United 93 - Are we ready for this?

[Sabin]

The music? Bullshit. No need. At the very end, I can understand. Throughout? #### you. Don't treat me like a child, like I need music to be enrapt. That's one.

Like Sonic, the first half for me was incredibly intense filmmaking. I have some qualms about this movie that I will go into later, but before the hijacking when the command center (?) is forced to watch 9/11 occur, (without trivializing what happens too much) that's the kind of egghead, problem-solving filmmaking that I find fascinating. No need to dumb it down or give me any major characters, just trust me to assess the situation as I go along from broken jargon and I'm good. I'm great. Greengrass is a master of that.

The second half was emotionally draining, and I'm a bit conflicted about a lot of it...

1) Am I supposed to stand up and clap for the passengers who overthrow the hijackers when I know they're going down moments later? Because I find that a little distasteful. Were I in a theater, I just KNOW somebody would do that and I know my gut reaction would be for them to sit down and shut up. But is that appropriate to say that? Once again, I find myself thinking of 'The Passion of the Christ' - is this a movie people go into to experience the suffering, to be reminded yet again?

2) After watching 10 different phone calls home from the passengers, how much can I be expected to cry or feel? Verisimilitude is one thing (and for a film like 'United 93', to be respected), but after no. 10, I find myself saying "ALL RIGHT, ALREADY!", which makes me feel like a bad person. And I'm not! I chose to spend my evening watching this movie in the first place.

3) I have no idea if this film is so meticulously crafted "for" the fallen on United 93 that day, that the film is emotionally distant or so emotionally charged that it overwhelms itself. No idea.


Really, how DOES one rate this movie? It's intentions are not dubious; we are dealing with a hugely self-important film that for the most part gets its #### together where it counts. It's neither insufferable, nor really heavy-handed in any way that's inexcusable. So if I can't fault the movie in many ways, does that make it great? I find myself thinking of 'War of the Worlds', where I initially dismissed the thing, thinking "Who could possibly enjoy this movie?" and later came back to it, thinking "Oh, that's right. Me. I get to see the end of the world (almost) and not be emotionally involved in any one character! Huzzah!" But 'War of the Worlds' was a perverse film with awesome effects and a cop-out ending. 'United 93' has neither. And writing this paragraph, I realize how utterly repellant it is to compare this film to a Spielberg movie.

I think 'United 93' is a ***1/2 piece of work. Too finely crafted and admirable to ignore or dismiss, but Lord knows, a masterpiece only in the sense that calling anything a masterpiece is a boring way of saying "Couldn't be better". 'United 93' probably couldn't be, but I prefer my masterpieces to speak to me on deeper emotional palettes. So 'United 93' ultimately becomes the movie of the year that I cannot fault and was totally engrossed in and would never want to see again in my life...which ultimately means it's a tad better than I'd care to admit.

[Sonic Youth]

Thanks, Nik.

[Nik]

I was WONDERING about your living situation and what exactly happened with the move. I just didn't feel it was my place to pry, I figured you'd announce it when you felt ready. I'm sorry you wound up in a place you're not thrilled with but if it means anything, you always have us to connect to the outer world. Best wishes!

[Sonic Youth]

I just want to contact this poster privately, before announcing "I lived near you for eight months, and never tried to look you up!"

Okay, I'm a nut. I admit it.

No, I'm not in India or Pakistan.

[Reza]

Anyone remember that announcement I made a year ago about how we were supposed to settle down in the Netherlands? Hah! That nightmare of vindicitive collusion is for volume one of my 2005-06 memoirs. In the past two years, we've lived in four different cities and two different countries. Where we've been and where we are now I'll divulge a little later* but if I listed the four places we lived in, you could choose the least interesting, most depressing of the four... that's where we are living now, and probably permanently. No movies of interest ever come here, hardly anything of interest is here, and I'd have to travel three-and-a-half hours to get to some art house theater. But we're making money. That's what's important, right?

*For eight months, I lived very close to one of the board's members. I could have PM'd this person and arranged for a lunchtime get-together, but I was not in a good place in my life and I didn't feel ready for it. Point being, I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings if they learn I lived close to them and opted not to contact them. Nothing personal, not at all. I do have to go back there to pick up the rest of our stuff, so if scheduling permits, mystery person, you'll be contacted.

Why all the mystery about where you have been living? Why do I get the feeling that you are somewhere in Bangladesh, India or Pakistan? If you are here in Pakistan do get in touch. Maybe we could help to improve your mood. Surely things are not THAT bad?

[Sonic Youth]

"I saw United 93, finally" was how I was originally going to start this thread, but that's not entirely accurate. "I saw a movie, finally" is more like it. What a fallow time this is, both on these boards and with my movie-going. But movie boards in general are always slow this time of year. My life... that's a whole other two volume novel.

United 93. I don't know. Was it me? Was it the movie? I'm reluctant to slap the "masterpiece" label on this. And I don't know why, so I'm thinking it was me. The first half was excellent. The cross-cutting between the two control towers reminded me of the beginning of Munich, as we watched events unfold only through television screens and radar monitors, and followed the progression only through everyone's reactions and interactions, all the while cutting back to the fated plane in question as the passengers sit waiting for clearence to take off, oblivious to anything going on outside the confines of the airplane. Once it takes off, the tension before the terrorists finally get their plan in action (much too late, the movie suggests) is one of the most stomach-churning experiences I've ever experienced at the movies. But once the takeover went into effect, I was blocked. I don't know why, but I wasn't immersed in the second half of the film, the most crucial part. I don't think it has to do with my emotional response to 9/11 from five years ago. One part may be, as horrible as this sounds, airplane hijackings and passenger rebellion just isn't all that uncommon in movies. And regardless of the true events it's based on, and regardless of our proximity to them, and regardless of Greengrass' simulation-of-realism aesthetic... I felt like I was watching another movie about a hijacking. And I'm not so sure such a rigorous aesthetic works in a small setting like inside a passenger jet. For all the naturalism, and shaky camera and lightning cuts and overall journalistic eye-witness feel - which, unlike with Bourne Supremacy, I didn't mind in and of itself this time around - I couldn't get much of a sense of the spatial area. Wouldn't it have benefitted to have a simple overhead camera observing some of the action so we could get an idea of the tightness of the space, instead of having every second in close-up?

And what often ruins a movie for me? The music. I had no idea there was background music to heighten everything, and I was taken aback. Was that really necessary?? When you're aiming for simulated realism, that's cheating. The movie abruptly ending as the plane hits the ground... well, that's not quite accurate, is it? As the plane descends, the music reaches a crescendo. The image goes black, but the music stays put through the final title cards. So, it doesn't really cut to nothingness. And I bet that was a last minute post-production decision.

It probably didn't help that the auditorium I watched this was the size of the movie theater's broom closet.

I have no idea how to rate this film in the 'top ten list', and I'm thinking about giving up that practice. I've seen three movies since January that have left me stymied - this, The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, and Kings and Queen (which I saw three times in a row, find it both brilliant and repellant, and can't reconcile the two.)

But I think I know why people stayed away from this movie. Not because it was about 9/11 per se. But because it was a 9/11 film that denied any of the comforts conventional filmmaking provides. If mainstream audiences are going to step into these waters, they're not going to start at the deep end.

--------------------------------------------

Anyone remember that announcement I made a year ago about how we were supposed to settle down in the Netherlands? Hah! That nightmare of vindicitive collusion is for volume one of my 2005-06 memoirs. In the past two years, we've lived in four different cities and two different countries. Where we've been and where we are now I'll divulge a little later* but if I listed the four places we lived in, you could choose the least interesting, most depressing of the four... that's where we are living now, and probably permanently. No movies of interest ever come here, hardly anything of interest is here, and I'd have to travel three-and-a-half hours to get to some art house theater. But we're making money. That's what's important, right?

*For eight months, I lived very close to one of the board's members. I could have PM'd this person and arranged for a lunchtime get-together, but I was not in a good place in my life and I didn't feel ready for it. Point being, I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings if they learn I lived close to them and opted not to contact them. Nothing personal, not at all. I do have to go back there to pick up the rest of our stuff, so if scheduling permits, mystery person, you'll be contacted.

[Big Magilla]

This has absolutely nothing to do with this film, but I found it an eerie coincidence in looking up original cast release dates on Amazon.com to find that the off-Broadway cast recording of Joanthan Larson's tick, tick...BOOM! was released on 9/11/2001.

[The Original BJ]

Oh, I noticed the drop too. And it actually made me a little sad. I completely understand why people wouldn't want to see the film, and respect everyone who has reservations about experiencing it. Yet at the same time I am disappointed that a serious mainstream film with rapturous reviews, however over-enthusiastic they may be, can't catch on with audiences. Of course I realize that this isn't simply ANY serious mainstream film, but how many of those do we even get anymore? I just hope the lack of box office success for this film doesn't give the studio execs more reason to veto more serious, adult-oriented projects.

[Mister Tee]

In case anyone didn't notice, this movie took a fair-sized tumble at the box-office last weekend, and, with a final gross no higher than 30-35 million, is likely out of best picture contention. Best director remains a solid hope, though year-end critics' awards might need to offer some support.

Interestingly, according to Variety, this big drop happened despite very strong audience ratings for the film. This suggests the answer to the much-bruited Do people want to see it? question was, ultimately, no -- though it took a week to truly sink in. There was apparently a solid wall beyond which the film couldn't move, despite all the encouragement in the world.

In fact, that attitude seems like it might prevail here, as well. I'm vaguely surprised a film getting this much attention in the press, on a serious topic, has only garnered reaction from three of us.

[Mister Tee]

I'd say directing and editing are the film's surest shots (the latter a potential winner). I know what you're saying about sound, BJ -- normally the antediluvian members of the sound branch nominate on a "boy, that was loud" basis -- but the sound design is so intricate, I could see a nomination (maybe sound effects, too).

Screenplay seems illogical, because there's no sparkling dialogue. But it's the kind of honorable film the writers might want to support regardless.

Picture will depend on how the gross holds up, and how well it sits in people's memories. I'd say more likely than not, but who knows how good a year it'll be.

[The Original BJ]

WELL . . . I was trying so very hard to work on my resolution to discuss films in terms other than Oscar, especially one with such a weighty subject matter that doesn't deserve to be distilled into the banality of the Hollywood awards machine, but if you insist . . .

Although United 93 is a one-of-a-kind film, the viewing experience it reminded me most of was The Pianist, another heavy film that I admired for its emotional power yet felt rather distanced from. Granted, Oscar clearly felt a lot less distanced than I did with that picture, so perhaps voters will warm to United 93 more as well. I think a Best Picture nod is likely. (Let's face it, people always take a "wait and see"/"there are lots of more films to open by year's end" approach to these early films, but when early-openers with mixed responses like Gladiator, Moulin Rouge, Seabiscuit, and Crash can regularly make it into Best Picture, I see no reason why a far more universally acclaimed mainstream film won't.) However, I wouldn't be surprised, as Mister Tee posited earlier, if the film made it into the Director/not Picture slot, as I think it will certainly be a film more people admire than love.

One question that did cross my mind, (albeit long AFTER the film had ended), is that for a possible Best Picture nominee, the likely nomination total seems strangely low. Directing and editing are really the only other categories I could see it in. Acting nods are out of the question. The screenplay could make it, although it feels more like a fly-on-the-wall observation than a constructed script. And the sound and cinematography greatly add to the experience of the film, but they don't seem loud enough/beautiful enough to make it in with these voters. As Mister Tee said, much of this film's effect relies on limitation, and not many elements of the film scream out for nominations. (Not a criticism of the film, just a damper on its awards chances.) I personally feel like 5 nominations would be high for this film, although, as we saw only recently with Lost in Translation, films have made it into Best Picture with even less.

[Reza]

So do you guys think it will get any Oscar nods?

[Mister Tee]

For some reason, I've been unable to access this thread for the past several days, or I would have responded sooner.

BJ, though my response to the film may be a bit stronger than yours, I know what you're saying here. In a way, it's like what we both felt about Good Night and Good Luck last year, though a more extreme case. Both films achieved their art through limitation and compression; what mastery was shown was mastery of a small domain. Thus, even whle acknowledging the achievement of each, I must confess a steady diet of such films would be quite unsatsifying. Anyone who knows my general taste -- to say nothing of my own creative work -- knows my preference is for work on a far grander scale. Alas, I haven't seen anything in recent years that sought such heights and fully succeeded (I've seen a number that got partway there), so I'm left feeling most strongly about these films that, at least, reached their full potential, albeit within their limited concepts.

An aspect of this in Flight 93 that neither of us mentioned is the acting -- or, better, the seeming non-acting from amateurs and professionals alike. I had known going in there were some people playing themselves, but was astonished, when I read the credits, at just how many there were, and how indistinguishable they were from the rest of the cast (including one actor I know but didn't quite recognize). This is again a tribute to Greengrass' method, but it has its downside, assuming you, like me, think the art of acting can make a vital contribution to film. There are critics who prefer acting like we see in this film above all other; they consider bravura performances (the sort that win awards) showy and phony. I can't agree there; I like acting, as I like directing and writing, that reaches for something -- tries to find more than replication of mundane reality. It doesn't belong here, but film would be a sorrier medium without it.

All of which is why, though I admire Greengrass' film immensely, I call it one-of-a-kind. I wouldn't want to see many more like it.

[The Original BJ]

I liked the film, too. I found it gripping with nary an air of exploitation for cheap thrills, and quite powerful without ever resorting to hokey sentimental devices. I think one of the film's great strengths is the way it accurately captures the immediate reactions to that day's events (and of course I mean the reactions of those safely on the ground, we'll never know what those onboard the planes felt.) The scene Mister Tee describes, of the air traffic controllers watching the World Trade Center, is a great example of the film's appropriate emphasis on stunned confusion over emotional hysterics. The film's abrupt ending comes as a somewhat welcome surprise for a mainstream studio production, and I think is something of a minor masterstroke.

And yet while the film is certainly powerful, I did find it a little distant. I wonder if a stronger emphasis on characters as individuals might have resulted in an even more compelling film. I'm not saying Greengrass necessarily chose the wrong approach, but I kept wondering if I might have been even more invested in the tragedy and heroism of the United 93 passengers if I felt they were more than simply ciphers.

Furthermore, I must admit that I think the film is ultimately a little hollow. It's a strong recreation, and unlike the Slant Magazine critic, I have no problem with a recreation this tastefully done. In fact, I'm glad the horror of 9/11 and the true heroism of these Americans will be preserved for future generations. But I think a better film would have had a couple more ideas in its head. I think it's a shame that the compilation film 11'9"01 isn't really available in the US, because, despite its uneven nature, each of the eleven segments in that film provides a more complex and compelling angle on 9/11 than the relatively simple and unprovocative United 93.

Ultimately, then, while I enjoyed the film, I do think the near-unanimous four star raves from the mainstream establishment seem slightly overboard. The film deserves praise for sidestepping MANY pratfalls that might have easily affected this type of film in lesser hands. And I certainly understand the critics' joy at finally seeing the first major studio film of 2006 that isn't completely disposable junk. Yet despite its weighty subject matter, United 93 seems rather lean in terms of content, and, in my opinion, lacks an interesting point of view that might have elevated this film to something more profound. As Mister Tee said, this film is certainly nothing less than a horrifying recreation, but alas, it's also nothing more.

[Mister Tee]

Well, count me impressed.

This is a one-of-a-kind film. Most of us bring emotional associations to the subject that do some of the filmmaker's work for him (one wonders how an ignorant audience years hence might differ). On the other, we -- at least I -- make demands in return: if there were to be a moment in it smacking of Hollywoodization, or even stylization, we might reject the work in toto, so searing and personal is the memory. Greengrass' solution -- prefigured by his work on Bloody Sunday, though this film surpasses that -- is to work in a style I'd call artful artlessness. It's all in-the-moment, just-the-facts -- an approach that almost never seems to hype anything even a shade past reality, and lets the extraordinary events speak for themselves. Greengrass manages to both avoid the pitfalls, and to honor our memories fully. He's staged a commemoration -- one approved by the survivors -- that somehow never feels like sanitized, official history. That's some achievement.

Some, as a result, will complain the film lacks "drama" (Tom ONeil has already squealed just that)...which only reveals how debased our culture has become, that some people need goosing to respond to such material. I was with the film virtually from the get-go. The opening 15 minutes or so of utterly mundane activity illustrate Hitchcock's dictum, that if you tell audiences a bomb is set to go off, the most lackluster activity or conversation will seem packed with supense until it does. A simple activity like shutting the aircraft for departure takes on the air of sealing a tomb; a reasonable, measured response to a rerouted plane ("Maybe he's headed for a New York airport") feels like a fatal blunder.

For much of the first hour, I was absorbed in the material -- like I was reading a solidly researched magazine article -- but not feeling the emotion or dread I'd been expecting. That changed with the sudden, almost casual explosion at the World Trade Center. It's no big moment -- air traffic controllers look out the window, see smoke pouring out and wonder what's going on (much as many of us did that morning). Then, a few minutes later, the second plane hits. The reaction in the room seems scaled exactly right: not jingoistic furor; more like stunned disbelief, expressed best with a muttered "Jesus Christ". Everything about September 11th by then has come floating back.

Then, in its final 15 minutes, the film raises the emotional temperature just a bit further, divorcing us from all other locations/points-of-view (Boston, New York, military command), trapping us on the plane with the lucky/unlucky Flight 93 passengers -- where we stay till the foreordained climax. This is one of the most emotionally powerful action sequences I've ever watched; I found myself thinking the strangest things (hoping they killed a hijacker before the plane hit the ground; insanely wondering what could have happened if the retired pilot had got to the cockpit in time). The actions aboard United 93 are as close to a positive story as there out of September 11th, yet it, too, ends in death. That's some heavy feeling to carry out of a theatre. But it's the heaviness of genuine tragedy.

I assume there'll eventually be many films that reference that day, in one way or another; the youngest among you will likely live to see it treated casually, even facetiously (that's what time does to any horror). For those of us who lived through it, though, there's some craving to see it preserved in a way that captures its shock and horror, no more, no less. It's hard to imagine a film that can do a better job at it than this one.