‘United 93’ powerful but pointless
Movies don’t exist in a vacuum. Much has been made that United 93’s chief asset is how isolated its events are. Roger Ebert raves: “It is not too soon for United 93, because it is not a film that knows any time has passed since 9/11. … We know what they know when they know it, and nothing else. Nothing about Al Qaeda, nothing about Osama bin Laden, nothing about Afghanistan or Iraq, only events as they unfold.” Maybe the movie doesn’t know anything about those things, but we do.
Director Paul Greengrass shoots in a documentary-style with unknown actors to achieve realism. There is nothing in the movie to remind you that it’s a movie. United 93 substitutes fiction for fact, and I’m inclined to think that does at least some disservice to the memory of the real-life victims it portrays.
Greengrass’ jerky hand-held camera nearly caused me and one of my movie-going companions motion sickness. It ties knots in your stomach and fills you with guilt. It’s physically painful to watch. It’s an 111-minute sacrament — a sort-of forced attrition for the guilt we all feel, and the sacrifice we still can’t begin to honor. Manohla Dargis aptly calls it, in a poetic and heartbreakingly eloquent review, “the feel-bad American movie of the year.” Here’s my pull-quote: “If you liked the Passion of the Christ, you’ll love United 93!”
I admit its effectiveness, but I wonder: What’s the point? To pay honor to the victims by replacing the memory of their faces with actors’? To rewrite history and perpetuate long-standing myths about events whose truth can never really be known? To pay tribute to the triumph of murderers by showcasing the horrifying and destructive images they produced at the expense of thousands of innocent lives?
Is this how we honor our dead?
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Movies
Comments
By Sir Critic
May 4, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
To answer your question quite directly, Zack, yes. This is how we honor these dead. One of the reasons the film is so important is that it gives us a visual record associated with that flight, which we really didn’t have. With the other flights we had all that footage of the towers and the Pentagon. All United 93 had was a scorched countryside. The “point”of Greengrass’ film is to put us on that plane with those passengers and have us witness what they did. Maybe a few viewers might find courage they haven’t known before. You have a point that we can’t fully honor what they did with this movie, but I think it’s an excellent step.By Jessie
May 5, 2006 4:36 PM | Link to this
Why do we feel the need to honor the heroes of Flight 93 in such a voyeuristic manner? Let’s honor them by having moments of silence and helping their families through lifelong struggles in dealing with the loss of their loved ones. I will not be seeing this movie for the sole reason that I don’t believe in giving money to the filmmakers and actors when it could be better used to help victims families pay for their childrens future educations or health care, etc.