United 93

[mouton]

UNITED 93
Written and Directed by Paul Greengrass


It was a morning that started like every other but ended unlike any other. While some made their way to work, others made their way to their couch, both with coffee in hand. Others still scurried about the Newark airport, carrying the same coffees and carrying on about everything and nothing on their cell phones. Everyone was so busy pretending their lives were so important, that their problems were so serious, that it mattered whether or not you got CC’d on that memo, that they didn’t see it coming. Amidst the windstorm of excess, greed and selfishness, a hatred had been brewing and was about to boil over. Paul Greengrass’ UNITED 93 tries to pinpoint exactly when that happened by taking the fateful morning of September 11, 2001, and placing it under a microscope. The experiment’s results are intense, emotional and life affirming. And with a few years worth of distance between that morning and now, we can look back and begin to ask why instead of just how.

It must have been a daunting task to write this film and then find the bravery to make it. Greengrass must have known how hesitant people would be to see this film and how disturbing it would be for those who did. He must have also known the risks he could run by sensationalizing the hijackings or trivializing the last moments of the real lives his actors were reenacting. Why else would he choose to cast no household name actors? Why would he choose to keep the actors cast to portray the four terrorists, who violently took over United Airlines Flight 93 with the goal of flying it directly into the White House, separate from the actors portraying the passengers or flight crew throughout shooting? Why else would he have spoken extensively with the victims families to perfect details like what they were wearing that day or what they may have been listening to on their walkman? He must have wanted to be as true to reality as possible, to respect and honour the hardship and tragedy the passengers on Flight 93 endured as well as the devastating impact the combined day’s events had on the country as a whole. By not casting easily recognizable actors, the average viewer has an easier time connecting with the average looking face on the screen. By keeping his actors separate during the shoot and it’s off hours, Greengrass set out to reinforce the distance between the groups and make the alienation of the terrorists palpable. And finally, by paying attention to character details, he exhibits a strong respect for the dead and deep sympathy for the bereaved. And though we may learn very little about the people on board, the little we do learn is hard enough to deal with as they accept their fates.

UNITED 93 is a tribute to the pain and sorrow that engulfed that particular Tuesday. Greengrass has crafted a unique interaction that transports the viewer back to that day, to that headspace and proceeds to offer a healing of the mind and soul that can only come by facing the darkness you’ve ran from. He does not presume what might have been going through the terrorists minds while they executed their attack, choosing instead to simply show them as determined but scared, like any human being would be. He does not claim to know why they attacked the United States but merely shows them as lost amidst an inundation of consumerism and meaninglessness, allowing for the viewers to speculate and ultimately decide for themselves. He does not insinuate that the American government took too long to acknowledge what was happening and react appropriately. Instead he shows the men and women of the army and traffic control as always one step behind, yet with an air of forgiveness because who wouldn’t be in that situation? And perhaps most importantly, when it comes time to take back the control of Flight 93, Greengrass does not have the passengers fight back in the name of the U.S.A.; they fight back because they want to live, because they value life.

Understanding the events of September 11, 2001, took some people contextualizing them as scenes in a movie because only a good screenwriter could have devised such a sinister and horrifying plot. Thinking of it in terms of a movie, in terms we can perhaps more easily understand, also highlights the anticipation that the credits would soon role, the lights would rise and we could walk out and move on with our normal lives. It has been nearly five years and normalcy has prevailed for the most part. Still, walking out of UNITED 93, I left behind more than just the rolling credits and the rising lights; I left behind some leftover heaviness in my heart I didn’t know I was still carrying.

[tabuno]

Like Crash (2005), United 93 (2006) has the chance to be remembered next year during award nominations. This sharply directed and crisp version of events surrounding the hijacking of one of the jets during 9/11 was well executed without exploitation or overdramatization. The only omissions whether good or not was the ending of the movie where the audience misses out on all the two-sided conversations of passengers using phones and the quiet absence of the military and air traffic controllers as the focus becomes solely focused on the passengers and their struggle to take control of the plane while earlier on a nice balance was maintained between the various important players of this tragic event.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by tabuno
The only omissions whether good or not was the ending of the movie where the audience misses out on all the two-sided conversations of passengers using phones and the quiet absence of the military and air traffic controllers as the focus becomes solely focused on the passengers and their struggle to take control of the plane

Good, I would say. Regular folk breaking into the cockpit to wrestle control away from the hijackers is United 93's raison d'etre. Everything else leads to this bravura sequence of pure heroism. Cutting away from it would only dilute its impact.

[tabuno]

Prior to the exciting and (possibly made-up, as the official commission was unable to determine if this actually occurred) break in of the pilots cockpit, there was a lot of focus on cell phone calls and setting up of this climatic scene. I still feel that the absence of the status of both a last compilation of what the FAA, military, as well as relatives (to whom passengers were able to talk to but not the audience) would have provided a more balanced, comprehensive experience of United 93 and leave intact the compelling impact of the last moments on the plane as you mentioned.

[cinemabon]

The impact of disaster recreations on culture


I hate how I am going to sound here. After all, I did not see this film, so I have no right to criticize it. However, I would like to say something about film as a cultural medium in America. Granted, independent filmmakers and many small scale pictures often have some kind of art to express or point of view, with profit as less of a motive in its creation. But some one needs to say stop at some point.

I do like the idea that a disaster, like Pearl Harbor (which my mother would not see for this reason) or September 11th, 2001 should be used as the basis for screen entertainment. Let’s face it folks, no matter how noble, this film is made to capitalize on an event that struck most of us as devastating. The upcoming film with Nicolas Cage actually got booed the other day when the trailer came on. No filmmaker during World War II rushed out and turned Pearl Harbor into a realistic story; and the two versions (Tora, Tora, Tora; and Pearl Harbor) are very difficult for my mother’s generation to watch. I grow sick and tired of “heart rending” stories for the sake of grabbing an audience.

Has our endless fascination with replay led our culture to become a group of insensitive and amoral morons only interested in how great the special effects are and not how victims of tragedies as well as a traumatized nation might react?

[oscar jubis]

If I or a loved one were a victim of a devastating tragedy, I would want the event to be exposed, disseminated, recreated, dramatized, and analyzed. I would want the traumatic event to be represented in every medium, particularly cinema. It's highly unlikely that 50 years from now the average person would avail himself of news broadcasts or newspaper articles dealing with the event. It's much more likely that a film about the event would be viewed by a young person, for instance. The memory of the victims would thus be kept alive for generations.

Why have so many survivors and descendants of survivors of the Holocaust cooperated so willingly in the making of the vast filmography dealing with that enormously devastating chapter of 20th century history? They're rallying cry is Never Forget!

I venture to say that many of our compatriots were ignorant about the Rwandan genocide until they watched a movie starring a Hollywood star. Would those victims and the survivors be better off if the moviegoers were still living in ignorance about what happened?

The "upcoming film with Nicolas Cage" celebrates the courage and bravery of those who risked their lives by entering a burning, crumbling building to save lives. If my brother, for instance, was one of those firefighters, I'd be honored that skilled filmmakers made a movie that depicts what took place that day.

[mouton]

Hi Cinemabon ...

I hear your point about profit being the major motivator for releasing films and how ultimately that's what UNITED 93 has done but there is a healing that comes from facing a tragedy after the fact through a retold story ... be it a novel, a song or a film. UNITED 93 is nothing like the new Oliver Stone film. I have seen the preview for that film and it looks like a glossed over piece of Hollywood garbage. I wanted nothing to do with UNITED 93 when I first heard of it and only went to see it because the response was so positive from critics. I am very glad I did. It was cathartic. Behind every dollar earned, there is still a filmmaker who felt the need to tell this story and whereas that need can be motivated by making money in some cases, I did not see that here.

If you want to discuss a sickening exploitation of September 11, watch THE OMEN. Within the first 10 minutes, a bishop informs the pope that the apocalypse is upon them and uses footage of the twin towers aflame as evidence, amongst several other contemporary images of suffering. If I wasn't on a date, I would've walked out of the theatre.

I hope you give UNITED 93 a shot because I think you may end up understanding why it is a necessary and powerful film experience.

[Chris Knipp]

PAUL GREENGLASS: UNITED 93

A work of remarkable clarity about a terrible day

Review by Chris Knipp

Greengrass began as a documentary journalist-filmmaker with a political bent and showed himself an excellent maker of the pseudo-documentary in his 2002 Bloody Sunday, about a shocking event in Northern Ireland. He then used his energetic camera to liven up The Bourne Supremacy. His political awareness is evident in United 93 in the lack of emotionalism or bias. We see that the commercial flight direction and military air authorities could not get authorization from above to bring down the hijacked planes even after the demolition of the World Trade Center, but this appears more as a system failure than as an indictment of the government’s executive branch or anyone else. We observe people on the ground doing their professional best under extraordinary conditions. And we observe an ordinary flight, with the usual chitchat, until all hell breaks loose and terror strikes.

This real-feeling, superbly edited film is in contrast to the empty grandiosity of Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center. United 93 illustrates the principle that a large budget is not even the best way to achieve a vérité effect. On the scene reporters don’t have expensive equipment. A look at the cast will show you this film has actual military officers and air traffic controllers playing themselves, most notably including Ben Sliney, who started his job as the FAA's top controller on the morning of Sept. 11; and the passengers and the hijackers on the aircraft are played by people who are unknown to us, as the actual people in that place on that day were.

The budget allowed the film to show officials trying to cope with events and the action on a single plane, so that is what they did. But this gives us the best overview of the events. For director Paul Greengrass, economic necessity is also artistic logic. Surely the essence of September 11th is that four coordinated plane hijackings occurred, and that as far as we can tell only one plane’s passengers staged a revolt. United 93 is the only one of the four hijackings on that day we have any orchestrated record of, and it is the only one where we know of heroism among the victims – though some of the specifics of the latter as shown in the film are conjectural. Here, we see how the situation was grasped slowly by air traffic and military personnel, and later by the passengers on the flight. Greengrass deserves highest praise for conveying a sense of immediacy and authenticity on both levels.

Some day someone may have the courage and imagination to make a film from the point of view of the perpetrators, as Marco Bellocchio has described the seizing and murder of Aldo Moro in Italy from the point of view of the kidnappers in Good Morning, Night. Such an exercise in point of view can only lead to challenges and stimulation for the viewer. But that is not what we get here. The film maintains a certain neutral distance from everybody.

Though United 93 begins with the hijackers of this plane preparing to go, the image we get of them is convincing but limited. They seem uncoordinated, and since theirs is the plane of the four that didn’t find its destination, that makes sense. They are dealt with neutrally. They’re neither humanized nor demonized. We simply see their determination and fear. They’re on the edge of hysteria and praying all the time. Was that true? At least it is the simplest, most logical way to portray them.

The rapid movement of the handheld camera is effective in conveying the excitement and disorder of the moment – up to a point. The film is more effective at conveying the action at military command headquarters and multiple air traffic control rooms than at the enormously challenging task of conveying the situation on the plane. There’s terrific suspense there, as we see the plane’s takeoff being routinely delayed and the hijackers holding off for a long time before going into action. We’re about an hour into the film before the actual hijacking begins on board Flight 93, but the action on the ground among the flight coordinators, who’ve seen the films of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon being hit, has keyed us up to a fever pitch. This is part of what I meant by “superbly edited.” The cutting also has a fine, rapid rhythm that always feels exactly right.

When things become really chaotic and terrifying on board the plane, this is where the filmmakers themselves lose a little bit too much control. Not being able to see anybody clearly or follow what’s going on may fit the event, but a director has a duty to his audience to clarify some things. Those who’ve chosen United 93 for their lists of the year’s best have every right to do so, but they may have gone a bit overboard out of an overwhelming sense of gratitude that anyone could have the sangfroid and clarity to make the unthinkable bearable and watchable; that such an emotionally fraught recent event could have been conveyed in such a balanced way. This is subject matter it’s almost impossible for any American to judge objectively, but my sense is that although this is a beautifully made movie, it falls short of being a great or inspiring one, and hence it deserves honorable mention, but not quite a listing among the year’s top ten.

[mouton]

Hey Chris ...

A little surprising to see this one come back up so much later but happy nonetheless. I saw this film on a day that I got a call from an ex with some news about things he did during our relationship that he clearly should not have. I couldn't deal with work so I headed to the movies ... perhaps my favorite escape. Unfortunately, there were no happy movies playing at the time that could give me the laugh I needed so I went to the other extreme. September 11 had my mind messed up for many months. Perhaps more months than were necessary but any way, it had a profound effect on me. The tears flowed when I saw this and I have not watched it again since then. I did buy a copy but have yet to face it again. I will though right before I make my year end best list. I do remember thinking when I saw it and for a long time afterwards that it was the only film this year that had the emotional depth to go the distance. I do still feel it will make my list but I respect your comments on perhaps people who have included it in their lists have placed emotional reaction as a higher priority over film quality ... clearly to a certain extent. I also really enjoyed this wording ... and the passengers and the hijackers on the aircraft are played by people who are unknown to us, as the actual people in that place on that day were. Simply worded and effective.

Great review ... Happy Holidays!

[Chris Knipp]

A little surprising to see this one come back up so much later It is having a showing at Cinema Village in NYC and I saw it there, obviously the showing and my viewing inspired by talk of annual awards for the film. I felt I had to seee it before I make up my lists.

[mouton]

Frickin' Montreal ... I still have a few biggies to catch before year-end lists will be tackled. Check it ... the following films aren't even playing here yet:

Pan's Labirynth
Letters from Iwo Jima
Children of Men
The Good German
Breaking and Entering
Notes on a Scandal

This weekend I will be hopefully be catching ...

The Good Shepherd
and
The Painted Veil

This is to say nothing of the films I've missed and need to scour the internet for! Why doesn't this city care about movies the way New York does??

[oscar jubis]

It's all about market size and Oscar's rule that a film must have opened only in NYC and L.A. by the end of the year in order to qualify. I posted my 2005 list on 2/28/06. Posting earlier would mean the list fails to take into account all the films that open in NYC and LA during the last two weeks of 2006. The only lists I'll be posting in January are BEST DVDS and BEST UNDISTRIBUTED.

[Chris Knipp]

What you are talking about is simply the main reason why I'm in NYC this month. I have not heard of Breaking and Entering. I saw Pan's Labyrinth early, in the NYFF, and Children of Men in Paris, where it opened couple a months prior to the US release. The SF Bay Area gets a good range of releases, but some of these come out only in January there too. I have gone to uptown Manhattan to see Venus and Perfume during their first public showings, before they went to other NYC theaters. Most of the good movie viewing is to be had in lower Manhattan--Cinema Village, Quad Cinema, the IFC Center (where I saw The Aura and Family Law and where Inland Empire is showing), Film Forum (Marker's Grinning Cat), Angelika Film Center (Days of Gloory, The Fountain, The Painted Veil), the Landmark Sunshine (Letters from Iwo Jima) and the Regal Union Square and a couple cineplexes on 2nd Avenue for the rest. Did not go to the Ziegfield on the Upper West Side to see Dreamgirls early for $25, though; waited and saw it on 2nd Avenue Christmas day.

[mouton]

Ah, New York, New York. Last I was there was in the fall when I caught LITTLE CHILDREN at the Angelika and SHORTBUS at the Landmark Sunshine. Trouble is I always get torn between the film and the Broadway when I'm there ... and the shopping. At least the movies are affordable!

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I have not heard of Breaking and Entering.

Anthony Minghella's new movie came out in one theatre in LA on 12/15/06. The Weinsteins apparently decided the film had no chance to get nominations because they postponed release in NY (and perhaps a couple other big markets like Chicago and Bay Area) until 1/26/07.

[mouton]

It's LA release still makes it eligible though, right?
(Mind you the previews don't excite me)

[oscar jubis]

You're right. In the past films had to have opened in both NYC and Los Angeles, but that must have changed sometime in the past few years. These are the current elegibility rules:

All eligible motion pictures, unless otherwise noted, must be:

a) feature length (defined as over 40 minutes),

b) publicly exhibited by means of 35mm or 70mm film, or in a 24- or 48-frame progressive scan Digital Cinema format (minimum native resolution 1280 by 1024 pixels, with pixel bit depth, color primaries, and image and sound file formats suitable for exhibition in commercial Digital Cinema
sites),

c) for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County,

d) for a run of at least seven consecutive days.

[Chris Knipp]

c) for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County, Does that mean release only in New York would be insufficient?

[oscar jubis]

Indeed.

[Chris Knipp]

So then is it true that every film I've seen in NYC this season has also been playing in Los Angeles County?