Is it "too soon"?
I don’t think so.
FWIW, here’s my take.
And here’s David Beamer’s take (father of United 93 passenger Todd Beamer).
Also, some some discussion — and interview excerpts with the director — from Rush Limbaugh.
19 thoughts on “United 93”
Comments are closed.
I have two friends whose husbands worked at the WTC. Thankfully, both are o.k. One guy got out, and the other never made it in. He was 15 minutes late for work because of car trouble. While I’m glad the movie was made, I still don’t think that I’ll see it. But thanks for the review, Steve.
I have a strong suspicion that the whole “Is it too soon?” controversy was just a publicity stunt. Still, I am interested to see the movie, and probably will this weekend.
By the way, why are film/TV directors now doing the Limbaugh/talk radio circuit? First the creators of “24,” and now this. I thought Rush generally didn’t have guests on his show. What’s behind this change?
Considering the number of people who have personally expressed this point of view to me, this seems highly unlikely.
At the very least, if there is anything to it, it would seem to have been a stupid strategy that has substantially backfired, because lots of people do seem to feel that it is “too soon.”
However, I think that those who give the film a chance will wind up glad it was made and glad that they saw it.
A couple thoughts:
1. I’m glad there’s no agenda. Having remembered reports of a grievously evil habit on the part of one of the passengers who overtook the terrorists, I wondered if this film would glorify that habit.
2. I think “too soon” if often – though by no means always – shorthand for “this movie shouldn’t be released until there’s a new U.S. president that I don’t personally hate”.
After reading David Beamer’s words, I would say it is not too soon for the nation. For me personally, I don’t know that it will ever not be “too soon”. As a military wife I sent my fighter pilot husband to the first Gulf War and he was part of 35 combat missions including the first waves over Baghdad. I was preparing to leave my three children with family members since I was a military doctor and had to be ready to leave on a three hours notice if called. Fortunately, I was not called. My husband returned safely. I have attended my share of military funerals as brave soldiers have given the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Because of this, I cannot hear the National Anthem or visit a military memorial without tears of pride for the men and women who defend our nation and pain for the sacrifice this defense requires. Just the commercials for United 93 bring a lump to my throat. There are many people who need to see this to be reminded of America’s enemies and the war that we are engaged in. Personally, I don’t think I am one of them.
I don’t think I will personally watch it, the story is still fresh in my mind. However, for the sake of posterity (assuming it’s any good), it’s probably better that the movie’s being made now rather than 20-30 years from now when it could get the inevitable Pearl Harbor or Titanic treatment, complete with fictional love stories and themes irrelevant to those important at the time of the event.
The fact that a movie would be made is inevitable, so better sooner than later.
FWIW: Mike, Catholic Mom, Barbara, your reservations were very much those of my brother-in-law Dave, who was personally in the vicinity of Ground Zero on 9/11, who saw people falling from the towers. Dave was very reluctant to go to the screening with me, in fact he had made up his mind not to go, or to see any film on this subject for a long time.
However, he was persuaded to go, and having gone, he was unexpectedly grateful for having seen the film. “I didn’t think I was going to be able to take it,” he said afterwards, but that’s not how it was.
We both cried, sure (he brought the tissues). But it was an edifying experience, not a crushing one.
I really strongly recommend seeing the film, even to those who feel some reluctance to do so.
SDG,
I wasn’t saying that no one was of the opinion that the movie was being made too soon after the actual event, only that I have a hunch the controversy over this matter has largely been manufactured.
I don’t think it’s a stupid strategy, because now more people will want to see it to see what the fuss is about. Controversy sells.
It would be nice if you were right, Andy, at least in terms of the effect. However, the comments here reinforce my sense that this movie really is going to be a tough sell, that it faces an uphill battle to convince people it isn’t going to depress and demoralize them.
I can only report as one who was there on 9/11 that I’m grateful for this film. I actually want to go back and see it again with my wife Suzanne.
Thanks for your review of the film, Steven – as always, it’s very much appreciated. And thanks for the link to the piece by Mr Beamer.
Whatever folks decide, whether they see it now or later, it’s good we have this film & that Greengrass was at the helm to make it what it is. Even though it may not be a primary intention of the filmmakers, hopefully healing will come from it for many folks who see it.
Hey Andy,
You are right that Rush rarely does interviews. He only does them when its something that really interests him (he loves that show 24), or when its something that he feels is important enough. He has had on his show the Secretary of Defense, for example.
After seeing the film himself, and talking with the filmmaker, he wanted to stump for this movie a bit. He had gotten lots of questions about it, and wanted to let his audience know that this wasn’t a liberal propaganda piece (despite the fact that the filmaker is a liberal). I don’t think that this is part of a new trend of his being interested in TV or film directors in general. He was very pleased to see this movie come out – not because he has taken a sudden interest in movies, but because he feels that people need to be reminded about why we fight radical Islam.
the issue to me is that it is flat… the families of Flight 93 had final and thorough control on the script so it appears here that ALL aboard were heroes (not six or seven or so) and that since they didn’t want to offend anyone the characters have none… no character development at all.
all one is left with is one of any action movies with no character development that are released weekly.
I saw it. So should everyone else.
In reponse to the comment above about the lack of character development. Pardon me, but how much character development could go into a film that take place over a time period of no more than two or three hours? Without over-sentamentalizing or over-dramatizing it? And not everyone on board appeared to be a hero–there were a bunch of people who were clearly not doing anything AND only about nine or ten people who actually seemed to be taking part in the attempted takeover. I don’t understand why you chose to mischaracterize the nature and purpose of the film, which is essentialy documentary.
“Character development” is PRECISELY what we do NOT want in movies like this.
“Character development” in historical event films gets you Titanic and Pearl Harbor.
Better historical event films, say, Black Hawk Down, respect their subjects by NOT turning them into “characters” in a character drama. They are impersonal, in the best and most respectful sense of the term, focusing on the event, the behavior, the emotional impact rather than the personalities as conceived by some screenwriter.
That’s why my review specifically PRAISES United 93 for AVOIDING anything like character development. 🙂
“Character development” is PRECISELY what we do NOT want in movies like this.
Agreed, Steve.
Did any of you see the Flight 93 TV special/movie done by the Discovery Channel (or A&E?) that aired on 9/11/05? It had lots of character development and it stunk.
Suzanne,
I think with “24,” the appearance of the creators of the show on Limbuagh was part of a larger campaign– they were on other talk radio shows as well. For some reason, it seems, “24” appears to be a favorite show of talk radio hosts and listeners. So appearances on these shows are like communicating with your the base of their support.
I wanted to add a postscript. I saw “United 93” earlier today, and it knocked my socks off! (This is saying something; I am a movie connossiur and a tough critic; needless to say, my cinematic socks usually stay fastened to my feet.) Great performances all around, from a cast of no-names. Spare, unsentimental, un-glamorized. In a word, powerful. I’ll admit I wasn’t expecting much. I thought it could be quite expolitative and mawkish. It wasn’t rah-rah and corny, but it still didn’t skimp on portraying the heroism of many of the passengers, even as it alternatively refused to make the hijackers into cardboard villians. (They’re young, fresh-faced guys who, for all of their murderous fanaticism, seem as scared as anybody else on the plane.)
I’m sympathetic with people who wonder if this movie should have been made. I’m not totally sure if it should have been made, but if it HAD to be made, I don’t know if it could have been made any more skillfully or tastefully than it was.