The best indication of the respectful intentions behind United 93—a retelling of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, focusing on the hijacked plane that crash-landed in rural Pennsylvania—comes at the inevitable point, positioned about halfway through, when the first plane hits the World Trade Center. Seen from the perspective of an air-traffic control booth across the river, the plane makes its approach until, at the point of impact, writer-director Paul Greengrass cuts to CNN footage of the event itself. Greengrass is smart and sensitive enough to know that whatever he could create couldn't possibly overshadow the sickening experience we all already shared watching that image over and over when it happened.
ok, i’m about to get all pseudo-theoretical on your asses, so tell me what you think. because when i read this, my brain tweaked out a little trying to sort out the issues of reality and fiction, of visual experience, of storytelling and the blurry lines between what’s “true” and what’s not, what’s “real” and what’s not.
as mini-background, i have no desire to go see United 93, and i frankly don’t understand why anyone else would want to either. all those reviewers had to go see it, because it’s their job, but the average joe and jane looking for something to do on friday night? i’m sorry, but a re-creation of one of the most horrific days in the history of this country (hell, in the history of the world) is not my idea of an ideal movie-going experience. this also explains why i haven’t seen Pearl Harbor, i guess. this, and the fact that ben affleck is a disappointment in general.
ok, i’m having a hard time being serious about this right now, but i think it does raise serious questions. anyone could debate my points in the above paragraph (well, ben notwithstanding) around what movie-going should be “about.” i’m not trying to broach all that here, really. what i am interested in is the fact that this movie is a re-creation of a true event. and not just any true event, but as close to a collectively-shared true event as you’re likely to find. so what’s happening here? people are going into the theater to see a movie about something that they’ve...already seen?
i guess you could say they’re going to shade in the canvas, to try to get a fuller sense of what that day was like for certain other people – chiefly, the people on flight 93, but the airport personnel, the air traffic controllers, the military coordinators, etc. as well. but really, what’s filling in their outline of fact is fiction. it’s an educated guess, of course – the director obviously took pains to research the circumstances and timelines of the doomed flight as best he could – but in the end, it’s conjecture. it’s 9/11 storytelling. and i imagine you could sit in front of the screen and start to forget that – until the moment the fictitious film you’re watching cuts away to archival CNN footage that you remember watching in real time. then wouldn’t you have this moment of disorientation – wait, what is this? and then you recognize that none of what you’re watching is “real” (save the CNN clip) and maybe you wonder, if indeed this story “couldn't possibly overshadow the sickening experience we all already shared,” then why are you watching at all?
this all probably boils down to the question of “what’s the point?” what purpose does this film, at this moment, serve? what would anyone gain from seeing it?
ok, that’s three questions. and i’m sure there are more. but in the end, i can’t shake the sense that reality and fiction are colliding in this movie, maybe not spectacularly or shockingly, but in a way that puts a pit in your stomach anyway.
9 comments:
I think movies serve purposes...some are to completely bore us, shock us, make us laugh, make us think...and then there are those that are made JUST to make money.
I'm sure that people could say the same for movie about the Rwandan genocide or movies about the Holocaust....glorification through Hollywood....but where do we draw the line? Where do we go from learning about an event and fictionalizing part of it to draw crowds and retelling a story so that that story is never forgotten....?
I have also wondered who could possibly want to go see this movie - and my only idea is people who were too young to experience the horror of the day when it happened, and who are now old enough to go see it in movie form, perhaps to assuage some kind of sensationalist curiosity. I hope that it does not appeal to some warped, Bush-era sense of patriotism.
Movies about disasters and atrocities can serve to educate. Given time, I would go see a documentary about 9/11, or even a movie that uses that day and its aftermath as the backdrop to a fictionalized story. But it's simply not the time for a movie like United 93, and unless it has some educational value, I can't imagine ever wanting to see it.
Great post, Kate. Lots to think about.
I, too, have no interest in seeing this movie. To invoke the cliche, "too soon". Let's wait until we've actually lived through a day without someone mentioning 9-11 before we feel the need to make a movie about it, no?
As to the idea of making a movie about something we've already seen, the thing is, it's really not. Nobody really knows precisely what went on on that flight, aside from a few cell phone scraps. That's what they're attempting to dramatize. In this way, the movie I'm reminded most of is Perfect Storm. Same deal: Bunch of guys on a boat. We know they died, and that's it. Everything else that happens in the film is dramatization and conjecture. Something about that always struck me as totally pointless. We know they died, why pretend to know what they felt and what they said?
Anyhow, thirty years from now, somebody's going to make a 9-11 movie and it will be great. Not now. There's no point because, not only did we all live through it, but in a way we're still living through it. It'd be like making a documentary about what I had for breakfast. Um, yeah, I know: I'm still digesting it.
Great post, Kate. Lots to think about.
I, too, have no interest in seeing this movie. To invoke the cliche, "too soon". Let's wait until we've actually lived through a day without someone mentioning 9-11 before we feel the need to make a movie about it, no?
As to the idea of making a movie about something we've already seen, the thing is, it's really not. Nobody really knows precisely what went on on that flight, aside from a few cell phone scraps. That's what they're attempting to dramatize. In this way, the movie I'm reminded most of is Perfect Storm. Same deal: Bunch of guys on a boat. We know they died, and that's it. Everything else that happens in the film is dramatization and conjecture. Something about that always struck me as totally pointless. We know they died, why pretend to know what they felt and what they said?
Anyhow, thirty years from now, somebody's going to make a 9-11 movie and it will be great. Not now. There's no point because, not only did we all live through it, but in a way we're still living through it. It'd be like making a documentary about what I had for breakfast. Um, yeah, I know: I'm still digesting it.
it's too soon for me too. there's a part of me that wants to see it only to see what the reviewers are talking about.
as for other movies about historical events, i think that most of them give us a new perspective on the incident, make us question what we already know, and perhaps educate us on something that we should had known all along.
when is someone gonna finally make a monica lewinsky movie? ;)
a lewinsky movie! as those semi-obnoxious, semi-funny guys in the guiness commericals say - brilliant!
i have had three and a half glasses of wine, so i think now is the perfect time for me to start working on the screenplay.
oh, and toast, perfect storm is a great example of this same kind of thing. just the mention of that movie makes me laugh, though, because BoyCat and i have an ongoing debate about whether it's good or crap.
he thinks it's crap. i know it's crap, but for some strange reason really liked it anyway, and thus argue that it's good just for kicks. this drives him nuts, which of course is the point.
i mean, diane lane's attempt at a boston area accent? so bad it's good.
I guess a better question is why do you go to the movies at all? If you won't go to see the TRUTH, why do you let them entertain you with a lie? Lots of movies TWIST historical accounts and people believe that's what really happenned. And then there's "fiction" which never happenned at all?
Maybe you just prefer living in a fantasy world instead of the REAL world. But those of us who live in the REAL WORLD enjoy when a movie is made that depicts the TRUTH and inspires us with the heroic acts of ordinary people like us, who respond to evil with courage instead of denial.
Wake up, litle girl.
i went to see it this weekend. hadn't planned to, but there it was, and there we were, and we saw it.
it was cathartic, and i'm still trying to figure out why that was.
that day in New York still haunts me, and i was very lucky because no one i knew or anyone that my friends knew died.
but it was frightening, confusing, bewildering, particularly since no one knew what was coming next.
maybe it was cathartic because the documentary style of the film made it historical rather than something so present.
Post a Comment