Concettina Died and Other Stories of the East Side
PhotographsDownloadsLinksSelf-portraitContact


"United 93" posted May 1, 2006 at 01:11 AM

I just got back from seeing United 93, Paul Greengrass's movie about the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11/01. I went into the film with the following thoughts:
1. I would be terribly upset by seeing it.
2. I don't know why the movie was made.

I came out of the movie with the following thoughts:
1. I was less upset by it than I anticipated.
2. I don't know why the movie was made.

It was upsetting, of course. The most interesting part for me was watching the characters on the ground go through the same sequence of surprise, disbelief, horror, and grief that we all went through. The dumbfounding moment when the second tower is hit, the even more dumfounding moment when someone says aloud that the Pentagon was hit. I was tense through the film, and choked up a few times, but I held back from actually crying--on purpose, yes, but when a film truly gets under my skin there's no holding back no matter how hard I try. This one just didn't get me there.

Anger was a bigger reaction for me than grief, alas. Anger that anyone would needlessly murder people in this fashion, and anger that our government was so hopelessly unprepared to deal with the situation.

And that leads us to "why." Why make this movie? To profit off of tragedy? I doubt that was the filmmaker's reason (though I suspect it contributed to Universal's decision to release it). Was it to remember the victims or the events of that morning? Well, I read some promotional material that said that was part of the reason, but I think that's a lie. No one's forgotten and we don't need a Hollywood movie to remind us. Was it to simply fill in the holes of a narrative we can never know? Perhaps. It is interesting to see how a filmmaker connects the dots of what is known from that morning (everything on the ground) with what is not know (the details of what happened inside that plane). It might be interesting to see a different writer tackle the material in the same way, to see what might be spelled out differently (well, interesting maybe, but quite unnecessary).

One thing that struck me as one possible reason to make this particular movie--(spoiler warning: I'm about to give some specific details from the absolute climax of the movie)--is as an act of revenge. As the passengers begin their counterattack to try to take over the plane, they of course must get through the two hijackers who are not in the cockpit. It had never occurred to me before, though it's an obvious point: they kill them (at least in this telling...). We can never know if the passengers actually did bloody those two hijackers, or if they did so to the point of death, but this film gives it to us--physical violence done to the hijackers, with screaming, blood, the sounds of ripping flesh, everything. It's chaotic and cathartic and it's a detail that surprised me, and I confess, delighted me.

Beyond that? Well, the other thing that struck me deeply was how woefully unprepared the military was to deal with this, and how radically out of touch they were with the FAA. Just about every review I read about this movie went to great lengths to declare the film non-political, but I can't see how Greengrass's script can be taken that way. He goes to great lengths to point out the failings of the government. It's nothing radical--in that practically everyone in the country feels like the government's not quite up to its tasks--but it is political to point this out so dramatically. So perhaps that was a reason to make the film.

I believe that art can enlighten us, and that it can illuminate great truths about our times. This film does not seem to be aiming for that, and it doesn't achieve it. It's either a failure as a memorial--since no memorial would nor should be this jarring, shaken, and frantic--or a poorly timed guess at unrecorded history. Either way, I don't think it's so worthwhile. I recommend the film for people who need to wallow a bit more in the details of 9/11 (like me), and to people who may not have read about our governmental chaos in the moments of this tragedy (though frankly the 9/11 Commission Report tells that tale more convincingly and in much more detail).

For a more moving work of art that memorializes 9/11, I suggest John Adams's On The Transmigration of Souls. It is a very event-specific piece, including the recitation of victims' names and other text taken from official and unofficial sources, but it achieves a universality about sorrow and the loss of human life in a way that makes for an appropriate and emotional memorial.


Comments (0)