presented on this film.

Why do I assume that? Simple. The experience of Oliver Stone's "JFK".

In JFK, Stone had Jim Garrisson demonstrate the so-called "magic bullet" by showing a stand-in for the President and Gov. Connoly sitting in chairs. These chairs were the same height and lined up together. This was FALSE. Connoly was on the jump seat, 8 inches lower than the President and a foot inside the door.

Recently I saw a documentary on the assasination that not only utterly destroyed the so-called "accoustic" evidence of a second shooter, but actually duplicated the path of the "magic bullet".

And yet, largely due to the popularity of that movie, people believe that it was indeed a "magic" bullet, and that one bullet could not account for the wounds of the President and the Gov.

This is why I object to the movie: it presents facts not in evidence, and the end result is likely to be that those facts become the "popular" truth. Its why I prefer the A&E movie to this one: It presented the events in a compelling way and made no assumptions about anything.

Again, I don't know - none of us know - the true attitudes of the hijackers. But now that I've been told by Chris that the passengers only wanted to save themselves and aren't "heroes" or "patriots" I surely do not need to be told by a film maker that the terrorists were in any way shape or form, sympathetic, almost "unwitting" actors.

[Christiern]

In other words, Dan, you won't accept a film that does not follow your imagined scenario. As you pointed out, nobody knows whether or not any of the hijackers hesitated, so you object to that being suggested in the script--I agree, but we also don't know if a feeling of patriotism motivated the passengers. So, is one conjecture acceptable and the other not?

The way I see it, none of these films were called for--at least not while the loss is still felt to strongly, and Oliver Stone's forthcoming version will probably be little more than a veiled political statement. Ask yourself:

• Did they make any of these films to set straight a twisted record?
  
• Did they make these films to give "closure" (a dumb term) to families and friends?
  
• Did they make them to raise money for a worthy cause?
  

Answer: None of the above.

Why, then, were these films made? Ask yourself.

Finally, ask yourself why you seem to accept all this not being relegated to the forbidden "O" zone.

[RDK]

Dan, if it's any consolation - and perhaps how I interpret the film slightly differently from Alexander - i didn't find the depiction of the terrorists to be "sympathetic" at all. What i did find was that they were depicted with a great deal of humanity. They weren't your stereotypical sneering, mustache-twirling bad guys, and any hesitation on their parts (actually only one of them) seemed to me to be very rational and believable. If i were about to doom myself and others, I'd have second thoughts too. That said, the "reluctant" terrorist did carry out his assignment, so he gets no sympathy from the audience at all.

[Dan Gould]

In other words, Dan, you won't accept a film that does not follow your imagined scenario. As you pointed out, nobody knows whether or not any of the hijackers hesitated, so you object to that being suggested in the script--I agree, but we also don't know if a feeling of patriotism motivated the passengers. So, is one conjecture acceptable and the other not?

This is where you are flat out wrong.

We KNOW that the passengers knew what had already happened.

We KNOW from their families what motivated them to act. It was to PREVENT the terrorists from reaching their target. It may not have been "patriotic" but it was sure as hell self-sacrificing.

[Dan Gould]

Dan, if it's any consolation - and perhaps how I interpret the film slightly differently from Alexander - i didn't find the depiction of the terrorists to be "sympathetic" at all. What i did find was that they were depicted with a great deal of humanity. They weren't your stereotypical sneering, mustache-twirling bad guys, and any hesitation on their parts (actually only one of them) seemed to me to be very rational and believable. If i were about to doom myself and others, I'd have second thoughts too. That said, the "reluctant" terrorist did carry out his assignment, so he gets no sympathy from the audience at all.

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.

[patricia]

Having read all the comments I can't help thinking that nobody's minds will be changed about the events of Sept 11 and Flight 93, having watched the well-researched but still fictional account in both films.

Some want to believe that the passengers were patriotic heros, with no real evidence that they had any knowledge of what the intended target was.

Others grieve for the passengers as unwitting participants in a catastophic event, resulting in their deaths.

We seem to want to put some significance to the deaths of the innocent passengers, beyond that they didn't want to die. There is nothing wrong with that. None of us want to die either.

But, to want to put meaning to the tragedy, it seems to me that the public, and the film-makers have created what is the most palatable explanation.

[Jazz Kat]

We may not want to be reminded, but we should be remembered why we're in this thing. I'm planning to go see it.

[Big Wheel]

We may not want to be reminded, but we should be remembered why we're in this thing. I'm planning to go see it.

what the hell are you talking about

[/contemporaryladySF]

[Christiern]

Patricia is right, Dan. There is absolutely no evidence that the passengers were motivated by a noble goal, and the fact that some of them knew of the WTC attack proves nothing--remember, those who knew probably surmised that they were involved in a similar attempt, which meant that the plane was going to be crashed. Do you really think it mattered where that crash might take place? Don't you think man's natural instinct for survival kicked in and took over all other considerations? I think it is far more logical to assume that the passengers had their families and loved ones on their mind when they acted to overpower the hijackers. Nothing wrong with that, but turning this into self-sacrificing patriots is a stretch that in and of itself smacks of exploitation.

Dan Gould: "We KNOW from their families what motivated them to act. It was to PREVENT the terrorists from reaching their target. It may not have been "patriotic" but it was sure as hell self-sacrificing."

Really? Is that reflected in any of the recorded phone conversations, or is that understandable wishful thinking on the part of the families? The fact is that we know no such thing--would we like that to be the fact? Of course, but we don't know. Besides, we still don't know what the "target" was, so I hardly think that the passengers did.

Remember how adamant you were re the WMDs? This gives me dèjá vu, Dan.

[Jazz Kat]

We may not want to be reminded, but we should be remembered why we're in this thing. I'm planning to go see it.

what the hell are you talking about

[/contemporaryladySF]

figure it out.

[Big Wheel]

We may not want to be reminded, but we should be remembered why we're in this thing. I'm planning to go see it.

what the hell are you talking about

[/contemporaryladySF]

figure it out.

Duh, I tried but I'm a little unclear on what "this thing" refers to. Iraq? Afghanistan? A period characterized by general public ignorance? Anyway, it's not really my style to trash people who aren't even out of high school so I'll shut up now.

[Alexander]

Patricia is right, Dan. There is absolutely no evidence that the passengers were motivated by a noble goal, and the fact that some of them knew of the WTC attack proves nothing--remember, those who knew probably surmised that they were involved in a similar attempt, which meant that the plane was going to be crashed. Do you really think it mattered where that crash might take place? Don't you think man's natural instinct for survival kicked in and took over all other considerations? I think it is far more logical to assume that the passengers had their families and loved ones on their mind when they acted to overpower the hijackers. Nothing wrong with that, but turning this into self-sacrificing patriots is a stretch that in and of itself smacks of exploitation.

Dan Gould: "We KNOW from their families what motivated them to act. It was to PREVENT the terrorists from reaching their target. It may not have been "patriotic" but it was sure as hell self-sacrificing."

Really? Is that reflected in any of the recorded phone conversations, or is that understandable wishful thinking on the part of the families? The fact is that we know no such thing--would we like that to be the fact? Of course, but we don't know. Besides, we still don't know what the "target" was, so I hardly think that the passengers did.

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?

[Alexander]

Dan, if it's any consolation - and perhaps how I interpret the film slightly differently from Alexander - i didn't find the depiction of the terrorists to be "sympathetic" at all. What i did find was that they were depicted with a great deal of humanity. They weren't your stereotypical sneering, mustache-twirling bad guys, and any hesitation on their parts (actually only one of them) seemed to me to be very rational and believable. If i were about to doom myself and others, I'd have second thoughts too. That said, the "reluctant" terrorist did carry out his assignment, so he gets no sympathy from the audience at all.

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.

[Alexander]

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...

[Jazzmoose]

Actually I posted my original remarks yesterday, not 30 minutes after my first post.

Wow...that's such a classic "strawman" response, I thought I saw Toto and some ruby red slippers go by...

[Jazz Kat]

We may not want to be reminded, but we should be remembered why we're in this thing. I'm planning to go see it.

what the hell are you talking about

[/contemporaryladySF]

figure it out.

Duh, I tried but I'm a little unclear on what "this thing" refers to. Iraq? Afghanistan? A period characterized by general public ignorance? Anyway, it's not really my style to trash people who aren't even out of high school so I'll shut up now.

thank you so much.

[Guy Berger]

We may not want to be reminded, but we should be remembered why we're in this thing. I'm planning to go see it.

what the hell are you talking about

[/contemporaryladySF]

figure it out.

Duh, I tried but I'm a little unclear on what "this thing" refers to. Iraq? Afghanistan? A period characterized by general public ignorance? Anyway, it's not really my style to trash people who aren't even out of high school so I'll shut up now.

thank you so much.

Can you please explain what you were talking about?

Guy

[Guy Berger]

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...

This is pretty creepy, Alexander. This isn't a story about some insignificant 8th century Danish prince, it's about September 11th.

Guy

Edited May 1, 2006 by Guy