For those unaware, a movie entitled United 93 will be released this Friday. For those with a short memory or who have forgotten the significance of this title, it is the flight designation of the 4th and last plane hijacked on 9/11/2001...the one that crashed in Pennsylvania after the crew and passengers counterattacked the terrorists in the cockpit. The movie will be a dramitization of the events of that day in real time concerning events on the ground as well as on this specific flight.

I therefore have two questions....

1. Do you plan on seeing this movie?

2. Do you feel the timing is right for this movie? Is it too soon to be released, not soon enough, or should movies covering this topic never be released?

1. Do you plan on seeing this movie?

Don't know yet. I'll wait and see some reviews. If the movie seems overly sensationalistic, I'm not interested. I'm also curious, other than the sensationalism, what the movie might have to say that we don't already know.

2. Do you feel the timing is right for this movie? Is it too soon to be released, not soon enough, or should movies covering this topic never be released?

I don't have any issue with it. Of all the 9-11 activities to make a movie about, this particular incident was the most removed from it, for me, so it's not surprising it's the first movie to come out about it. It's also the one we know the most about, and the one in which the victims overcame the hijackers, or at least tried to.

There was a very good article I read recently (sorry, can't remember the link) talking about this topic. The author's stance was that the movie was probably overdue. Movies were meant to be thought provoking, and must be timely in order to do that. As such, the author felt, movie makers were far too reluctant to take on potentially controversial topics, as those were the very ones that probably most needed examination. That's pretty much how I feel, as well. Given that, it's never 'too soon' to examine any issue, but it can easily be too late.

1. Do you plan on seeing this movie?

Yes, I do.

2. Do you feel the timing is right for this movie? Is it too soon to be released, not soon enough, or should movies covering this topic never be released?

Personally, I have no problem with the "timing" of the film in terms of its release date. My concerns relate to the accuracy of the film. And, in that sense, it may be way too soon. By all accounts (including comments at IMDb by people who have seen the film), United 93 presumes a version of events for which there is no conclusive foundation and includes some material which is clearly, um... counterfactual. Obviously, poetic license, at the very least, was required to fill in a lot of blanks. And, unless this is being clearly presented as a fictional account, I think it might have been wiser to either wait until more facts are known (if ever) or simply allow some of the narrative to remain unresolved - as, in reality, it is.

I question the wisdom of deciding on a version of events (whoever's version) in relation to an incident which is still potentially inflammatory both emotionally and politically, but it is obviously the right of the filmmakers to do whatever they please - which, at the end of the day, is to make money. On the other hand, Paul Greenglass who wrote and directed the film, has some reasonably credible work behind him, having written and directed The Murder of Stephen Lawrence (which I haven't seen, but which was pretty well-received) and the excellent Bloody Sunday, as well as having directed The Bourne Supremacy, which was okay - so it'll be interesting to see how he handles the material.

For similar reasons, it'll be interesting to see what Oliver Stone does with World Trade Center when it's released in August...

Obviously, then, I'm not objecting to films covering this topic. Until we have concrete answers to a lot of the questions raised on September 11, 2001, anything that keeps the debate alive is fine with me. I just hope that films like United 93 don't cement one version of events too firmly in the public imagination. I doubt many people will embrace goddess worship solely on the basis of The Da Vinci Code - but films purportedly based on actual events, however fictionalized (and it seems United 93 is highly fictionalized), are much more likely to be effective propaganda. And propaganda that perpetrates a positive and uplifting myth can very effectively obscure facts - and lend credence to other agendas.

1. Do you plan on seeing this movie?

No. I don't like watching movies about real-life tragedies. I saw enough on TV.

2. Do you feel the timing is right for this movie? Is it too soon to be released, not soon enough, or should movies covering this topic never be released?

The timing is probably okay for it. It would be unrealistic to think that it would not be released.

The movie will be based on the "official" version of events. I don't think that the plane crashed on its own; I think it was shot out of the sky, and the authorities don't have the guts to admit it (see the thread on Bush and 9/11 if you don't know where I'm coming from), even though it was the appropriate, though tragic, thing to do to an aircraft on its way to hit the White House or the Capitol Building.

Nevertheless, the people on board who fought to wrest control of the aircraft away from the hijackers were bona fide heroes and should be remembered as such.

1. Do you plan on seeing this movie?

Not in public. You see, I was born an emotional sponge, and that's why I do music as a way to get rid of the emotions of others so I can function in life. The news report on this said that there was no sound in the theater after the flick other than sobbing. Oh man, I can't take all that in! It would be depressionville for me, and can't afford to go maudlin right now, or ever for that matter. Might catch it on DVD so it's just the movie, not the audience.

2. Do you feel the timing is right for this movie? Is it too soon to be released, not soon enough, or should movies covering this topic never be released?

There's an audience for it. Some are curious like Wertz, others enjoy going maudlin in public. It'll probably attract others who enjoy stories like The Passion of Christ. This one is similar in that you know a happy ending is impossible or even a sad one in the usual sense of the word.

I have no plan to go see that tale. I think it's unfortunate that lots of people will believe it all went down the way it did in the movie. That's according to the flight manifests for all of the four airplanes.

1. Do you plan on seeing this movie?

Maybe. I don't go to the theaters too often -- I watch most movies on pay-per-view/DVD. I wouldn't be opposed to it, though.

2. Do you feel the timing is right for this movie? Is it too soon to be released, not soon enough, or should movies covering this topic never be released?

I think it's just fine. The victims' families have approved the movie and I think if it's good enough for them, there's no reason it shouldn't be released. In addition, no one is forcing you to see it. If it offends you, don't watch it, just like any other movie. Of course, people will accept this as the "official" version of the events, as people will do with any movie, but it is up to us to remember that it is a movie, a dramatization.

1. Do you plan on seeing this movie?

No. Not on video, not in the theatre.

2. Do you feel the timing is right for this movie? Is it too soon to be released, not soon enough, or should movies covering this topic never be released?

Personally, I think it is too soon. There isn't much way for this movie to NOT be political, the polarized way things stand today. I wouldn't have supported this style of Hollywood movie about Ruby ridge, Waco, or the Oklahoma bombings either during the CLinton years. Lots of ways to exploit all of those dead children, it's propaganda and no one is satisfied. Those who believe that the government is lying about flight 93 will not be happy with this film. If it is a "rah rah go America" style of patriotic film, that will anger some. If it's an "incompetent administration" spun film, that will anger others. Either way, at this moment in time it will be a source of propaganda and I don't see much of a point in it.

I very much agree with you on this one.

I would like to add that I personally feel there is no way they will depict the
actual events with complete accuracy, considering the only people who really
know what went down are no longer with us. A film of this nature, no matter
how tastefully done, is complete exploitation of real human tragedy. On top of
that, I'm not interested in being emotionally exploited in a movie theater with
dozens of other people for no good purpose other than to be reminded of the horrifying events. I haven't forgotten.

1. I haven't made up my mind yet. There's no way I'm going on opening weekend. My wife has already informed me that she doesn't want to see the film.
My local newspaper film critic gave the movie three stars, but added to the review an unusually candid personal caveat:

United 93 is a masterly feat of realistic filmmaking, but I won’t urge anyone to see it who hasn’t already decided to. I saw it because my job required me to, and I don’t regret the experience. But, if not, I wouldn’t be lining up today to buy a ticket, even if I read a hundred reviews written with the same tone as this one.

I don’t know whether the film will hasten or aggravate the healing process. But my recurring thought throughout the screening was that — no matter how many films are made, books are written or analyses are published — we will never understand why this happened.

http://www.dispatch.com/weekender/weekende...0428-B1-00.html

2. Paul Greenglass, the director of United 93 counseled with the families of those killed and apparently most of them wanted the story told. The thing is, that they are the ones who most personally are affected by the horror of that day. But all of us lived through that day as well and I, like everyone else here, have no desire to relive that experience.

Maybe facing what we fear or cannot understand is part of the healing process, but I don't think there will be an overwhelming opening weeked for the film at the box office. Despite the fact that the film seems to be made with both accuracy and sensitivity and does not sensationalize what happened on the plane, I don't know where the audience is that's been craving this film?

But if not now, when? When WILL we be ready to face up to what happened that day? Later this summer we get World Trade Center directed by Oliver Stone and starring Nicholas Cage. Is that going to be more deserving of our popcorn money than this? Or is the truth of the matter is that NO theatrical film dealing with what happened on 9/11 qualifies as "entertainment" and is doomed to play in empty theaters?

No and no, its an exploitation film. Noone knows what went on in that plane, unless Holywood was given the results of the blackboxes way ahead of the American people. I think its a travesty. An attempt to make a concept permanent in pop culture, which will fail. A sick attempt at emotionalism to gain profit. The movie should be boycotted.

Such indignation, Artemise. I have to challenge your assertion that United 93 is an exploitation film. An exploitation film would be some Movie-of-the-Week crap fest made on a shoestring budget, directed by some hack with Jacklyn Smith as the plucky stewardess, Tom Selleck as the pilot, and any washed-up teen actor aging into adulthood as Todd Beamer grimly muttering, "Let's roll."

True, no one really knows what happened on the plane. But since when has the fact that there are no living survivors reason not to tell a story? While for the conspiracy theorists, the absence of Dick Cheney barking instructions to military jets to shoot down the plane is proof that the film is a whitewash, for others it is enough that as part of the healing process it is time for the story to be told.

Paul Greengrass, the director, worked closely with the families of the passengers and crew that spoke with their loved ones by cell phones before the end. He went over the 9/11 Commission report. As best as it can be determined, Greengrass was extremely concerned in NOT creating an exploitation flick.

I can understand Artemise, rejecting a movie because of the possibility that it sanitizes and scrubs away the truth, but unless we allow artists to pursue their own interpretation of the events of September 11, 2001, how do we ever get to a point where the story can be told in less-conventional ways?

Think of what your worst nightmare is and then imagine be charged $7.50 to sit in a dark theatre and watch it unfold in Dolby stereo. There isn't the usual escape of saying, "It's just a movie." Sure, United 93 is "just a movie" but it's a movie that most of us lived through.

Still, while we watched the planes crash into the World Trade Center, the bodies tumbling to the street, the buildings collapse and the panicked crowds fleeing for their lives, what happened to United 93 happened out of our line of sight and to a lesser extent out of our minds.

I don't WANT to see this movie. But I have this NEED to see this movie if only because a great film shouldn't just entertain, it should sometimes shake us and make us THINK. Anything that compels us to think is something to be appreciated, if not necessarily enjoyed.

I saw this film today.






My thoughts were similar to what Nighttimer stated earlier....I didn't WANT to see this film, but felt the need to see it if only to better understand the events of that day. By this I mean the reaction on the ground at NORAD and the FAA which seem to be acurately portrayed...right up to the point of casting Ben Sliney as himself in the role of National Operations Manager of the FAA’s Command Center in Herndon, Virginia. This was the man who ordered the entire nationwide air traffic system shut down.

As far as the depiction of the flight itself I will only say that it appears they didn't risk making bold statements about the passengers or hijackers actions that day. They simply showed what might have happened. Take from it what you will.

I will say this much. Seeing this film play out in "real time" you get a sense of just how little time these passengers had to work with. And when you consider this along with the actions taken that morning by these people I was deeply impressed by their ability to think quickly,gather information, plan, and take action against the terrorists.

Simply put, I was already deeply moved by what the passengers of this flight did that day. After seeing this film, I am awestruck they were able to take action so quickly.

I believe the film was well made, but I won't say I recommend this film. Each person has to make a decision for themselves if they want to see it. If you are on the fence I can only say this. It is as close to being in that moment again as you will ever know. Keep that in mind as you make your decision to see it or not.

Actually no plane was even close to the flight. The F-16 that was sent after it to investigate was unarmed and at the time of the crash was not even close to 93. He would have had to literally ram the plane to stop it and almost certainly would have been killed doing it. The recovered cockpit recorder recorded the events and that evidence is irrefutable.

And if I remember correctly from the other thread you were convinced that there was no “plane” at all. Correct?

No, actually I misspoke about Flight 93 when I meant Flight 77.* Sorry--it was too late to edit the post at the time, so I had to let it stand. The bigger issue to me was the plethora of unanswered questions and the several times experts recanted what they said, claiming they had "misspoken," including a certain Secretary of Defense.

After reading the testimonies of persons who actually performed autopsies (as were possible) on the victims of Flight 93, it became evident that there was a remnant of a flight in that Pennsylvania field. It sure as hell took a while to come out with the evidence, however, and that with the film "Loose Change" raising the questions for some time first.

Why in the bloody hell should it be necessary to question this stuff before it finally comes out into the open? Doesn't the public have a right to know? How long will we have to put up with the arrogance characterized by this present administration?

I stand by my skepticism of a government and particularly a Presidential administration that is now known for 1) not planning things very well in the first place because they are initially asleep at the switch (witness the memo about bin Laden in the PDB months prior to 9/11, and then later the government's "duh" response, not knowing that Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane even though the Weather Channel and CNN had been screaming about it before it happened and their supposed ignorance that the levees and walls could only withstand up to a Category 3 hurricane storm surge) and 2) its sneakiness ("Americans are not being wiretapped"--Yeah, right!) and unwillingness to come clean or testify under oath after their deceptions have been found out.

The 9/11 events and the so-called investigation are symptomatic of a chronic problem with our highest elected and appointed authorities, a problem of not being up-front with the American people.

However, this thread was about Flight 93. I still believe it was shot out of the sky based on the size of the debris that was there to be picked up. That's good enough for me. Regardless, those intrepid souls who worked to wrest control of the aircraft away from the hijackers should be remembered with respect.

Okay?


*And why did it take the government so long to return Jamie McIntyre/CNN's tape of the Flight 77/Pentagon crash? It became pretty evident after a short while that while the tape could not be used to help prosecute Zacarias Moussaoui, it wasn't needed, either. Again, unnecessary concealment; ergo, lack of regard for the right of a free people to see the evidence of something that contributed to our invasion and continuing war within two foreign countries.