Time Magazine has a lengthy article in this week’s issue about the movie United 93, which makes its debut on April 28, less than three weeks from now. It is the first theatrical movie about the events of 9/11 (well, not counting that little film Michael Moore made), specifically the story of the plane that crashed in a Pennsylvania field after courageous passengers stormed the cockpit and thwarted the terrorists’ planned attack on either the White House or the Capitol.
Needless to say, the movie is already causing strong reactions and striking raw nerves. The trailer — which can be seen here — was pulled from one theater in New York City after complaints. Although I don’t agree with those who say the movie is “too soon” (more on that in a moment), I can certainly sympathize with people who were upset after finding themselves unexpectedly face-to-face with a movie trailer about something so emotionally distressing. It’s one thing to choose to see the movie; it’s another thing to have it thrown in your face when you’re at the theater to see something else. On the other hand, I can’t blame the studio for promoting its movie, and the trailer is by no means tasteless, IMHO. (All the talk about “showing the plane hitting the towers” conjured up a vision in my mind of some nightmarish hi-fi special effect, when in reality, what the trailer shows is footage of air-traffic controllers watching the attack on CNN. Yes, that’s very disturbing. It’s also reality.)
There are numerous objections that some might voice to the film (and will, in comments on this post, I’m sure). Jim Geraghty addresses a couple of them:
For starters, there’s been a lot of attacks on Universal for making the film, charging that it’s “exploiting the victimsâ€? and “none of the profits are going to the families.â€? Actually, as Newsweek reported, writer-director Paul Greengrass proceeded with the film only after securing the approval of every victim’s family, and Universal plans to donate 10 percent of its opening weekend gross to the Flight 93 National Memorial Fund. We can argue whether that’s enough, but you can’t contend that Universal hasn’t made a serious effort to be sensitive to the victims’ families.
No, indeed you can’t. In fact, it’s more than just sensitivity and “approval” — overwhelmingly, the families wanted the film to be made. That should tell us something, I think. On the trailer page, there is also a QuickTime featurette, well worth watching, that goes into more detail about the families’ feelings on the project. Greengrass told Newsweek he was “surprised at the unanimity” among the families. Carole O’Hare, whose mother died on the flight, says criticism that Universal is exploting a tragedy is off-base. “This story has to be told to honor the passengers and crew for what they did,” she says.
Far from being a Hollywood-ized fantasy, United 93 sounds almost like a documentary, from Time’s description. It also sounds very good. Excerpt:
United 93 is a meticulous reconstruction of that morning. Greengrass worked closely with the victims’ families, who had already heard the black-box recordings, and the actors, who were improvising. Few events, either on the plane or in the air-traffic control centers, are underlined for effect. As [passenger Mark] Bingham’s mother Alice Hoagland notes, “What happened on board Flight 93 has so much drama and pace, it needs no embellishment.” …
Many people will certainly feel they’re not ready to see the film. And that’s fine. But it’s honorable and artful as a re-creation of history, and as a film experience it’s both unbearable and unmissable.
Unbearable and unmissable, but is it “too soon”? That, really, is the central objection — and there, the Loy household parts ways. A few days ago, after telling Becky about the complaints and launching into a speech (which I will attempt to recreate in blog fashion momentarily) about why it was right and proper to make this movie, I showed her the trailer, and her immediate reaction was: “It’s too soon. Yup, sorry, I’m on the other side. Too soon.”
The reaction from some corners of the blogosphere is: “Those who claim ‘we are not ready for this yet’ never will be.” Ed Driscoll sees the squeamishness as part of a broader, unhealthy aversion to the images of the atrocity that happened that day. He characterizes the reaction as: “Please Take The Scary Pictures Away, Daddy!” I think there is some truth to that — though I think some of the blogospheric buzz has been too harsh on the objectors. I have no problem whatsoever with people who feel that they personally are “not ready” to see this movie (which is why I can sympathize with captive audiences who are suddenly smacked in the face by the trailer, tasteful though it may be). But I do strongly disagree with the notion that, for the sake of the country as a whole, this movie should not have been made yet. Indeed, I agree with the family members who say it is essential that the film be made, sooner rather than later:
Hamilton Peterson, whose father and stepmother died on the flight and who serves as chairman of Families of Flight 93, sees two reasons America needs this film. “One, we’re proud of what these Americans did,” he says. “These are ordinary citizens who in a matter of minutes overcame what very evil and capable people had planned for years. The passengers took action without police or official support. They knew right from wrong, and they acted on it. Out of the dark of 9/11 came these heroes. And two, it is an example that future world citizens can learn from. If you remember Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, he tried to engage a very dangerous bomb and was thwarted by the bravery of the passengers and crew. Flight 93 served as a beacon for them. I don’t think you can reaffirm that message too often or too much.”
“I hope we’re not as a society inured to the messages of the movie,” says Hoagland. Those messages, of the hijackers’ terrible cunning and dedication, the passengers’ valor and sacrifice, are both timeless and timely. “I know it’s not too soon,” she says. “I hope it’s not too late.”
I’ve written before about the importance of using the right terminology to describe 9/11. Often, people talk about “the events of 9/11.” I even catch myself doing it now and then. Other times, people refer to the attacks as a “tragedy.” And while those 3,000 deaths obviously were tragic, that word “tragedy” is an utterly inadequate term for what happened on 9/11 — as, obviously, is the totally neutral word “event.” On 9/11, our nation was attacked. An act of evil, an act of war, an atrocity was committed against us, on our soil, on that day. It was no mere “tragedy.” (As someone said on the fourth anniversary, “I never heard my grampa talk about ‘the tragedy of Pearl Harbor.’”)
Although we all ritually recite the words “never forget” at least once a year in early autumn, and certainly there is no danger of anyone literally forgetting the worst day of most of our lifetimes, there is, I think, a danger of allowing 9/11 to slowly recede into the pantheon of “tragedies” that we swear to “remember” and ritually mourn on their anniversaries (Oklahoma City, Columbine, the tsunami, Katrina, etc.), but that don’t have much of a broader significance except that we feel really sad that a bunch of people died senseless deaths that day. The 9/11 atrocity must not fall down that memory hole, because 9/11 was not “senseless.” It was a declaration of war against America (or, more precisely, a massive escalation of an already-declared war), and it is essential that we periodically remind ourselves of that in a very explicit fashion, lest a sort of unwanted complacency begin to govern our thoughts about what occurred that day.
What does any of this have to do with United 93? Everything. Because when people argue that 4 1/2 years after the attack is “too soon” for a movie to be made, when they argue that we ought to keep shielding ourselves from all those scary images and memories, they are arguing that we should hold the reality of 9/11 at arm’s length in name of sensitivity and not “disturbing” anyone — and they are thus helping to facilitate the slow, creeping complacency that would turn 9/11 into just another “tragedy” to be mourned and remembered, something to be sad about, but not necessarily angry about. As the country song* says:
Took all the footage off my TV
Said it’s too disturbing for you and me
It’ll just breed anger
That’s what the experts say
If it were up to me, I’d show it every day
*Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of Have You Forgotten?’s inaccurate conflation of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It’s just a good line from the song.
I’m not as extreme as Daily Pundit, whose blog homepage features an image of the World Trade Center exploding. But I do thing there is value in seeing those images periodically, and it is a colossal mistake to overly shield ourselves from them.
If Michael Moore can make a movie using the 9/11 attacks as a backdrop for a left-wing indictment of the president, surely it is permissible to make a movie that sends a rather different message about the attacks: one that reminds us of our enemies’ cunning and relentless evil, and even more importantly, of the heroic deeds that we are capable of when we rise to the occasion. Declaring movies like United 93 off-limits would prevent that story from being told. And it must be told, again and again. Commenter Jason on Neptunus Lex makes this point rather bluntly: “Odd how we ‘have’ to see crap like Fahrenheit 9-11 or Syriana but God forbid not something that will help us remember.” Carol Platt Liebau is less combative but just as clear:
Some apparently feel that it’s “too soon” for movies about that terrible day — they’re not “ready” to see the images. For my part, I believe they can’t come soon enough. Nobody waited until 1950 to make movies about World War II; even as the war raged, moviegoers flocked to theaters to see it dramatized. …
[M]ovies about 9/11 are, perhaps, even more important than the ones about WWII were. Because then, people knew what they were fighting for (and against), even without movies to remind them. Today, it seems like too many of us have forgotten.
Are we “ready” for a film about 9/11? We’d better be. The more we understand the threats arrayed against us — and remember how it felt the day some of them came to fruition — the more likely we are to confront them before we face another 9/11 here at home.
To be clear, I think this ought not be a partisan/ideological issue, and I’m not trying to make it one. And I certainly don’t think that anyone who is personally “not ready” to see this movie, or for that matter, anyone who earnestly believes the movie should not have been made yet, is therefore some sort of bleeding-heart treasonous terrorist sympathizer. Far from it. This is a difficult issue and I respect the other side’s opinion. But I strongly believe that it is extremely unwise to indefinitely shelter ourselves from these images, these realities. After 4 1/2 years, “If not now, when?” is certainly a pertinent question. The war against terrorism is happening right now, and if we don’t have the courage as country to go through the gut check of reliving that terrible day and reminding ourselves what we’re fighting for, I’m not sure how we can hope to win.
Ultimately, provided that the movie is faithful, accurate, tasteful and non-exploitative — which early indications suggest it is — I can’t see a valid objection to it.
Geraghty writes:
I can understand if some people say, “it’s too soon. I just can’t watch it.� This trailer feels like a gut punch; your heart is in your throat from the first seconds. This movie has no stars, no flashy special effects. Just a real documentary feel as we see unknown actors reenacting the events of that day - in the airport, on the plane, in NORAD and air traffic control centers. It absolutely throws you back to that morning, and all of the fear, horror, pain and tears that went with that. I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find three minutes of film that could be more powerful.
If somebody doesn’t want to walk into a theater and watch it and relive all that, I can’t begrudge them. For me… I think I’ll have to see it. It’s almost like attending a memorial service. Periodically, I want to remember, to be reminded of everything of that day, to know what this war we’re fighting is all about, and what the world can be during its worst hours and what individuals can be at their finest hours. I wonder how many other folks feel like that.
I do. Becky won’t be going to see it, but I will.
|
Categories: Terrorism & Homeland Security, TV, Movies & Entertainment
|
April 10th, 2006 at 12:10:55 pm
I agree with you that it isn’t too soon. However, I can COMPLETELY understand the New York audience’s reaction to the trailer. It happened there, their skyline was forever changed . . . I can’t imagine the thought of having to see that, unprepared, when going to see another movie. You weren’t told that the worst day of not only your life, but your city’s life as well was about to be enacted on your movie screen.
However, I would hope that most would be able to steel themselves and go see the movie when they were prepared for it.
April 10th, 2006 at 12:38:05 pm
Captain America and Superman fought Nazis during WWII. Argentine filmmakers made La Historia Oficial in 1985, when the Dirty War ended in 1983. In an episode of The Dead Zone, Johnny uses remote viewing to hunt Bin Laden. Numb3rs makes references to Iraq and Afghanistan all the time. Rescue Me is largely about the fallout of 9/11. Over There tried to accurately portray war in Iraq (even if it did fail miserably, according to every single servicemember’s review I’ve read). We’ve got documentaries about the attack, inlcuding The Flight That Fought Back. And there’s a movie in production about Nic Cage as a cop on 9/11. Yes, it’s soon enough.
You don’t have to support any part of our foreign policy to cheer the men and women who valiantly defended themselves and, in the process, the rest of the country. This is the kind of heroism we should praise. No doubts. It’s the banality of good that counters the banality of evil.
PS Anybody know if there’s actually any proof for the conspiracy theory going around that the plane was actually shot down? I know the passengers definitely stormed the cockpit, but I suppose it’s possible both happened. If anybody’s actually willing to offer evidence.
April 10th, 2006 at 12:54:29 pm
Caral Platt Leblifeljal’s comment on people “flocking” to see WWII “movies” during the war is as inane as it is inaccurate. First and foremost, the vast majority of “movies” about the war shown in US theatres were news reports and in the absence of television, people either paid their dime or they were stuck listening to radio reports. The comment is so dumb and miseleading that I’m actually offended that you would include in an otherwise intelligent commentary. A better and legitimate commentary would remark upon the imagery continuously thrust upon the American public during Vietnam; certainly in that case, people had a view of the war distorted by the media, but a view nonetheless.
Ed Driscoll is an insensitive ass who should be flogged if he believes that not wanting the be exposed to a film like this constitutes an ostrich effect, a save me daddy effect. Perhaps Mr. Driscoll would like to explain how the dead fathers of hundreds of children, the majority of whom live in and around NYC, will rescue them from these images. But he’s right. Those people who don’t want to remember the panic of their peers when they learned that both of their parents could be dead while going to see Take the Lead–those people are just squeamish. Clearly, their ire at having a commercialized fictional account of 9/11 thrown at them randomly is ridiuculous and constitutes an unwillingness to face the “reality” of “what happened.” That is simply outrageous and incorrect and insensitive.
Now, if I give the idiotic Mr. Driscoll the benefit of the doubt and assume that he’s absolved those with direct connections to those who died on 9/11 from his crass and poorly developed commentary, I still find his commentary as legitimate as Dennis Rodman in a wedding dress. Why do I find Flight 93 disturbing? It’s not because of the events of 9/11, although those were obviously disturbing. Why don’t I want to see this film? It’s not because I want to hide from what happened on 9/11 or because I’m squeamish or because I don’t want to be reminded of how I felt or be forced to see those stark images.
My reasons for not wanting to see this film or even its trailer are far more basic than Driscoll’s analytical vomit would make them out to be. I spend my $7.50 at the movies first and foremost because I want to be entertained. Seeing movies is a leisure activity and just as I refused to pay $7.50 to watch Mel Gibson’s Jesus get mutilated for three hours, I refuse to buy into the notion that Flight 93 is somehow a “groundbreaking” or “significant” film with far reaching implications. It’s a movie. People will sit in a theatre, eat their popcorn and watch it because it’s something to do.
Brendan will probably be wetting himself when he reads that. He’ll be like, “So what then? Filmmakers should never document tragedies, should never make dramas because difficult stories shouldn’t be considered entertainment?”
No. That’s not what I’m saying. The inherent sadism in human nature that drives people to watch others suffer has been around since the beginning of time. Thousands would pack the Colliseum to watch a prisoner get mauled by a lion. And at its most bare, that’s all that this film is. It’s not some call to action or any other bullshit that people want to ascribe to it. It’s a story about a group of people who all die in the end. It’s making heroes out of people who died trying to save themselves from certain death and somehow, I don’t find that inspirational or entertaining.
There are difficult movies that tell tragic stories. Schindler’s List comes to mind. But I don’t think very many people would argue that Flight 93 is as significant a film as that was. Even a film like Monster at the very least tells a story that few would otherwise hear.
I have layers and layers of problems with the legitimacy of this film and few of them have to deal with the fact that it chronicles an event of 9/11.
I suppose I should include a disclaimer that my opinion is by no means meant to stop someone from making this film and others from seeing it. I just refuse that kind of garbage. Now Crossroads on the other hand…
April 10th, 2006 at 1:03:40 pm
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Brendan v. Becky! Stay tuned for fireworks! Can we draw Casey Zak and Joe Loy into this for full on family warfare? Story at 11.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:14:52 pm
I think it’s good as a training video. Flight 93 is the model of what makes Americans great. They knew they were as good as dead, and instead of hoping someone else would save them or stop the plane, they knowingly sacrificed thier lives to save whatever target strangers would have been hurt. Every American has a duty to bring a hijacked plane to the ground with every last breath in his body if this ever happens again. If terrorists ever fly another plane into a building or similar tactic, any autoposy better show that every passenger within reasonable means died before impact (scraping with tooth and nail to bring the plane down or take control), or we all ought to scream ‘coward’. Too much to ask ? I don’t think so. If they were smart, Flight 93 would likely (and ought to) be the reason Al Q. never wastes resources on a plane jack again; because notwithstanding our penchant for Starbucks and American Idol, Americans deep down can fight harder and braver than anyone.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:15:29 pm
I agree with Brendan that this film isn’t too soon at all, but that throwing the trailer in without notice might be too much. I went to see Lucky Number Slevin on Friday night, and I saw the trailer for Flight 93 during the previews. I didn’t have any idea the trailer was going to be shown of course, but since I don’t have any personal ties to the events of 9/11, it didn’t really bother me. I can, however, understand how it would upset anyone who did have personal connections to those events. It is of course designed to stir emotions (what trailer for a dramatic movie isn’t?), and seeing it without warning on a big screen in the dark with surround sound I’m sure was very traumatic for some people.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:19:58 pm
Don’t mean to take away from any of your points, Brendan, but this movie was already made and aired a couple months ago on A&E. The production value was probably considerably lower than its theatrical brother, but the content was the same. I don’t recall hearing any overwrought commentary over that one.
Regardless, Becky’s right.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:20:18 pm
not that I want to see F93 for the drama or entertainment. I doubt I’ll see it. Now I don’t think people went to see the Passion to satisfy the human sadist thing (but I’ll grant it exists), at least not me. It was more like doing Stations of the Cross. Catholics especially believe reflecting on Christ’s suffering has far-reaching spiritual benefits that has nothing to do with sadism. Off-topic dissertation ubruptly ends.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:40:30 pm
I seriously doubt they were looking to down the plane. I have to believe they were hoping to survive, and figured though they might still die, chances were better putting up a fight.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:47:26 pm
maybe, but people today know both possibilities. what will they do ? I expect an in-air clash of civilizations.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:09:27 pm
So far I haven’t seen any evidence whatsoever of Flight 93 being shot down, only pure speculation. All available evidence — the recordings from the cockpit and the flight attendants’ calls to the ground, and the testimony from every family member who was in phone contact with a loved one on the flight — support the conventional wisdom that Flight 93 went down as a result of the passengers’ efforts to subdue the hijackers.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:13:28 pm
Hee Hee, B. Minich Private Eye. :) But investigate This :) ~ alas, no, its Not a fambly FightFightFightFight! :> For B&B AGREE: if you don’t wanna see it ~ for Whatever reason(s) ~ DON’T GO SEE IT. / Which is so bloodyObviously sensible that except for the Trailer issue, I am Utterly at a loss to understand what all the Hoo-rah is about.
“The inherent sadism in human nature that drives people to watch others suffer has been around since the beginning of time.”
got That right, Becky. Spot on. / Also I claim you presciently Foreshadowed the Trailer Surprise problem whilst liveblogging the State of the Union (aka Onion :) Jan. 31:
WAW haw haw har har I Loved that one :).
April 10th, 2006 at 2:28:39 pm
Becky - your emotions are your emotions, and I, for one, will not try to tell you that they are wrong or that you are wrong to have them … you’re not going to see the movie - I get that …
Brendan - “Although we all ritually recite the words “never forgetâ€? at least once a year in early autumn,” - some of us grew up with “Lest we forget …” every time we saw a red poppy, year round, and it still has that effect … movies like Schindler’s List also bring out the “Lest we forget …” response … equivalently to what I said for Becky, for you it may well be ritual … for many of us, however, it is part of us, year round, 24-7, and small things bring it out … for me, for example, the sight of contrails are reassuring, a reminder that (in a small way) all is well …
April 10th, 2006 at 2:31:58 pm
Becky, your above-stated position on the movie would seem to suggest that you don’t actually believe the movie is “too soon,” but rather, that you believe it’s inherently not worth watching, ever. Aren’t those two rather different opinions?
Also: “It’s making heroes out of people who died trying to save themselves from certain death and somehow, I don’t find that inspirational or entertaining.” Nothing is certain. They tried to save themselves from likely death. They could have sat there and hoped that military planes would intercept the jet and force it to land. Granted, the more likely scenario would be military planes shooting it down, but they couldn’t absolutely rule out the possibility that they could be saved by some external force. Hell, the terrorists could have gotten cold feet. Anything is possible! The point is, it wasn’t “certain” death, it was “likely” death. Clearly, though, they made a calculation that they were more likely to die by doing nothing than by storming the cockpit — I’ll give you that. But does the fact that they were acting partly or even mostly out of self-interest mean that they aren’t heroes? It still takes a hell of a lot of courage to take on armed men when you don’t have any weapons. It still takes a hell of a lot of courage to fight back when others might be so paralyzed with fear that they wouldn’t even be able to do the rational calculation that allowed them to determine what their self-interest was. And the fact is, the net effect of their actions was very likely to save either the Capitol or the White House. I fail to see how that is not heroic.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:35:26 pm
Alasdair, it is more than ritual for me, too. (Though it is also ritual, when September 11 comes around each year.) My point, however, is that I fear it will slowly become more and more ritual for more and more people as the evil nature of the atrocity fades into the bland background noise of “tragedy.” There’s a lot of tragedy in this world, a lot of sadness, a lot of deaths to mourn. Indeed, mass casualties are not a necessity to make a death tragic, obviously. Untimely deaths are always tragic. The death of my friend Sarah is just as tragic — just as awful for her family and friends — as the death of any individual passenger on that airplane. But 9/11 was a singular event, not because it was so “tragic” but because it was a gross atrocity and an act of war. It’s important that we keep that in mind every single time we talk about it, because that is its very essence.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:56:19 pm
I saw the end of the Flight 93 movie on A&E. Rushing the cockpit of a 747 may be similar in some respects to the great English victory at Agincourt: rushing forward in a narrow corridor is highly traumatic for the (French, at Agincourt) people in the front.
So - assuming you take the view that the passengers are not heroes, just people taking the better chance with their fate…do you also believe that the people who were pushing the cart, in the front row, weren’t heroes? I don’t know who specifically was in front, not sure if the cockpit voice recorder tells us either.
Maybe those folks in the front just had a rush of emotion and terror and didn’t realize the terrible fate that the front line faces in a columnar advance.
Could be. All things equal, it would be better to be the last guy than the first when rushing the cockpit, especially if the passengers thought the hijackers had automatic weapons.
At the very least, the Flight 93 passengers faced and overcame the commoner’s dilemma, somebody was willing to confront almost certain death by going in first, even assuming the takeover had worked.
Whoever that person was in front, undoubtedly was a hero, whatever other motivations you attribute to the other passengers. No question about it.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:16:50 pm
I’m not saying they weren’t heroes. I’m just not sure why our definition of hero includes “died on purpose.”
April 10th, 2006 at 3:26:28 pm
How about this definition:
“accepted the certainty of their own doomed fate in order to provide a hope that others might live”.
That’s pretty much heroic in anyone’s book, and it seems to describe, quite well, the ones who went to the cockpit first.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:31:56 pm
Sean - often, the definition of “heroic” is attached to “sacrificed his own life” … (equivalently, “heroinic” would have an attached “sacrificed her own life”, except that it’s dysphonic and makes people think of druggies - oh well) … anyway, it’s not just “died on purpose” …
As opposed, of course, to the term “suicide blond” which pertains to someone “dyed by his/her own hand” …
April 10th, 2006 at 3:36:55 pm
This is the last and worst thing I ever wanted to know about 9/11 (Ironically I learn it only after this discussion started) - apparently a passenger(s) on a WTC airplane knew the plane was to be used to fly into a building:
“A few minutes earlier, Hanson [the father of a victim] said, Peter had told him he thought the hijackers were going to crash the plane into a building. “Don’t worry. Dad, if it happens it will be quick,” he quoted his son as saying.”
WHAT? ? ? ! If it happens, it will be quick because you will have rushed your captors and either thrown a facefull of elbow into them or got your throat cut. Why is this guy still seating with his seatbelt fastened and his tray in it’s upright position ? All these years I thought 93 was the only place where the heroes acted because no one else could have foresaw the building thing. Now from the words of a WTC plane passengers. I still hold out hope. If this guy knew, maybe some others knew (or suspected) and surely they acted. So maybe this is a good news story to find. Now I can imagine as part of my memory of those planes hitting that they were not full of people passively waiting.
the quoted article is currently on CNN.com.
Did anyone else know about this? that the passengers on the tower planes had communicated with family AND knew about their true plight ?!
April 10th, 2006 at 3:49:59 pm
1st and foremost I do not believe it is too soon but the trailer could have been done differently, maybe have the movie theater staff warn people before the enter that that particular trailor would be shown.
2nd, I do not see why another donation needs to be made to people that have already received way more than there loved ones would have ever earned in there working life.
10% is generous and appropriate as a movie that did not have the real names would be stupid and only half interesting.
for those that think watching the planes hit the towers in a movie well sorry to say but it actually happened! this is not the moon landing or aliens in roswell where facts are sketchy or there is only partial info available. as I have said in this blog before it is 2006 and I can still hear the roars of Flight 175’s jet engines in my head and I dont think I will ever let go of the sound of a human jumping to there death.
Still in all if I do not want to see the movie I can decide not to pay 10.00 to go and see it and so do all of you reading this, so many of which were not even in the impact zones, can decide that for yourself also. I dont mean to sound like I am saying, “this is a NY, Wash or PA thing and you would never understand” but the reality is that you will never truly understand what people who were there went thru so the sympathetic calls and emotional tears only mean so much. Everyday I arrive in Manhattan to cross over into Jersey City to where my companies new building is and I have to go past the WTC site…the thoughts of the friends and mementos that I will never get back come flooding right back.
I have in my possession an email from A person to B person talking about all the things that they had done the previous weekend and how there were even bigger plans for the coming weekend. well, that weekend never happened as that email was from a person whose company was on the 109th floor! I looked at that email for days and months just hoping that person was a smoker and was not in the building when it happened but then I found there name on a list of the missing persons and knew then that they had not made it out.
So, IMOH it is not IF this movie should be made but what have we all learned from that day that will carry us into the future.
Alex
April 10th, 2006 at 3:51:15 pm
Becky, you write:
“First and foremost, the vast majority of “moviesâ€? about the war shown in US theatres were news reports and in the absence of television, people either paid their dime or they were stuck listening to radio reports. The comment is so dumb and miseleading that I’m actually offended that you would include in an otherwise intelligent commentary.”
Perhaps your comment is dumb and misleading. Here are some WWII movies released during WWII that come to mind:
Casablanca
Bataan
Fighting Sullivans
Action in the North Atlantic
Battle of Midway
Destination Tokyo
Gudadalcanal Diary
There are tons of others. These aren’ obscure films–these are Cary Grant, Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne and Anthony Quinn pictures. And they’re not pure “pulp” movies–Bataan was a movie about the brutal and grim fall of Bataan–made and released while American GI’s were still undergoing their harsh treatment at the hands of their Japanese captors.
Please, don’t use the “dumb” argument unless you know what you’re talking about.
Oh, and as for your comparison of Schindler’s List to Flight 93–it’s a little early to draw comparisons before you’ve seen the movie.
Judging from Greengrass’treatment of “Bloody Sunday,” Flight 93 will likely be a very respectful, moving, and powerful movie. Those who have seen it confirm the film’s integrity.
It might be too soon for some, but others of us are ready and want to see this film. Apparently, the families of those who died (they’re not victims if they fought back–victims of circumstance, yes–but they were more than victims if they went down defending their country) on flight 93 fall into the later category.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:00:35 pm
4-7: take it easy. That phone conversation comes from the first plane to hit a target. The FIRST plane. That kid was talking to his dad and said that he THOUGHT that MAYBE the plane was going to crash into Chicago. He didn’t KNOW. Prior to 9/11, no hijacking had ever gone down in such a way that the planes were used as missiles. Cut the kid some slack–I’m sure that if he KNEW the plane was going to crash (like those on Flight 93), he would have been more likely to have done something to keep the plane from hitting its target.
But if you’re on a hijacked plane without knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, the last thing you do is try and cause trouble that could bring the plane down
April 10th, 2006 at 4:09:11 pm
Further to thebeef’s point, if 4-7 is referring to the kid I think, he also reported to his dad that the 175 flight had been flying exceptionally erratically, with people vomiting all over the place and other gross outcomes.
Easy to second guess the passengers, but if you have ever been on a terribly turbulent plane flight, you know that the sickness can make it difficult to move. 175 sounds like it would have taken the cake for turbulence (prior to impact, of course).
April 10th, 2006 at 4:10:17 pm
I am leaving room for paralytic fear I think, earlier post, but he wasn’t a kid either, a middle-aged man with a family. As such, if he had the sharp wit to see the possibility that this was more than a traditional hijack and bomb or hijack-land-and-demand, then I think the moral duty to take action starts increasing significantly.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:13:31 pm
again these are all extenuating circumstances, but I don’t see why 93 was any different, in re turbulence, fear. At the end of the day I’m not faulting these work-a-day people thrust into a new situation. Still, I hope for more.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:46:54 pm
No 4-7, the father at home was a middle aged man. The son on the plane was college-aged. (I forget the exact age, but certainly between 19-22 as I recall).
Secondly, the kid had no idea where he was. He specifically said he thought the plane was heading for CHICAGO. He had no idea other planes had been hijacked. Also, he wasn’t on the plane very long–the plane was hijacked immediately after take off and was only in the air for a relatively short period before making impact.
Those on Flight 93, to the contrary, were fully aware that multiple planes had been hijacked and that the hijacked planes were crashed into the WTC. Furthermore, they were on the plane far longer than those of the other three hijacked planes. Flight 93 wasn’t hijacked until it reached Ohio–something like 45 minutes into its flight. Thus, the passengers on Flight 93 had much more time to learn about what was happening–as opposed to those on the other planes.
But what’s most important to realize is that the kid you’re referring to (or, if you prefer, YOUNG MAN) was simply GUESSING as to what happened. Those on 93 KNEW what was happening
April 10th, 2006 at 4:52:19 pm
everything you’ve said is true and I don’t argue with your point. These are the technical details of the report made by Peter Hanson. from the CNN article:
Lee Hanson, 73, described how he watched on television as son Peter, 32, daughter-in-law Sue Kim, 35, and granddaughter Christine perished . . .
“I think they’re going to try to crash this plane into a building,” the son told his father. ” ‘Don’t worry, Dad. If it happens, it will be quick,’ ” Hanson quoted his son as saying.
[excerpted part did contain reference to turbulence and sickness].
April 10th, 2006 at 5:41:51 pm
TheBeef, actually, you just proved my point again. While movies about wars did indeed come out during WWII, they did not constitute the vast majority of footage shown on the big screen about the war during the war, which was my point. ;)
Your comment only further illustrates my brilliance and I must thank you for that and expose you to even more of my charming intellect.
You see, the WWII–9/11 moviegoing analogy is so ridiculously inept as to be misleading and useless, as I said before. If you were working in the war effort at home and you wanted to know what was going on, you went to the movies to see the news and the latest propaganda. The average American went to the movies once a week. That’s a far cry from now, when television, video games and the internet provide alternate sources of entertainment and information. People today do not go to the movies expecting to see the news or some fictional account of it. That’s why we have 24 hour news channels.
To make any comparison of the moviegoing habits of someone in 1942 and 2002 is a beautiful exercise in self-important mental masturbation, but it holds no water when making a serious point about comparative cultural reactions to imagery. Compare apples to apples, not apple to kumquats.
theBeef, please do not assume that I carelessly throw comments into cyberspace without further educating yourself as to the merits of my actual argument instead of heroically slaughtering a straw man.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:45:47 pm
Here’s one partisan’s take on “Flight 93″ (hat tip, Instapundit):
“I have a feeling this movie will quietly “separate the men from the boys,” as it were. It will make the moonbats more moonbatty, and it will strengthen the resolve of those inclined that way. It will draw a line in the sand. It will do medium boxoffice and medium DVD sales but become kind of a “cult classic” in that it will be a cultural identifier for the group of people who want to win this war and feel surrounded by those who are hostile or indifferent. So it will be a quiet steady propaganda/morale booster for our side.
That’s my prediction - we’ll see if it comes true.”
April 10th, 2006 at 5:58:43 pm
4-7: I believe the turbulence on the 4 planes was not at all comparable.
The passengers on 93 were able to gather and plot for several minutes at the back of the plane; the sickness described for 175 was probably extreme enough to make standing difficult, much less standing around, praying, and ultimately planning the type of attack the 93 passengers perpetrated.
As a contrast, apparently Flight 11 (the first plane to hit the North Tower) was flown effectively enough that most passengers still believed that the pilot was actually flying, according to a stewardess quoted in the 9/11 Commission Report.
What’s more - my impression from the fellow you are referring to is that he (and his fellow passengers) were made terribly despondent by the awful physical experience of taking that horrible ride.
Why am I making such a big deal of this? I think a lot of Americans are almost casual in their conviction that they would undoubtedly do the heroic if something similar ever happened again. No question in my mind that a group of American passengers would do the heroic thing, if the plane is flown like 11 or 93 was. It seems a bit harder to say if it were a hell flight like 175.
April 10th, 2006 at 6:05:35 pm
Becky, those people were not trying to save themselves from certain death–they were preventing the deaths of hundreds, perhaps thousands of strangers, and far more importantly, saving this country from being thrown into chaos by preventing our federal government from being decimated.
Your post shows your ignorance of the facts of this situation.
The passengers on Flight 93 were fully aware that their plane was to be used as a missile, they knew they were headed back to Washington, they all knew they were going to die.
These people are heroes, without dispute.
I suggest that if you want to be amused in your free time rather than to educate yourself, do so, but at least refain from commenting on things you know little to nothing about.
You might the film inspirational. People can make a difference if they decide to.
April 10th, 2006 at 6:37:26 pm
I can understand, “it’s too soon. I just can’t watch it.â€? Some people may just not be ready and may never be ready. But, “it’s too soon. I just can’t watch it and you can’t watch it either.â€? is not right to me. If the families don’t have a problem with it why should anyone?
April 10th, 2006 at 6:40:53 pm
Jazz, you’re right that we should never be casual about our own commitments to heroism to situations we’ve haven’t yet faced. I don’t mean to suggest I would have the courage to do all I’ve called for. My enthusiasm is a mix of rage and a desire for vengeance and correction for a thing that can’t be undone.
April 10th, 2006 at 6:50:14 pm
If this has any chance of making boatloads of dough, the money merchants running Hollywood will have no problem putting it out, too soon or not.
Personally, I think it is a great story. However, I will most likely rent the DVD because I don’t want to be blubbering in a theatre full of people. Considering I’ve teared up at the trailer, I think the rental is a safe bet.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:17:45 pm
It is not to soon, in fact for some it is to late.
9/11 was not a tragic event it was a savage act of war against civilians by cowardly
murders who had and have no regard for human life that is not Muslim.
The images and stories of 9/11 have been diminished to the point that many
have forgotten the scale and scope and have been able to intellectualize the attack
to the point of blaming the very victims of the attack.
I will go see the film and buy the dvd.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:58:12 pm
Becky,
History is clearly not your strong suit. While I agree with you that part of the moviegoing experience of the 1940s included newsreels and propaganda films (heck, “Casablanca” was a propaganda film), the feature length films that appeared during the war did have the war as a major theme. In my effort to back up TheBeef, I waded through the IMDB list of films distributed in 1942 (the first full year of US involvement in the war). By the time I gave up (the end of the titles starting with “C” — at least I admit it), I found 22 full-length, non-documentary, English language films distributed in the United States that included the war or war themes as part of the plot summary. Some of them were comedies, like the classic “Blondie for Victory,” others were more dramatic, like “Casablanca’ and “Busses Roar” (a story about a NAZI plot to blow up a bus), and others were genuine Rambo-style action-adventure pics, like “The Battle of Midway” and “Commandos Strike at Dawn.”
I’m sure if you check the list yourself you’ll find even more examples.
April 10th, 2006 at 8:30:55 pm
Becky, what are you talking about? “Flight 93″ is a MOVIE. Sure, the trailer shows actual footage of the second plane hitting the tower–a scene we’ve seen replayed often enough that it is fused into most of our memories. (which is a good thing). The rest of the movie, however, is a DRAMATIC DEPICTION. You know, with actors and scripts? Just like the dozens of WWII movies that were produced and released DURING the war. You know, those dozens of famous WWII movies that, according to you, Americans didn’t go see.
I don’t care that you think it’s too soon. That’s your opinion and others agree with you. Others, like me and the surviving families of the Flight 93 dead, think it IS Time. That’s our opinion–and because we hold that opinion, a movie has been made. But if you’re going to claim that people did not flock to see dramatic depictions of WWII during WWII–you’re plain, flat, wrong and I’m going to call you out on it
April 10th, 2006 at 8:37:18 pm
Anonymous @ 6:05 pm - your point *might* have some effect if it wasn’t from an anonymous commenter … as long as you hide, why waste your typing …
A&A @ 6:50 pm - STOP that ! All of a sudden, you’re acting like a rational person ! (grin) (Me, I was leaking significantly by the end of Schindler’s List … the rugrats still go wide-eyed with wonder that Daddy could even do that publicly …)
April 10th, 2006 at 10:52:27 pm
4-7 said, with reference to the experience on Flight 175:
My enthusiasm is a mix of rage and a desire for vengeance and correction for a thing that can’t be undone.
What an awesome post. Its posts like that which keep me coming back here.
Needless to say, I agree completely with that sentiment. Just reading the transcript from the guy telling his dad “This will all be over soon”, and reading into that quote his terror and exhaustion -
- should be enough to get this country to take up arms for 100 wars on terror, as many as it takes…
…A&A, Alasdair, you’re certainly right, Flight 93 is gonna be a bawlfest. Still, at least there is (sort of) a happy ending. If there is ever a Flight 175 film…I don’t know…THAT would be too much…
April 11th, 2006 at 12:06:11 am
[…] Update (4/10): A good blog post on the same topic. […]
April 11th, 2006 at 3:08:29 am
United 93 Update
Brendan Loy brings us up to speed with the latest on the upcoming film about Flight #93, including a link to its Time magazine feature story….
April 11th, 2006 at 6:30:27 am
“a beautiful exercise in self-important mental masturbation”
nice Becky!
April 11th, 2006 at 6:56:39 am
This is why I like to sit on the aisle seat these days. (That and the elbow room.) Easier to get up, and it helps when you know how to disarm a guy and slit his throat in the same move. But you can bet, no matter who else I was saving, I’d be doing my damndest to survive it, too. If that makes me unheroic, so be it.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:53:17 am
Becky, if you want to defend your original statement, you need to do more than assert that “movies about wars…did not constitute the vast majority of footage shown on the big screen about the war during [WWII].” You ALSO need to defend your statement that:
Caral Platt Leblifeljal’s comment on people “flocking� to see WWII “movies� during the war is as inane as it is inaccurate
In order to back up your assertion that such a statement is inane and inaccurate (as well as “dumb and misleading,” as you added later), you would need to demonstrate that people did NOT, in fact, “flock” to see the numerous WWII-era WWII movies which, while not a majority, did in fact exist, as several commenters on this thread have demonstrated. Otherwise, you are arguing against a straw man (or straw woman), since Leblifeljal never asserted that the vast majority of WWII-era movie-theater war footage consisted of feature films. YOU brought up that point, allegedly as evidence against Leblifeljal’s point… but you need to go further. Otherwise your insults of Ms. Leblifeljal are just that, insults with no evidence to back them up. Similarly, your assertion that thebeef is “heroically slaughtering a straw man” is just a meaningless insult. Or perhaps I should say an ironic insult, considering that you yourself are doing the very same thing — heroically slaughtering a straw man version of Leblifeljal’s point.
cowardly murders who had and have no regard for human life that is not Muslim
Actually Toni, plenty of Muslims were killed on 9/11 (Muslims worked in the World Trade Center, too), and even more Muslims have been killed by terrorists in other attacks. Overall, I’m fairly certain that Muslim terrorists have killed more Muslims than they have members of any other religion. Just look at Iraq, where almost all of the victims are their “fellow” Muslims. Of course, I put “fellow” in quotes, because the terrorists aren’t really Muslims at all, they are believers in a perverted version of that faith which is more like a death cult. Anyway, my point is, you can lop off the last four words of your phrase; they’re not necessary, and in fact, are inaccurate. These terrorist bastards are “cowardly murders who had and have no regard for human life,” period.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:43:10 pm
My take is pretty simple: If it’s not too soon to twist V for Vendetta into a proto-apologetic anarcho-terrorism propaganda film, it’s already past due for Flight 93 to be released.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:56:51 am
“People today do not go to the movies expecting to see the news or some fictional account of it.” Huh? From “Silkwood” to “Lorenzo’s Oil” to “Erin Brokovich” there clearly is an audience for dramatizations of headlines. Although I agree with you that they’re all trash, were made too soon, and were unartistic propaganda.
April 12th, 2006 at 10:55:47 pm
Bitter Becky,
I’m not sure if you’ll even see this since this thread has cooled off, but I can’t keep from commenting.
First, it’s obvious that money has been wasted on your education. Despite showing some verbal acuity skills, your mental menstruation short-circuits your logic. Apparently, whether it was private or public schools, your history teachers have failed you miserably. If you know ANYTHING about the history of our country, you would know of countless acts of courage and self-sacrifice by civilians and military alike. People who gave their lives for a greater good. We award military members medals for taking on overwhelming odds to protect their comrades.
That is what the passengers of United 93 did. Didn’t they KNOW that their jet was going to be used as a bomb? As a weapon? Against a national US landmark? Didn’t they GIVE THEIR LIVES to prevent that from happening?! These folks may have been trying to improve their chance of survival, but they certainly knew the risks. You and I benefited from their heroism.
It’s not about a tragedy. It’s about honest, real American heroes. If you can’t understand that, then you’re obviously ungrateful for their sacrifice. I would surmize then that all your blather is just a rationalization to feel better about Becky.
Look, I go to movies to be entertained as well. I don’t go to see depressing movies. But, to rationalize this movie in that context is beyond shallow. Your $7.50? Your $10? That’s a debating point?
Does it really mean that little to you to enjoy the privileges of being an American?
I’m retired from active duty now, though I still serve with the Department of Defense. So I’ve got about 31 years wrapped up in this business. I’m sure it’ll leave a lump in my throat, but I need to see it. America needs to see it. Even you need to see it.
BTW. Please refrain from commenting about coverage of the Viet Nam War. What we saw on the nightly news could hardly be described as coverage anymore than what you’re seeing today from Iraq.
April 16th, 2006 at 1:05:17 am
I honestly feel that I will never be interested in watching this movie. In addition it truly bothers me that the previews have been continually aired throughout the day. I, along with millions of others will never forget what occurred on September 11th. I do not need to have to be reminded of it by this movie or any others for that matter.
What bothers me the most is the fact that many people are making comparisons to war-related movies. We were not at war. This was an entirely different situation.
Don’t get me wrong, I have a deep respect for those who died that day, but rehashing it on the big screen isn’t going to help any of us. Believe me, all of the images from that horrific day have been permanently burned into my memory.
April 21st, 2006 at 5:15:15 am
20 years from now, it will be accepted as historical fact that 9/11 was perpetrated by our government. Just like the Germans, after the collapse of the Third Reich, came to realize that the Reichstag was burned by their own government, the scales will fall from Americans’ eyes too late to prevent a catastrophe. People want so badly to believe their gov’t wouldn’t do this that they’ll ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary, right up to the bitter end.
And this movie will be a footnote of patronizing propaganda designed to pull the heartstrings of the brutalized American people. By all rights we should be in the streets revolting against the Saudi/Bush government that did this to us. But the Ivy League boys wisely destroyed the public school system in this country, so most people (see: patriotic mumblings above) lack the basic literacy - or critical thinking skills, or maybe just the balls - to question the horseshit that’s been rammed down their throats by the government and the media since day one.
I can’t help you all with this. But I’ll tell you - I’ve tried. You’re on your own. America’s already reaping the whirlwind for letting these gangsters in Washington have their way with the country. I’m not sticking around to find out what happens at the end of this story.
Enjoy your nonsensical movie. Remember, it’s every bit as historically accurate as “The Passion of the Christ,” only this one’s designed to make you hate Arabs instead of Jews.
April 21st, 2006 at 4:18:07 pm
People who whine “It’s too soon” need to get over themselves. I don’t care whether they live in New York or Denver. A few thousand people died on 9/11. More people than that die in traffic accidents daily in the U.S. This country has been feeling sorry for itself for almost five years. We are justly ridiculed for our self pity. Hollywood can show all the 9/11 movies it wants. I probably won’t see them because I’m not a fan of melodrama. But others should be able to go watch, weep, and act like it’s a cathartic experience.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:15:35 am
That some Flight 93 passengers “fought like warrior poets” is encouraging for our future. For surely we the people are able (but are we willing?) to retake the bridge of the ship of state, and seize the helm from postmodernist hijackers. We propose our own version of storming the cockpit via a left-center-right coalition. See our online article at: www.tell-usa.org/flight93
December 27th, 2006 at 3:38:31 pm
great blog