UNITED 93

I didn't quite realize that United 93 was coming out until just a few weeks ago, when the trailer hit the web. I watched it alone at work, with the headphones on, and that by itself was difficult to watch. But I could tell that it looked like a straightforward, documentary-like telling of what probably happened aborard that fourth hijacked plane. It looked like the kind of movie that I hoped would be made about 9/11. And 9/11 being a formative event in my life, this looked like it could be (so to speak) my Passion of the Christ.

And so this morning I made sure to procure tickets for the 7:30 showing at Gallery Place/Chinatown. The theater wasn't jam-packed, but it was more full than not. Far be it from me to extrapolate about the weekend box office based on one of the 1,700 theaters it's showing in this weekend, but based on good word-of-mouth and others' educated guesses, I expect it to do something in the $20 million dollar range. And that's fine. Promotions for the movie have been realtively modest, with TV spots, print and Internet ads, but little fanfare (aside from earned media (such as this, I suppose) that such a movie as this will naturally accumulate).

So, the film itself: It works. It really works, and thank God it did, because if Paul Greengrass et. al. had turned in even a merely competent film, it would have been a disappointment. But this movie does not disappoint. My heart pounded from minute one. It's been said the movie takes place in real time, and while that isn't actually the case, the pacing and weaving together of scenes on the ground and in the air certainly makes it seem that way. And if it was an overtly politcal film, that would have been a disappointment, too. It's a conservative film not in the right-wing sense (though wingers are going to make this movie a solid hit) but in that it's very careful about what it shows. Documentary-like, it includes numerous small factual details that you won't notice unless you know about them going in. It follows the 9/11 Commission Report very carefully, with one exception and one extrapolation, which I'll gladly discuss later if others find them controversial. I didn't.

Ben Sliney, one of a surprising number of officials who play themselves in the film, is terrific. (I wonder if he doesn't pull an R. Lee Ermey and start getting more film roles (as former Marine drill instructor Ermey did — and still does — following Full Metal Jacket.) And speaking of actors, it was a wise decision to cast no-names, so as not to be distracting (not to mention, bringing in the respected but not-so-well-known Greengrass ensured that the director's star power didn't get in the way). Some of the key passengers seemed vaguely familiar, but that may just owe to the casting of charismatic actors.

Casting interesting actors was crucial, because there is virtually no character development, let alone plot. But it hardly needed either. And I submit that it was smart to exclude those traditional narrative elements. Tom Burnett, Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, these are people we already know about. As for the plot... well, if you don't already know what's going to happen, I believe you've just awoken from a coma of no less than five years (and somehow found yourself at this blog; how about this whole blogging thing, huh?). And if you don't find the very subject matter inherently gripping, then you are probably not a carbon-based life form.

While some reviews, including positive ones, have called the movie a "spectacle," I disagree. It certainly could have become one, but it really just focused on the people inside Flight 93 and various command and control centers around the country. The movie could have depicted Bush on that day, or the on-the-scene reactions of New Yorkers and Washingtonians, or the millions of us who saw it on TV, but instead it stayed small-scale. (It would have been easier to make it "epic" by showing national reactions, but there's nary a reaction shot (save for the Newark officials watching the tower (and then towers) burn) in the whole film. There are certainly times where the movie is visually arresting (I mean, the whole thing is arresting, but generally not because it "looks cool"), but there are several occasions where Greengrass declined to show something that would have earned an easy gasp (for example, it shows nothing of the crashes that you haven't already seen on TV (but it certainly does show the second plane hitting the tower (something you may never again see on network television))).

One thing that bothered me a bit is that people did talk through the movie, albeit primarily during the scenes in the aforementioned control centers, and I refer specifically to the couples on either side of me. My guess is they showed up for the drama and inspiring revolt onboard United 93 and not so much for the story about those dealing with the unfolding crisis. Too bad, if you ask me, but then those scenes also included background chatter that the audience murmur fortunately blended with. (And if you want to chalk this up to the stereotype that black audiences talk through movies, well, one couple was black and the other was white.)

When it was over, I did sit for a few minutes to watch the credits and collect myself. I almost never cry during films (unless I've been up for 24 hours and am drunk — then I can get emotional about almost anything) and I did not cry here, but it was only because I kept myself from doing so. Indeed, I was on the verge of breaking up all the way back to the Metro. I am somewhat grateful that nobody I invited could make the showing; I am certain I would not have been able to control myself if I was asked to talk about it in the minutes afterward. And when I finally got up to go, there a few rows back was a couple holding each other tight, the man comforting his crying girlfriend. As we filed out, others had their hands to their faces or at least marched somberly. I was among the somber, pulling at my face to keep a grim frown from taking over entirely. A TV crew was interviewing people as we emerged from the theater. I wasn't interviewed, and in fact I stepped a bit aide to make sure that I was not. But I tried to think what I would say if the correspondent asked me for my take, and all I know for sure is that it would have been unusable.

My own feeling then, as it was in the final minutes of the film, waqs a curious combination of grief and pride — for how sad and horrifying that day was and at least as much for being profoundly grateful for the brave actions of those who were actually there. It really cannot be underplayed how important that revolt was. (The movie does hint that, like everyone assumes, 93 was headed for the Capitol dome, and while the death toll would probably have been lower than in NYC, that building on the Hill is a centuries-old national landmark that would have been a greater symbolic loss than even the World Trade Center.) Would I have done the same thing in those circumstances? Well, I think I would, and so would you. But we've never been faced with anything in the ballpark (ain't even the same fucking sport) as they did on that morning, and because they rose to the challenge, they deserve all the tribute they get.

Okay, the above was told with as few spoilers as possible. The white space following includes observations that contain what I consider spoilers, so highlight the text and read on at your own peril or go see the movie and then come back. I'll pick up again briefly on the other side.

Update — Goddammit, Blogger. Why can't I change the color of my own text? Anyway, I'm temporarily keeping the spoilers here. And so, back to the original post:

With all that said, I don't really have a conclusion worked out. I'll just reiterate how grateful I am that this is a great film rather than just a good one, let alone a terrible one. I remember wondering sometime during that infamous day whether there would be a 9/11 movie, and even then I'm pretty sure I knew there would be one. Thankfully, this was it.

P.S. — I am aware of the made-for-TV version called Flight 93. Well, I have no interest in seeing it. I don't know if I'll ever watch United 93 again, either.

P.P.S. — So what of Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center"? We'll see. His track record on political films isn't good. JFK was a motion picture tour-de-force, but took enough liberties as to be credibly charged with recklessness. Nixon was an astounding film as well, and even though its impressionistic version of RMN's presidency was controversial at points (again with the JFK assassination) it didn't suffer much from Stone's conspiratorial bent. That said, he's also been stuck in a commercial and artistic slump for a few films. Perhaps he'll play this one straight. And from what I've heard so far — NYC firefighters are the heroes, for example — I think there's a good possibility he will. But we'll see.

Update — Boy, I hope nobody notices the mistake I made. It's fixed now. The only person I know for sure who read the version with the wrong name was Lance, so he's got a head start on that point. But in all seriousness, I am a moron.

Updated, several days later — Not a moron, just a victim of coincidence and mistaken snap judgment. It turns out that Jeremy Glick, whom I had initially listed as a leader of the United 93 passenger revolt, shares his name, i.e. Jeremy Glick, with the idiot son of a World Trade Center victim who had the misfortune to be memorably shoulted down by Bill O'Reilly.

---

posted by WWB at 12:00 AM |