Post by ryan on May 22, 2006 21:40:46 GMT -5
I caught a showing of United 93 tonight here in Kokomo, IN. I'd been curious about the film, mainly because I wanted to see it for myself, and decide whether or not it was a "good film" before the opinions of others decided that for me. When I saw the previews for the movie several months ago, I'd been kind of shocked that an American film was being made about the events of 9/11 so soon after the attacks. But then, I thought, why not? Multiple documentaries and foreign films have already surfaced, examining the subject. Although a big studio production might seem tasteless, we do live in accellerated times.
My fear was that the movie would be a flag-waving patriotic cash-in, much like the movie Oliver Stone seems to have made with the yet-to-be-released "World Trade Center." Fortunately, that is not what United 93 is about.
Of course, I needn't discuss the plot. We all know that United 93 was the name of the only flight that didn't reach its target that day. The passengers, upon realizing the flight had been hijacked, began calling their loved-ones, and found out that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had already been hit by hijacked flights. Understanding their situation, they decided to take matters into their own hands, charging the two hijackers in the aisle, breaking-down the cockpit door, and making a last desperate grasp for the controls as the plane spun out of control and crashed in the countryside.
The film introduces us to the hijackers, then to the pilots, then the stewardesses, then to the passengers. It regards all these people as simply human -- just people going about their business. After the flight boards, we cut between events on the plane, events in several aviation-monitoring facilities, and events in a couple of military-response facilities.
The success of this film lies in its way of simply observing the proceedings as accurately as possible, without comment. The film has no political agenda, and no desire for false drama or Hollywood theatrics. There are no clear-cut dramatic "scenes." Dialogue overlaps, and is often half-heard. There are no speeches, or grandstanding. When the passengers decide to overtake the cockpit, we are given no motivational speech; no patriotic music swells; we are, instead, immersed in the desparation, terror and chaos of the moment. The movie exists entirely in the present-tense. I felt, at times, like I was watching a film comprised entirely of home-video footage recorded that day.
So, does the movie work? Yes, undeniably. Is it tasteful? It would be hard to make a more tasteful film about this subject. Does it honor the victims of 9/11 appropriately? In my opinion, yes, because it refuses to use their stories as a political platform. Is it easy to watch? Not at all; it is one of the most upsetting films I've ever seen. Should this film have been made? That, I can't answer. I think it's a masterful film, but I still have mixed feelings about the fact that American movies are already being made about the 9/11 events. But then, we do live in an accellerated world...
My fear was that the movie would be a flag-waving patriotic cash-in, much like the movie Oliver Stone seems to have made with the yet-to-be-released "World Trade Center." Fortunately, that is not what United 93 is about.
Of course, I needn't discuss the plot. We all know that United 93 was the name of the only flight that didn't reach its target that day. The passengers, upon realizing the flight had been hijacked, began calling their loved-ones, and found out that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had already been hit by hijacked flights. Understanding their situation, they decided to take matters into their own hands, charging the two hijackers in the aisle, breaking-down the cockpit door, and making a last desperate grasp for the controls as the plane spun out of control and crashed in the countryside.
The film introduces us to the hijackers, then to the pilots, then the stewardesses, then to the passengers. It regards all these people as simply human -- just people going about their business. After the flight boards, we cut between events on the plane, events in several aviation-monitoring facilities, and events in a couple of military-response facilities.
The success of this film lies in its way of simply observing the proceedings as accurately as possible, without comment. The film has no political agenda, and no desire for false drama or Hollywood theatrics. There are no clear-cut dramatic "scenes." Dialogue overlaps, and is often half-heard. There are no speeches, or grandstanding. When the passengers decide to overtake the cockpit, we are given no motivational speech; no patriotic music swells; we are, instead, immersed in the desparation, terror and chaos of the moment. The movie exists entirely in the present-tense. I felt, at times, like I was watching a film comprised entirely of home-video footage recorded that day.
So, does the movie work? Yes, undeniably. Is it tasteful? It would be hard to make a more tasteful film about this subject. Does it honor the victims of 9/11 appropriately? In my opinion, yes, because it refuses to use their stories as a political platform. Is it easy to watch? Not at all; it is one of the most upsetting films I've ever seen. Should this film have been made? That, I can't answer. I think it's a masterful film, but I still have mixed feelings about the fact that American movies are already being made about the 9/11 events. But then, we do live in an accellerated world...
