"Femme en pleurs" ("Woman in tears") by Pablo Picasso 1937, Penrose Collection, London
I didn't go and see it. I hate heaving full cinemas and calling for sold out tickets. Getting organized in advance simply ruins my street cred .... O.K. the truth of the matter is, I know I will find it incredibly disturbing and would prefer to pick my time, rather than being forced by someone else's schedule.
So who did go and see it...Lets see.
Rick Moran has the most comprehensive critique so far, and being a movie buff like myself, with similar taste, has the best in depth review and most probably the closest to what I would have written:
In the end, Greengrass lets the story do all his talking. A wise choice since … it would have been a relatively simple matter to have made a histrionic, flag waving spectacular instead of the intensely personal drama U-93 turned out to be. For some, that intensity will open old emotional wounds from 9/11 making it very difficult for them to see this film. I would urge them to make the effort anyway. For United 93 will not heal the hurt but rather recall in a vividly personal, emotionally charged manner who and what caused our souls to be scorched that terrible day.
He comes back for more, taking an almighty swing at the Slate critic Dana Stevens, who seemed to have been "unmoved" and even feeling "resentful" by the movie, and to quote Rick:
There’s nothing like reading full blown, to the max idiocy to get the blood pumping to my brain and get my fingers itching to do a little keyboard solo on someone who exhibits as much jaw-dropping cluelessness as Stevens.[...]
There is nothing more annoying than a “woulda, shoulda, coulda” critic who doesn’t possess an ounce of talent to actually make a film themselves but who is more than willing to tell a director how he should have made his. The movie Stevens is proposing Greengrass make is so far removed from the director’s vision that it makes her pouty, foot stomping tirade about what’s missing from U-93 sound like someone running their fingernails across a blackboard. Absolutely hopeless.
It’s fair game to criticize a director for an unfulfilled vision or a lazy vision, or even for having no vision at all. But to actually posit the notion that a critic’s judgement on what vision the director should have had as legitimate criticism smacks of pure politics to me.
And if that doesn’t convince you of the political motivations of Stevens' disguised critique of U-93, try this:
In the last five years, “9/11” has become a generic brand name for terrorism, its sky-high recognition quotient useful for ginning up support for any and all manner of belligerent causes. The closest this film ever comes to a political statement—and possibly the only laugh line in the movie—is the snappish question of a beleaguered official: “Do we have any communication with the president at all?” Greenglass may not want to come right out and say it, but the audience’s weary chuckle made it clear: As we slog into the fourth year of the war being waged in 9/11’s wake (and, at least in part, in its name), there’s still no satisfactory answer to that question.
The Cranky Insomniac writes another rebuttal of Stevens' review @ Slate.
Debbie Schlussel has already managed to pick a fight with somebody, whilst still arguing with others over an accusation of omitting Mark Bingham in her first review because of his homosexuality. If every time I got called a xenophobe, racist, neo-fascist or Coulter clone, I wasted time writing posts to counter-attack or defend, I would write nothing else. Be that as it may, I am not her client, therefore don't need to worry about her time management.
My friend Gerard van der Leun rips Manohla Dargis of The New York Times, whose review he sums up in two shots: "exploitation" and "why was it made?". He quotes Dargis:
But that narrow focus, along with the lack of fully realized characters, and the absence of any historical or political context, raises the question of why, notwithstanding the usual (if shaky) commercial imperative, this particular movie was made. To jolt us out of complacency? Remind us of those who died? Unite us, as even the film's title seems to urge? Entertain us?
To be honest, I haven't a clue. I didn't need a studio movie to remind me of the humanity of the thousands who were murdered that day or the thousands who have died in the wars waged in their name.
Jason Apuzzo @ Libertas has nothing positive reserved for the movie:
And this takes us back to the original problem. It would be vastly preferable if the events depicted in United 93 were sufficiently powerful to ’speak for themselves,’ and not require the intervention of an artist with a moral conscience, a sense of history or context. Unfortunately we’ve learned that these hideous events do not, apparently, ’speak for themselves.’ United 93 will not change anyone’s minds about anything - not because it’s an inferior film, but because there really never was much debate about the moment-by-moment facts of the 9/11 attack. [For example: I suspect this film will play just fine in the Islamic world. Perversely enough, it might even win a few recruits.] The issue is how the events are to be interpretted, and most importantly what to do going forward to prevent anything like that from happening again. Greengrass’ film has little to say on that subject, despite all the cheerleading conservatives in the media are doing on the film’s behalf. The victory conservatives seem to be celebrating with this film - that Hollywood (actually it’s a group of British filmmakers) has finally made a sober film about 9/11 - strikes me as being a somewhat hollow one.
Although admittedly refusing to see the movie, AllahPundit @ Hot Air has the most comprehensive round up of blggers reaxs. Varifrank writes a long and thoughtful post about "survivors' guilt":
To me, United 93 is not just the story of other peoples suffering that bothers me the most. It is the nagging sense of guilt that has come from surviving these "near misses" that eats at my soul. The story of United 93 triggers those emotions in me like the screen door of my grandfathers house triggered his.
Rush Limbaugh's interview with Greengrass Part I and Part II (H/T Kitty)
Marc Schulman quite rightly slams NYT's David Thomson who suggests he'd like to see a movie:
about different kinds of courage. In this film, the courage of the passengers would be shown and honored, but there would be an equal effort to show the courage of the terrorists (without calling them simply "evil" or "insane"). You can feel already, I know, that that film is less likely. It has a kind of moral ambivalence not settled by giving 5 percent of the proceeds to families of the lost.
Oh really, says Schulman:
Perhaps Thomson would also like to see a movie exploring the courage of the Nazi Einsatzgruppen who forced naked Jews into ditches and shot them. Some soldiers assigned to that duty couldn't take it; they lacked the courage to commit mass murder. It does take a certain kind of courage to leave morality behind. That kind of courage comes from blind belief in an ideology—as did the hijackers of United 93.
If you don't like the Nazi example, use Stalin's executioners in the 1930s or Pol Pot's in the 1970s.
Take your pick: they're all evil. And, yes, Mr. Thomson, there is such a thing as evil. Why are you unwilling to use that word? Is it because you don't believe in it?
And finally, I leave you once again with the brilliant Gerard van der Leun:
What would you do, an ordinary person in an extraordinary moment when life and death, good and evil, were as clear as the skies over America on September 11? Will you, as so many of our fellow citizens yearn to do these days, stay seated? Or will you stand up?
On one of our days to come, there will be another test. You'd best have an answer prepared.
Well almost finally, because you have to read Bob Godwin's take on United 93, "No Heroic Deed Goes Unspoiled by the Left".
Related on ATB:
The Charlie Sheen 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
They Know Not What They Say
More @ Ace of Spades, Gina Cobb, Kesher Talk, Peak Talk, Riehl World View, Sister Toldjah, Sisu cross posted @ Pajamas Media, The Real Ugly American, BWP, Annika's Journal, The Wide Awake Cafe, The Cranky Insomniac, Blogcritics, Brainster's Blog, Ms. Underestimated, Suitably Flip, The Cranky Insomniac (2)
One can only hope that the David Thomson's of this world will one day meet up with a courageous mugger with a gun. Talk about confronting your beliefs head-on....
Posted by: antimedia | Tuesday, May 02, 2006 at 12:43 AM
There's an internet film out right now that states that the WTC was brought down by cruise missiles. It's creating quite the buzz on college campuses right now. Forget your lyin' eyes folks!
On a second note, could the immigration protestors have picked a worse day than May 1st--May Day? For all you folks saying that the answer is to crack down on the businesses that hire illegals, make sure you keep track of all the businesses closed down tomorrow. Might as well let some good come out of all this.
Posted by: Darrell | Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 11:43 PM
Aside from the revitalization of my memory of that day, I got two things from the film:
1) In a dangerous world, men are necessary for the survival of civilization; and
2) The barbaric enemy will not stop until they are killed.
Posted by: rich | Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 08:36 PM
AVI, the hard implications of the NH motto should be considered by anyone who purports to advocate any sort of war on terrorists.
Thanks, ATB, for this post. Why shouldn't we have this movie? They never show the 911 attacks on TV.
Posted by: Dadgum | Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 05:38 PM
Dadgum, the second half of the state motto "Live Free Or Die" in NH puts the first half in context: "Death Is Not The Worst Of Evils."
Well I'm shocked really, that the film critic world didn't like the whole idea of the film and thus the film itself. After all their unwavering patriotic support for America in general and the WOT in specific, plus all the kind things they've had to say about the president, this change of heart for them just seems to come out of the blue. Who could possibly have predicted that they would use it as an opportunity to make their own political points?
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot | Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 02:39 PM
There'll be a lot more commentary, but for starters: anyone who has any appetite and/or tolerance for the "incredibly disturbing" footage of the first link owes it to the people on board Flight 93 and to himself to go see United 93.
Posted by: Jeremayakovka | Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 02:12 PM
Darrell makes a good point about looking ahead to what's coming out. While I wouldn't call United 93 a partisan movie because it's actually very critical of the Bush administration's response, I think it would be equally valid to say that a sympathetic movie taken from Bin Laden's point of view is forthcoming. Say what you want about that weak-kidneyed bastard--he pulled off the greatest project management war strike since June 6th, 1944. If someone made a movie about it--I'd probably go see it for the same reason that I paid to go see Farenheit 9/11--because I would rather see an ideological war take place in the theatres, art galleries, and book shelves of my country than to have gunfire in the streets and roadide bombs at my kid's school bus stop.
I say, "Keep it in the head before we all get dead."
Posted by: Joshua Minton | Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 12:16 PM
Re: Gerard van der Leun
It's been said that some things are worse than death, e.g. staying in one's seat. I haven't seen the movie but I've long admired those who died on their feet.
Posted by: Dadgum | Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Today, the day after viewing Flight 93 I find myself still thinking about it. It was so amazing in its detail that I am remembering new aspects of it even now. Not only was it a faithful retelling of the tragic events of that awful day, it did what every good story teller knows to do, it didn't tell us the facts, it let the chronological events take us on that journey of realization that we were at war, just as it happened on 911. My husband and I stayed up very late talking about it.
Posted by: Laura Lee Donoho | Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 11:55 AM
Given the garbage that Hollywood can produce, anything resembling reality IS a major victory! Remember the Left wants everyone to forget all about 9/11, or focus on the entire event being the fault of the US. Now that the dam has burst we'll see more films, and some of them will surely be more than sympathetic to the terrorists. Be forewarned. And makes sure you don't pay to see those films, giving the enemy what they want--your money and the cred to make even more.
Posted by: Darrell | Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 10:22 AM
Definitely worth seeing. More later.
Posted by: Jeremayakovka | Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 09:35 AM
I think that passenger was definitely French and I found it funny as hell that he was trying to go along to get along. I took that as a definite political statement.
Posted by: Joshua Minton | Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 07:23 AM
Alex:
Very nice round-up.
However, Debbie Schlussel did not see the same film I did. (Why is that not surprising?)
Just prior to the assault, the passenger with the vaguely German (Swiss?) accent stands up trying to alert the terrorists. He is quickly subdued. In fact, that passenger’s warning may have spurred the passengers to action in the film - although that sequence is a little fuzzy in my recall.
But there is no doubt the foreigner stood up and tried to warn the terrorists and was subdued.
Posted by: Rick Moran | Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 07:12 AM