United 93 (USA, 2006, Greengrass) AKA Flight into Obliviousness
The events of 9/11 were paradigm-shifting for many folks, an opportunity to take a closer look at the reasons that the world hates Americans and all they stand for. It seems such an opportunity has been lost on most folks, who choose instead to bury their collective heads in the sand and wait for the Powers That Be to re-shape the world back into that delicious, easily-digestable and nutritiously-empty Krispy Kreme donut of their dreams. So, what better to allow us all to continue to live in mindless reverie than a film that purports to be about the heroic deeds of men and women aboard 9/11's United flight 93. How better to salve the psychic wounds of a nation than to present as docudrama a seemingly "objective" view of the events of this fatal flight, one that is so lacking in insight and analysis that it masquerades as a cinematic Mobius strip, purporting to allow viewers to apply their own emotional and intellectual constructs, meanwhile abrogating all responsibility to make some sort of sense out of these world-changing events.
And just how disengenuous and irresponsible can these filmmakers be?
The events of this day were not merely isolated tragic events, but were rather signals to the rest of the world that we were about to bear witness to a sea change in the way we conduct global relationships. However, Greengrass and crew choose to ignore the larger socio-political context and focus instead upon the lives and more accurately the deaths of the people aboard the plane. Yet for all the apparent intimacy, there is no attempt to get to know these people as human beings; they are all cogs in the film's machinery. Similarly, we in the audience play our parts as passive observers caught up in the inevitable events on the screen, but with no way to understand their meaning or comprehend their importance. So, in the end, if there is no larger context provided, and no depth to the characterizations, you have to ask yourself, what is the point? The audience's isolation from understanding and human value reduces the film to a fear-mongering exercise at best, and a prolongued and agonizing snuff film at worst.
For more, there's an interesting conversation going on about this movie here:
http://www.cinemarati.org/index.php/archives/healing-through-confrontation/
Score: 48/100
Wherein bon vivant Ben Livant and I (Dan Jardine) speak our minds about movies, mostly.
11 comments:
I'm afraid I have to disagree.
You want commetary on the socio-political context of September 11th? Allow me to invite you to go, literally, everywhere:
Any major media outlet with guest commentators or an op/ed page. Talk radio. Theatre. Any institution of higher learning. A politican's mouth. An actor's mouth. A minister's mouth. A family table at Thanksgiving, Christmas, Fourth of July. For the past five years we have been drowning in a sea of of rancor, debate, analysis, solgans. September 11th has become so much about meaning and context that it has ceased to be an actual event with specific people in particular circumstances and instead become about all of us, everywhere on planet earth.
I think the dry, impersonal, documentary style of the film was a refreshing re-set to examine the details of the day that have been trampled by outrage, demagoguery, and the rhetoric of war. It could only be impersonal and removed without paying an particular actor in the events of the day undue attention.
I think its an extremely important film and I am honored to have had the chance to experience it.
What makes this an important film? Why do we need to see a detailed description of all these people's deaths? What meaningful contribution does this make to anyone's life? Please elaborate.
Your points are all valid and I certainly can't tell you what purpose the film serves exactly in a larger context, but some of my thoughts are in the latest entry on my blog if you're interested.
What makes this an important film? Why do we need to see a detailed description of all these people's deaths? What meaningful contribution does this make to anyone's life?
HOW ABOUT THE HEROISM OF THE PASSENGERS FOR STARTERS?
WE ALL NEED A STORY WHERE WE CAN IDENTIFY WITH THE HEROES-NOT MILLIONARES OR WEARING CAPES OR TOURING WITH BONO, -JUST PASSENGERS LIKE YOU AND ME, SUDDENLY CONFRONTED WITH FANATICS INTENT ON MURDERING INNOCENTS. BECAUSE OSAMA IS STILL OUT THERE, RUNNING AND HIDING SURE, BUT WE HAVEN'T COMPLETELY DEFEATED HIS MINIONS. THIS IS A STORY OF ORDINARY AMERICANS AS HEROES.
They did what they had to do, I understand that. But they weren't really trying to stop the plane from reaching the Capitol so much as they were trying to save their own lives. My problem is not with the passenger's actions, but with a film that treats the characters as if they were riders on a roller coaster about the jump the rails. There is nowhere to go in this film but to everyone's doom; the result is a well-crafted piece of necromancy.
"But they weren't really trying to stop the plane from reaching the Capitol so much as they were trying to save their own lives."
I agree with Dan, a story about people trying to save thier own lives has no place on the big screen or anywhere else! Maybe if they would have succeeded thier story may have been worth telling, but they failed so thier story is worthless... Telling a story like this is so not the American way!
Incredible! I wonder which side of the theater you sat on?
Well, if there's a reason you're looking for, I think I have one. I just walked out of the theater with my wife, and her first comment was, "You know, I'm really glad I saw that. I've never considered the terrorists to be actual human beings until now. I knew it of course, but I always thought of them as just monsters--not real people with real fears."
In the same vein, that leads us to where we've placed the passengers--on the Pedestal of Quasi-Mythological Heroes of History (as they ought to be). But they were just people--like the terrorists. They may not have been trying to save the Capitol--but they did. There is virtue in fighting an aggressor, whether for one's own life or one's country.
I would also submit that Greengrass had enough faith in his audience to judge for themselves the relevance of these events to the world at large. His movie shows respect to its intended audience, and for the subject matter, whereas you couldn't begin a simple movie review without the obligatory leftist swipe at the rest of us.
Any changes to allow for "analysis" would be arrogant and presumptuous, especially from a foreigner.
We live in a global village, where we are all immersed in American culture, politics and economy. Just as JFK was a Berliner, we are ALL Americans. So, it is NOT presumptuous of a "foreigner" to analyze the events of 9/11, it is a moral responsibility.
Jardine:
Its am important film for the very reason you state in your review: 9/11 is a paradigm-shifting event; a major turning point in the history of the western world. A clinical examination of the event itself, free from the commentary, politics and rancor that have clotted the veins of the discussion about what it means, provides a fresh perspective for consideration of that shift. I am confused by your objection on this basis:
>"They did what they had to do, I >understand that. But they weren't >really trying to stop the plane >from reaching the Capitol so much >as they were trying to save their >own lives."
First, I am not sure that is entirely or exclusively true. Yes, they were first and foremost trying to save their own lives, but knowledge that hijacked planes were crashing into iconic American structures very probably did faction into some of them mustering the courage to act. But let's assume you are right, for arguments sake. Why is a story that 'just concerns people trying to save their lives' an invalid piece of cinema? There are literally thousands of films concerned with the same exact premise. Are you offended somehow because its a true story? Are you movie-versions of the Titanic disaster?
>"There is nowhere to go in this >film but to everyone's doom; the >result is a well-crafted piece of >necromancy."
That's a bizarre statement coming from a reviewer who called 'Wolf Creek' one of the ten-best films of 2005! 'Wolf Creek', also a true story that ends tragically, which is also 'just a film about people trying to survive' revels with glee in the unthinkable sadism and graphic depictions of rape and death of helpless people. At least '93' seems to celebrate the struggle for survival rather than mock it. I think, paradigms aside, that '93' makes a more "meaningful contribution" to the lives of the viewers that 'Wolf Creek' could on that basis alone-- its life-affirming.
"We live in a global village, where we are all immersed in American culture, politics and economy. Just as JFK was a Berliner, we are ALL Americans."
There is some validity to that statement. You are certainly entitled to your opinions on anything and everything. I have opinions about the holocaust I would not presume to tell either a Jew or a German about the Jewish or German truths of what Aushwitz means. You are American in very limited fashion and would do well to try and be respectful of others for whom these events carry personal meaning that you, from removed perspective, simply cannot understand.
I think the film maker's point was to give the viewer the impression they were on the plane. In this case, the lack of character development makes sense. We know as little about the people on the plane as we would if it were a real life flight we were taking. This makes it all the more disturbing.
In any case, the technique worked for me. It had a profound effect actually. Increased character development would have ruined the entire film IMO. I rate this a very good film.
The part of the film that seemed most out of place, was sticking a sledge-hammer metaphor of some euro-leftie opposing the "American intervention." More or less defaming the German passenger as coddling to the terrorists and such. This the only aspect of the film that was way out of line for me. I heard the widow of the real German passenger(Christian Adams) was very upset with the film showing her husband as cowardly. And the entire portrayal of him is pure fiction. How do we know it was not in fact, the German passenger's idea, to fight the hijackers?
According to the film, the German appears to actually warn the terrorists that the Americans are charging them. The Americans then promptly beat up and neutralize this pesky leftie German. So much for "Old Europe." Rummy would be laughing with glee in his movie seat, during that scene.
Post a Comment