United 93

[matt35mm]

I'm not too sure what to expect from this film (I'll eventually see it) but from the stuff that I'm reading, is this more towards like the style from Benjamin Coccio's 'Zero Day'?

I haven't seen Zero Day, but I took a look at the trailers and clips from that film, and I would say no.  I'm not going to detail why for fear of ruining United 93 by telling you exactly what it's like in too much detail and comparing/contrasting the two films stylistically.  If you're going to eventually see it anyway, it'll be best to answer your question yourself.

Though I can say that Zero Day looks like a video diary approach, and that's not at all United 93's approach (nobody is aware of the camera in United 93, and nobody tells you all their thoughts and feelings about anything, either).

Oh sorry I didn't mention it but towards the end in Zero Day you're seeing the event through the security cameras around the school (with faint audio of the event) and more dominantly, the 911 emergency operator on one of the phone lines documenting it. It was not easy to sit through that, just wondering if United might have the same effect.

Oh.  It has the same effect of not being easy to sit through, but the approach is still different.  We hear air traffic control speak about the other 3 hijacked flights, but Flight 93, we see and hear full on.

[Myxo]

I love how "RV" opens in 3,639 theaters this weekend while "United 93" ends up in 1,795. So, I guess we're more interested in a Robin Williams family vacation comedy than we are a 9/11 drama? Hell, even "Stick It" opened in more theaters at 2,038.

[Pubrick]

I love how "RV" opens in 3,639 theaters this weekend while "United 93" ends up in 1,795. So, I guess we're more interested in a Robin Williams family vacation comedy than we are a 9/11 drama? Hell, even "Stick It" opened in more theaters at 2,038.

what the hell? the popularity of a film doesn't determine how many theatres it opens in. that's determined by studio honchos after considering how they will make the most profit.

in fact, since united 93 came second at the box office this week with half as many theatres as RV, it would mean more ppl are interested in it per theatre than RV. hence making it the more popular film of the two. i don't understand what you're saying.

[©brad]

this was a harrowing film. i saw it yesterday in a packed east village theater, and you could sense the collective feeling of dread amongst the crowd even before the universal logo came up. it's like the feeling you get on a rollercoaster just as you're going up the big first hill (which is always the scariest part). i went w/ four friends and we all had stomach aches coming out of it. this movie dives deep into the pit of your stomach. as the second act of weakness said it himself, it will make you sick.

god bless greengrass for doing this the right way. we don't see the media frenzy or the president's reactions or a bruckheimer-esque explosion of the twin tower. ben affleck is not in it. the score hits the right balance of suspense and fear w/o shoving it down our throats. the actors give "real" performances w/o coming off like amateurs.

while i think the film is superb, i dont' blame anyone who is afraid to see it. i'm afraid to see it again.

[Myxo]

I love how "RV" opens in 3,639 theaters this weekend while "United 93" ends up in 1,795. So, I guess we're more interested in a Robin Williams family vacation comedy than we are a 9/11 drama? Hell, even "Stick It" opened in more theaters at 2,038.

what the hell? the popularity of a film doesn't determine how many theatres it opens in. that's determined by studio honchos after considering how they will make the most profit.

in fact, since united 93 came second at the box office this week with half as many theatres as RV, it would mean more ppl are interested in it per theatre than RV. hence making it the more popular film of the two. i don't understand what you're saying.

I'm referring to the comparison made from a box office standpoint that United 93 has a good shot at making "Passion money". After a quick look, Passion opened in 3,006 theaters. If studios thought more people were interested in a film like this, why didn't it get a wider release? I'm not implying that I actually know what the studios were thinking.  Hell, maybe it will expand to 3000+ theaters this weekend. I'm just curious, why the low profile on opening weekend?

[matt35mm]

I love how "RV" opens in 3,639 theaters this weekend while "United 93" ends up in 1,795. So, I guess we're more interested in a Robin Williams family vacation comedy than we are a 9/11 drama? Hell, even "Stick It" opened in more theaters at 2,038.

what the hell? the popularity of a film doesn't determine how many theatres it opens in. that's determined by studio honchos after considering how they will make the most profit.

in fact, since united 93 came second at the box office this week with half as many theatres as RV, it would mean more ppl are interested in it per theatre than RV. hence making it the more popular film of the two. i don't understand what you're saying.

I'm referring to the comparison made from a box office standpoint that United 93 has a good shot at making "Passion money". After a quick look, Passion opened in 3,006 theaters. If studios thought more people were interested in a film like this, why didn't it get a wider release? I'm not implying that I actually know what the studios were thinking.  Hell, maybe it will expand to 3000+ theaters this weekend. I'm just curious, why the low profile on opening weekend?

Universal didn't expect it to make a lot of money.  The whole thing was a big tossup and could have gone one way or another.  My feeling is that maybe up to 50% of the people who did see it didn't originally plan on seeing it, and finally went after the overwhelmingly good reviews.  It'll also be due to the good word of mouth that the film should hold on in the top 10 for quite a while.

But remember, just 3 weeks ago or so, everybody was ready to bash this film.  The Passion had a built-in audience that was probably ready to go no matter what the reviews said.  People certainly care about 9/11, but few people are going to go to any 9/11 movie that happens their way.  The whole thing was very iffy, so this first week was a little bit of a toe in the water thing.  Theater owners were probably a bit anxious as well.

It's likely that it will expand next week.  And don't forget, 10% of opening weekend grosses were donated to the 9/11 Memorial, so...

[Ghostboy]

Which brings me to why Bloody Sunday worked a little bit better for me.  While watching United 93, once in a while I became aware that I was watching a movie.  This isn't really necessarily a fault of the movie--it doesn't have any movie-isms about it.  No classy yet distracting compositions or anything.  Nothing that suggests anything other than cameras there on that very day.  But I still remembered that I was watching a movie from time to time.  With Bloody Sunday, I completely forgot that I was watching a movie.  I don't know if the difference was in the movies or if it was my state of mind while watching it.  I might just as easily have remembered that I was watching a movie during Bloody Sunday, I don't know.

Do you think this might be because, as an American, you have more proximity to 9/11 than the Irish massacre? That's what I was thinking while watching it; I'm much more critical of this treatment, just because I'm closer to the event; I remember the morning it happened, etc. I wonder if people who were in Ireland on that day felt the same way when they watched Bloody Sunday.

The movie was as good as it could be. I have no criticisms of it, on a technical level. I don't think it was too long at all, and everything was spot on. The only problem I have with it is that, due to the nature of Greengrass' style, it presents itself as the reality of what occurred, when in fact there's no way to know how accurate it really was. This isn't the movie's fault; it's just the nature of this particular story. At a certain point, when the passengers started to plot to take over the plane, it started to feel more like a regular movie - it was entering the realm of the speculative, and it became a little bit easier to watch at that point, and even, on a certain level, easier to enjoy (although enjoy is the wrong word).

Actually, the worst part for me was everything leading up to the point when the hijackers take the plane. Prior to that, it was nearly unbearable, but after that point, some of the tension eased up a bit.

[matt35mm]

Which brings me to why Bloody Sunday worked a little bit better for me.  While watching United 93, once in a while I became aware that I was watching a movie.  This isn't really necessarily a fault of the movie--it doesn't have any movie-isms about it.  No classy yet distracting compositions or anything.  Nothing that suggests anything other than cameras there on that very day.  But I still remembered that I was watching a movie from time to time.  With Bloody Sunday, I completely forgot that I was watching a movie.  I don't know if the difference was in the movies or if it was my state of mind while watching it.  I might just as easily have remembered that I was watching a movie during Bloody Sunday, I don't know.

Do you think this might be because, as an American, you have more proximity to 9/11 than the Irish massacre? That's what I was thinking while watching it; I'm much more critical of this treatment, just because I'm closer to the event; I remember the morning it happened, etc. I wonder if people who were in Ireland on that day felt the same way when they watched Bloody Sunday.

No, not really.  I don't feel that sensitive about 9/11 treatments, to be honest.  It's fodder like everything else.  It's an extremely important thing to me because humans died, and only because humans died.  Honor that, and I won't be critical of anything else.  Go ahead, present whatever reality you choose to, and present it as realistically as you want to.  I would never say, "What?  You can't do that with 9/11!"  The event itself is no more sacred to me than the lives lost, and the lives affected.

And like I said, I had no criticisms for the movie, because I felt that it valued life.  The film would have been nearly as powerful for me if it were entirely fiction (and arguably, it essentially is), and I would be affected by the situation.  The truth doesn't have to be the truth of 9/11; it, instead, has to be based in the truth that people did die, people do die, people are still dying, people will die.  I and everyone around me will die.  I was very moved by this movie, but I can be equally moved by fictional characters dying if it's done well.  It's all based on the same true story: life is precious, and can be lost needlessly.

Most people probably wouldn't agree with me, and would feel that the facts of 9/11 have to be represented properly.  But for me, Irish lives, American lives, 33 years ago, 4.5 years ago... they were all honored as human lives lost (I don't really care about the hero stuff--EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it some more, if their fighting back did indeed save the lives of others at whatever target the hijackers had, then yes, that is important), and I will shed tears for any and all of them.  It's the only thing I have bothered to latch onto these days; otherwise, I'm pretty disillusioned, or apathetic.  I can't and don't believe anything I hear, so the facts and the specific date of 9/11 don't really matter to me.  Politics, religious war, oil, money, power... fuck all of that.  It's all skewed and/or corrupt, and I just don't care very much.

It's the lives, period.  Our history (human history) is the history of innocent people dying for stupid shit.  That's what makes me angry.  That's what 9/11 was to me... another link in a forever running chain of unnecessary deaths that now our leaders are only adding to.  I could go on an on, so it's better that I just stop now.  I know not everybody's going to agree with me.

So to clarify, the reason that I slightly preferred Bloody Sunday was because I absolutely forgot that I was watching a movie.  It's a delicate state-of-mind to balance... it's possible that just watching this with an audience slightly distracted me from being 100% lost in it.  Any little thing can cause you to remember that you're sitting in a theater watching a movie, and it wouldn't be the movie's fault.  Another minor thing is that I also felt the grittier and grainier look (due to 16mm) gave Bloody Sunday a little more of a "realistic" feel.  Some of that movie looked like newsreel footage.  Also, some of the aftermath stuff in Bloody Sunday ("You will reap a whirlwind!" and the very last line) was such a powerful punch in the gut for me.

But in both cases, my heart was deeply affected.

[cine]

havent read any of this thread except for Weak's post.. and i basically felt the exact same way he did.


cool to see the best movie of the year already come out.

[Gold Trumpet]

Again, I'm late for comment, but I'll give my lowly opinion anyways.

Greengrass has finally proven his filmic capabilities. His last film, the Bourne Supremacy, was a mess. The story was typical for action films but the editing had no gears to switch to as the momentum of the story went along. It was chaotic from the very beginning. In the Bourne Identity, the filmmakers typically filmed the story of Jason Bourne but kept the focus on his amnesia and sense of self. In the Bourne Supremacy, they filmed in an amnesia state but concerned themselves with the surface action story. The former wins for better focus.

Now, with United 93, the editing is heightened to cinematic literature. This film is not a usual tragedy-to-drama parable, but a full scale re-imagination of what happened on Flight 93. The reality is strictly details. Greengrass flushes the film with constant editing and an over use of hand held camera work. A sense of foreboding doom is felt in control room scenes as every small moment is another foreshadow to the tragedy. The ingrediants in this film is to keep the audience as uneasy as they felt that day. It is a film made out of urgency and made directly out of a national feeling to relive what we can't go back to and to imagine a situation we can't ever know.

When I say the film is 'cinematic literature', I make two points. The first is this film couldn't be adapted to any other medium and truly be what it is here. Greengrass is very aware of his resouces in one sense to grab at an urgency that only film can instill through editing. Editing has gottten so good its even surpassed the feeling of reading a book 'on the edge of your seat'. One critic actually made a comment years ago that because editing has gotten so good that the need for thriller books with their systematic details was useless because they couldn't keep up with the pace and excitement of a well edited action film. Greengrass takes this advice and applies it to the purpose of a personal experience felt on the most tragic level.

The other point is that if 9/11 happened ten years before it actually did and this film was appropriately made as many years later the results would be very different. In 1996 the resources to make a film of this intensity with this type of budget would have been impossible. The film that would have been made would have been more like a drama. My film professor made a smart comment once that 10 years of film was equivalent to 100 years in books. He's correct in so many ways. I remembering watching a documentary on the progression of cinematography and getting this new historical perspective of how film art developed according to the development of what cameras were able to do. In some ways the fact that United 93 does exist is a marker in film history.

The fact that this film is a marker does not make it art though. For how riveting the experience of watching United 93 is, it does not compensate for everything required in a great work. Stanley Kauffmann comments, "The film doesn't help us to admire those passengers any more than we did when we read the first news reports. Unlike innumerable works of art about historical tempests, United 93 leaves us pretty much where we were before it appeared." There are no creative strokes, greater comment, or personal will in United 93 that the filmmaker brought by the weilding of his own hand. The fact that United 93 tries to exist as a making in pure "realism" only seems to serve a craftmanship existence.

Thus the door is wide open for Oliver Stone with 'World Trade Center'. His film has the opportunity to be everything United 93 wasn't and in turn be the more memorable work. I don't think audience memory will be kind to United 93. I imagine as people will want look back to 9/11 they will search for films that make them understand what happened that day instead of reminding them just how painful it was.

[Gamblour.]

I think this film is probably one of the more important films to come out in a long time, simply because of its relationship with its audience. Hiroshima mon amour develops the idea of a culture forgetting about tragedy, and while that film was very forward with its idea, Greengrass' film provides a memento mori so that we do not forget. I don't believe this film will be remembered unkindly because it's a purely present-tense film that provided (me at least) with an opportunity to really reflect and remember the pain. Tucking away pain will only cause it to boil, and films like these need to be made, especially ones like this done in such a respectful manner.

I agree with GT on a few points, that we do not really get to know the people involved that well, and that is very apparent with the overabundance of Air Traffic Controller scenes. I think the film is very patient, but the events on United 93 are built up to so slowly, I too wonder if we couldn't gotten some more time with the people. It's like looking at a painting, and figuring out which people are which and what their actions are. They're almost completely anonymous. I think this is good, for it allows the film to about the "event" and the act of bravery. But then why not have more of the people? I think I'm overanalyzing it, damn you GT.

I liked the film a lot. I felt like I would explode into tears at any moment if I let myself go too much and really realize what was happening to these people. The sequence where everyone is praying, including the terrorists, it's just fucking brilliant and beautiful. The final shot and the score that hangs over into the black.......goddamn, it's just so powerful, and it shows that the film has been this almost symphonic crescendo that just ends.

[hedwig]

I think this film is probably one of the more important films to come out in a long time, simply because of its relationship with its audience. Hiroshima mon amour develops the idea of a culture forgetting about tragedy, and while that film was very forward with its idea, Greengrass' film provides a memento mori so that we do not forget. I don't believe this film will be remembered unkindly because it's a purely present-tense film that provided (me at least) with an opportunity to really reflect and remember the pain. Tucking away pain will only cause it to boil, and films like these need to be made, especially ones like this done in such a respectful manner.

I agree with GT on a few points, that we do not really get to know the people involved that well, and that is very apparent with the overabundance of Air Traffic Controller scenes. I think the film is very patient, but the events on United 93 are built up to so slowly, I too wonder if we couldn't gotten some more time with the people. It's like looking at a painting, and figuring out which people are which and what their actions are. They're almost completely anonymous. I think this is good, for it allows the film to about the "event" and the act of bravery. But then why not have more of the people? I think I'm overanalyzing it, damn you GT.

I liked the film a lot. I felt like I would explode into tears at any moment if I let myself go too much and really realize what was happening to these people. The sequence where everyone is praying, including the terrorists, it's just fucking brilliant and beautiful. The final shot and the score that hangs over into the black.......goddamn, it's just so powerful, and it shows that the film has been this almost symphonic crescendo that just ends.

i was late in seeing this, but yes, excellent review and spot-on.

it's an amazing story, and i'm glad it was told this way, grateful even. imagining the way this event could've been (and probably will be) cheapened and sentimentalized onscreen makes me cringe. the movie avoided all the crap and told its story with brilliant power, focus, and honesty. i'm fascinated by how the film opened, and was incredbily moved by the closing moments..

The fact that this film is a marker does not make it art though. For how riveting the experience of watching United 93 is, it does not compensate for everything required in a great work. Stanley Kauffmann comments, "The film doesn't help us to admire those passengers any more than we did when we read the first news reports. Unlike innumerable works of art about historical tempests, United 93 leaves us pretty much where we were before it appeared." There are no creative strokes, greater comment, or personal will in United 93 that the filmmaker brought by the weilding of his own hand. The fact that United 93 tries to exist as a making in pure "realism" only seems to serve a craftmanship existence.

Thus the door is wide open for Oliver Stone with 'World Trade Center'. His film has the opportunity to be everything United 93 wasn't and in turn be the more memorable work. I don't think audience memory will be kind to United 93. I imagine as people will want look back to 9/11 they will search for films that make them understand what happened that day instead of reminding them just how painful it was.

I don't think it serves only as a reminder of how painful it was.. although i don't think painful remembrance is entirely irrelevant either.

[MacGuffin]

Bush to see "United 93" movie with families of lost

George W. Bush, whose presidency will forever be entwined with the September 11 attacks, gets to relive part of the day on Tuesday night by watching the movie, "United 93."

The film, which opened last month to critical acclaim, tells the story of how al Qaeda hijackers took over the flight and steered it in the direction of Washington D.C.

Passengers learned from cellphones that three other hijacked planes had already hit their targets -- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. They decided to rise up and attack the hijackers, who crashed the plane into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing everyone on board.

"The president has always said that ... the passengers and the crew members on the flight were heroes," said White House spokesman Dana Perino.

Bush was to watch the movie in the White House theater with his wife, Laura, along with some family members of those who died on the flight.

United 93 is the first feature film to deal explicitly with the events of September 11, 2001

[1976]

I haven't seen the film, but is it possible this film might be viewed by some as right-wing propaganda meant to re-instill a blind patriotic faith in the "war against terror" being waged in the middle east? Also, I can't help but notice that some of the people giving this movie high praise were also impressed by the "Loose Change" 9/11 Conspiracy film. If you have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of the published reports of what happened on 9/11/01, is it not a slight conflict of interest to praise the subject matter in "United 93" considering the possibility that nothing you see in that film really happened? It is a known political tactic to create tragic heroes to drum up public support for government actions. I am not a conspiracy buff at all, but something about this film makes me very uncomfortable...the idea that those passengers were forced to give up their lives in exchange for being perceived as heroes by american movie-goers doesn't sit well with me...and hardly seems like a fair exchange. Not sure if I'm getting my point across here 

[pete]

keep an open mind, my friend.  if you play too much imaginary ideological chess inside your head, you'll miss the actual voices from actual people.