“United 93″
By Callimachus | Related entries in The Politics Of FilmIt opens next week. Will you go see it?
According to advance reviews, it doesn’t suck.
In the city where it will premiere next Tuesday, United 93 is being greeted�or repelled?�almost as if it were itself some kind of terror attack. Is the movie pornography? Exploitation? Too much too soon?
Having seen it once (apparently with what the studio calls “unfinished” effects), I can attest that the film nobody wants to see is worth seeing. At the very least, United 93â€â€?as the most literal representation yet of that unimaginable morningâ€â€?will hopefully ignite a meaningful debate about the ethics and politics of 9-11 commemoration.
The “Voice” reviewer says it is “at once scrupulous and ghoulish, visceral and sober.” Maya Lin is evoked.
At the end of the review is this interesting addendum:
As noted above, this review of United 93 was based on an unfinished print. Since then, Universal has excised the concluding title card, which read, “America’s war on terror had begun.” The final caption now reads: “Dedicated to the memory of all those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001.”
This entry was posted on Monday, April 24th, 2006 and is filed under The Politics Of Film. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 24th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Yes, I’m going to see it. It’s going to be very hard to endure, but I will do it anyway.
April 24th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Sounds like a completely truthful & patriotically healthy dose of propaganda.
April 24th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
DosPeros -
Yes, I’m assuming it’ll be much more truthful & patriotic then Michael Moore’s 9/11 propoganda.
It’s funny, the 3 people that I know that went to see Farenheit 9-11, they aren’t going to go see United 93. I’m not sure there is a direct correlation there, but I do find it interesting what they choose to see and not see.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Well, I saw and loved Farenheit 9/11, and I am also going to see United 93. The main reason I want to see 93 is because it is the story of what happened on that plane that day. It’s real life, and I don’t want to shield myself from reality, no matter how sad or disturbing it may be.
BTW – Does anyone know how fictionalized this is going to be? Obviously, no one knows exactly what happened, but I’m just wondering how accurate it’s going to be.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Since I’ve already announced my intention to see the movie and then review it on my blog, I plan on making good on that. Probably not right away (I have a niece about to be born, not to mention the NFL draft and Stanley Cup playoffs going on this weekend), but possibly next week.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I am not going to see the movie because I have no desire to spend $8 in order to end up upset and pissed off all over again. I can get all the information about flight 93 I want without watching a Hollywoodized version of the truth, i.e., background music, dramatic moments, time compression, and imagined actions and conversations. Basically, what I am saying is that it is too soon for me. Ask me in 10 years.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
I haven’t seen Faren. 9/11 — not out of any personal angst towards the movie, but just because I haven’t had much time for fiction. I will see it eventually, I hope.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Apparently United 93 unfolds in real time, and is as true to the facts, as known, as the director could make it. The only variance I am aware of is the exact wording of the “let’s roll” line. At least one of the actors in the control tower is playing himself. They used real airline people in the airline people roles, and they got the consultation of the victim’s families on the most minute details, such as what kind of snacks their loved ones would have ordered.
April 26th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Cal,
Are you making fun of my question, or is that true? I’m just asking because sometimes I can be a little slow about those types of jokes.
Also, did everyone see the story about how one of the actors in the movie (maybe the lead hijacker) will not be allowed to attend the premier because he is suspected of terrorist activities and/or links? I may not have that story 100% accurate, but it was something like that.