Collective Re-Memory
Saw United 93 this afternoon. Affecting. It made me feel they way I did the morning of 9/11. Stunned. Sad. Angry.
9/11 is an amazing story. The terrorist plan was so simple and clever and cunning. The acts of the passengers on flight 93, heroic, in a way we don't associate with the present. Heroism is often relegated to the past we barely remember.
The filmmaker moves out of the way. He lets the events tell the story. And a good story it is.
UPDATE: A critics round up.
Note, as faithful as the story is to the 9/11 commission report and other accounts, the filmmaker takes liberties with what occurred on the plane. Inevitable, because no one knows exactly...but the end is huge and good filmmaking. It is also unverifiable, and almost certainly untrue, based upon what I have read.
This film, I believe, will survive, at least the first 95%, like a document.
6 comments:
if it wasn't clear, i recommend the movie. it brings you back to the day of 9/11. the question is whether you want to brought there.
maybe it's worth seeing before drawing such hasty conclusions. i mean, these are ridiculous comment to make if you haven't even seen the movie, more evidence of your prejudices than the films.
i saw the tv movie, which was not good, yet still watchable. this film is LEAPS better - it is loyal to the 9/11 commission report and transcripts of discussions, handles the terrorists as humans, not as stereotype, and yes, takes a few creative speculations with what happens in the plane, but it's damn good filmmaking.
if you want to discuss all story as obvious manipulation - of course, go right ahead, read a phone book, no manipulation there.
all i can say, is what the movie made ME feel, and it made ME feel the way i did on 9/11. stunned. sad. angry.
i didn't take pleasure in it. but i went through something emotional.
do you take pleasure from schindler's list?
"And frankly, I don't think I need to see the movie to know what it is all about."
Have whatever opinion about GWbush and iraq and all that - it has nothing to do with the movie nor what I consider a willfully ignorant response to the "idea" of the film.
Last year, lefty hollywood types got all riled up over the anti-Semitism of passion of the christ, most of whom never saw the film. I can't stand this. How can anyone make such bold statements about a piece of work they've never seen? This to, me is evidence of utter arrogance, the assumption that one knows what it is all about, without having even seen the movie. It is complete bullshit, like writing a book report on an unread book and disguising it with intelligent language, so the teacher won't figure it out. It stems from a place of intellectual dishonesty, and is in my mind, indefensible.
One doesn't need to see the film, by any stretch, if one doesn't feel like it. But don't make commentary on the filmmaking or storytelling, because, well, it's so foolish, it should go without saying.
You guys should just fuck and gett it over with.
this is a really stupid conversation, but i get wrapped up in them.
you've spent more time and energy thinking about whether to see the movie than it takes to simply seeing it, which makes little sense to me, especially because it's something you obviously want to talk about.
if you don't want to see it, just don't.
what bugs me is your attempt to talk about the film. if you want to make commentary about heavy metal music, you would cite the music you've listened to, not the music you haven't listened to.
and you're making a statement about metallica which wouldn't apply to the ramones.
your decision is not blink based at all, you're carefully considered all the pros and cons, and I bet you end up seeing it after all because it is obviously something that interests you. i don't see why you are fighting that.
Post a Comment