PDA

View Full Version : SULLY (Clint Eastwood 2016)



Chris Knipp
09-10-2016, 03:28 PM
CLINT EASTWOOD: SULLY (2016)

http://www.chrisknipp.com/links/sully.jpg
AARON ECKHART AND TOM HANKS IN SULLY

"155"

Typically Clint is doing good, straightforward, old fashioned filmmaking in his new movie Sully, whose title itself signals the mood: simplicity. The subject is an old fashioned hero, the pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, nickname "Sully." He is forever known for "the miracle on the Hudson," the emergency water landing he executed of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River off Manhattan, NYC, after the plane was disabled by striking a flock of Canadian geese during its initial climb out of LaGuardia Airport on January 15, 2009. All of the 155 passengers and crew aboard the aircraft survived. Hence the magic number, "155," which says it all.

This is a simple story - even if chronologically the telling of it is not so simple - and it's the kind of story where the trick is not to get in the way. That, Clint Eastwood knows how to do.

Playing Sully is Hollywood's go-to man for tried and true, Tom Hanks. And Hanks just keeps getting better at that, tried-er and truer. He was the brave captain of the container ship hijacked by Somalis in Paul Greenglass's 2014 Captain Phillips (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2529), and last year he was Jim Donovan, the heroic New York insurance lawyer who negotiated the Rudolf Abel-Gary Powers exchange in East Germany in the cold February of 1962, in Stephen Spielberg's entertaining Bridge of Spies (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3180) costarring Mark Rylance (who won an Oscar). Spielberg's movie is a true story that's also a rich John Le Carré-esque espionage thriller. Sully has a less complicated story to tell and both of those two other movies are 40 minutes longer.

Sully simply dwells on its one big extraordinary event. In fact, Sullenberger says he has flown thousands of flights, but he will be judged on about four minutes - when he made the fateful decision and staged the remarkable crash landing in the water. This film hasn't got Mark Rylance, or a character as fascinating and complex as the arch spy Rudolf Abel as a counterpoint to its true-blue Tom Hanks character. It's just got Jeff Skiles, the copilot, who needed only to go through his second-in-command motions and not panic, and he's played by Aaron Eckhart with a big mustache that almost steels his act from him. Eckhart is a strong physical presence, but a stiff actor.

Isn't Hanks stiff too? Isn't stiffness part of what he does? In the current role, he almost seems to be quietly imploding. Sully's job, and he does it, once the landing and rescue are done, is to keep quiet except when he absolutely must speak. He is more than he does. The doing is done. Tom Hanks's performances can seem rather on the flat side. He hasn't got James Stewart's edge of folksy charm. But he's extremely good at embodying goodness and heroism. His performance feels honest and true to the real Chesley Sullenberger whom viewers glimpse in actual footage that runs at the end of Sully, and whom Hanks does a good job of physically resembling.

The action almost feels stuck in time. Everything revolves around those few minutes of the bird strike, the realization that the engines were disabled, the quick landing, the rescue, which end notes say was executed by coast guard and police in 24 minutes. Sully and Skiles can't go to their families yet, because there's a big investigation to be done; they have to stay at a hotel. But the thing is they're in shock.

That's how the film begins, and with a staging of a small initial hearing before reps of the National Transportation Safety Board. To our shock, while the media all over the world are trumpeting Sully's heroism and dazzling accomplishment, the authorities are dubious. Knowing that water landings are normally suicidal and that there were two landing fields as little as seven miles away, they question whether Sully made the right decision. The rest of the film will hover over this issue. According to Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sully-accident-investigators-question-portrayal-926222), National Transportation Safety Board authorities have complained they're misrepresented in the film. But the story needs villains, and the NTSB get the job. Without the doubt, there would be no story, only hagiography. And because this doubt comes at us so early, Eastwood succeeds in making us buy into it.

Eventually, the event is recreated in all its detail. If you don't remember, we're reminded that this happened in winter, and the waters of the Hudson were so cold that the passengers wouldn't have lived very long foundering in them. They also had to get out of the plane pretty quick as it filled up with that freezing water, and Sully supervises that, and is the last to leave.

But while it's important for us to have all this in our minds, the focus is on other moments, private and public. There are the anxious and awkward phone exchanges between Sully and his worried wife (Laura Linney). His quiet exchanges with Jeff Skiles. People keep coming up and hugging him. He goes into a bar, and he's on the TV screen, and instantly recognized. The barman has already invented a new drink named after him. Try to get your head around that. The public event is the full scale hearing that's staged a day or so later, or so it seems (time is telescoped), with Jeff and Sully confronted with a series of simulations. They are aimed to show that they could have taken the plane back to LaGuardia or nearby Teterboro Airport.

In the end, the core of Clint Eastwood's movie is simulations of simulations. But this works. Ultimately Sully is an elaborately staged movie whose aim is not to tell a story but to communicate a feeling, about being brave, thinking fast under pressure, and trusting your decisions. It's about a fight between humans and their machines, man and the computer. They are collaborators: but which one is in charge? The old fashioned message is that in the most challenging situations the human being still knows best.

Sully doesn't have an elaborate story to tell, but it leaves one feeling quite deeply moved. The way it dwells firmly on the nature and consequences of actions and the values behind them makes it arguably more complex and thought-provoking than Captain Phillips or Bridge of Spies. And it certainly has its thrilling moments too.

Sully, 95 mins., debuted at Telluride 2 Sept. 2016, premiered in NYC 6 Sept., and opened in US theaters 9 Sept.

tabuno
11-24-2016, 04:14 AM
Chris's commentary for this movie seems less like a critic than a descriptive narrative about the movie, some nice contextual background information, almost like a tour guide helping the audience or tourist in movie appreciation. I don't have any differing observations off hand, except to say, Chris has offered up something different with this movie in this forum.

cinemabon
11-25-2016, 04:26 PM
For all of its slick technical prowess, the reveal of this film - Sully manages to clear his name - came as a footnote rather than the drama of the event. I would imagine that some future generation might get more from the plot. However, the news outlets told so much of the story for such an extended period that the movie looked and sounded pedantic, redundant, obsequious. Not that I mind the detail or the focus of attention to it. I just found the repetition of the story - as told - to anticlimactic. Unlike most airplane disaster movies where the build up revolves around passenger lives, I felt no sympathy for these people other than a rapid resolution. The movie dragged into the "trial" whose outcome - again - bored me, rather like a race where everyone knew the winner - it's Seabiscuit! Oh, I thought he was famous because he was a big loser. Hanks is a good actor, perhaps a great one given the right material and direction. This is not Eastwood's usual material with a dark edge to it. While competent, I kept waiting for something exciting to happen. Even after the crash, Eastwood's pace was to rush through the rescue, rather than look at it from the passenger point of view. It left me as cold as the Hudson.

tabuno
12-31-2016, 01:33 AM
Ever since Airport (1970), the American public has been subjected to the multitude of snippets of the personal travails of various movie characters caught in disasters or terrible crises allowing the audience to experience a variety of unique but by now stereotypical responses from different individuals in the same situation on the big screen. Cinemabon's insistence that Sully must somehow fit this same mold seems somewhat unfair. What make Sully stand out is the very notoriety of the lead character. The singular focus on him by no means diminished nor necessarily createe a boring movie. Instead, this singular focus on one man, considered an American hero, is justified by the revelation of the background story, that there was more to the reported incident than meets the eye. Instead of a hyper-kinetic jumping back and forth from various characters by now expected personal type-cast characters, the audience is able to experience the possible threat to a single American hero as defined by the news media. This movie when considered in the context not as a disaster movie, but as a human drama, the movie rises above its genre to be more revealing of the substance of a man and how what was projected to the public may not have been the whole story. In these times of paranoia and fake news stories, it's nice to have Sully come along to offer a hopeful note that even if what seems true isn't, that it doesn't necessarily have to be all bad. There is still hope for redemption or a revisionist examination of past events and the possible anticipation of something better in the future.

Chris Knipp
12-31-2016, 10:49 AM
Well said tabuno and I agree: Sully is a redemptive reexamination of the deeds of a tarnished hero - and also a defense of real memory and real experience over false "science" and the tyranny of computers and "simulations". The hearing is moving and exciting if watched with sympathy and understanding; it is like the long redemptive funeral flashbacks of Kurosawa's Ikiru which are for me one of the most moving and beautiful passages in all of cinematic literature.

cinemabon
12-31-2016, 12:48 PM
Movies don't have to be clones of one another or follow a pattern. Stories should have conflict and resolution, otherwise, they're a bore. You wouldn't want to read Pride and Prejudice if it started out "Mr. Darcy gets Miss Elizabeth - but lets go ahead and listen to their story, just the same."

Stories are driven by characters, who for one reason or another, rise above and conquer their fears. Eastwood's direction here is to focus on Sully's concern over his reputation. Then it should have been a trial movie. What you have is a semi-disaster movie with a semi-trial attached, neither one strong. The public wasn't aware Sully's reputation was at stake. At no time during the investigation did anyone over at the NTSB say, "This may have been due to pilot error." So where's the big worry? Inside Sully's head. Then it's a psychological drama! But nooooooo. We get the former and not the later.

This movie is too superficial in its plot devices and its content. I want to fear for those passengers and cheer for Sully who saved them! Instead, I sat and frowned at the screen, wondering why we bothered to experience the crash at all if its just flashback.

cinemabon
12-31-2016, 12:51 PM
And BTW, before you bash me again;

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Frankly, I've never been so happy to see one year end. But also just as honest, I'm extremely fearful for what's ahead - buffoon-wise.

Chris Knipp
12-31-2016, 05:29 PM
I bash no one. Happy New Year to everyone!