• Gerardo Valero in Mexico City
Based on the current trends in Hollywood films, we tend to think of the movie industry as some sort of giant Business Corporation, with board rooms all over town constantly analyzing projection charts and planning the next sequel to another obscure comic-book hero flick (in 3-D). Then five years ago "United 93" came along and defied most of the usual reasons for a film to be produced in the first place. It surely wasn't made with the idea of losing money but you could anticipate this wasn't going to be your typical drama/action-adventure movie (or a blockbuster for that matter). It was never even going to help sell great amounts of movie candy (though I can recall attending a screening of "The Passion of the Christ" years ago, and seeing people entering the theater with the usual giant containers of popcorn and soda, so I guess some moviegoers can eat through anything). We knew beforehand that "United 93" would be tackling a difficult subject worthy of scrutinizing, after watching it we come to understand this was one of those few "necessary" films.
I can't think of any other movie experience as vivid as "United 93" . No director matches Paul Greengrass' ability for making his fictional films seem like the real thing. You can say all you want about his occasionally annoying "shaky camera" but it can be an invaluable tool for immersing the audience into the subject at hand, and it has resulted in such outstanding movies as "Bloody Sunday", "Green Zone" and the last two "Bourne" films (though personally I believe that the latter ones would have been benefited from a more classic cinematography as they belong to a more standard genre). The only real risk with Greengrass' style is that some people might leave the theater thinking they've just witnessed a documentary when in reality, his works are simply fictional works, sometimes based on real life events.
The script for "United 93" was clearly assembled like a puzzle from the several known conversations with the plane's occupants; the rest was obviously made-up from scratch. The film tries to be as accurate to the real life events as possible. On the plane, the actors sit the actual places that the real event participants occupied. The roles of the flight controllers are played by the real men involved in that dreadful day and who better to know what was said and what their reactions where.
We first find ourselves with the seemingly unremarkable group of characters at the departure gate (as we have countless times during our own lives). They are doing the usual things like talking business in their cell phones, hitting their laptops keys and joyfully interacting with their loved ones however, unnoticed by the rest, a few of them are sitting silently, looking nervously at one another. The innocent travelers talk about the trivial matters most anybody would have likely discussed on such a day. They all board and lay their items on the overhead bins. The plane takes-off and breakfast is served. We feel like we boarded the craft ourselves and have become just another passenger about to witness what we know too well is coming.
At first, the air controllers at the Virginia National Air Traffic Control react incredulously to the developing news of the first missing plane ("...a hijacking? Haven't seen one of those in years"). After hearing these rumors they even go back to their casual conversations and their smiles continue until more alarming signs turn up. The controllers at Newark Airport are staring at their screens trying to put two and two together, only to have their unexpected answer appear right in front of their eyes, as they just happen to have a direct view to the World Trade Center on this, the clearest of days.
According to the film, a plot of this nature has never even crossed the minds of those responsible for preventing it in the first place. Greengrass does a great job of organizing this immense amount of material in a way that makes the chaos from that day seem genuine, as well as similar to how it was for the rest of us in our own surroundings and circumstances. The film may not have been shot in real time but it sure feels that way. Future generations will be able to watch and make some sense on what the day was like.
"United 93" is completely void of any of the usual movie clichés. There are some similarities with the old "Airport" movies but it is as close to those as it is to "Gone with the Wind". This is not by any means an "Ark movie" with its "mixed bag of characters" in which no harm can ever come to the heroes. The hijackers are not your typical imposing villains and instead seem like nervous high-scholars sharing a common secret. We are all too aware what the film's outcome will be and yet, subconsciously, we can't stop hoping for a break: if only the guy arriving late would miss the flight; if only the plane's departure would be held by the tower a little longer (until news of the WTC crashes can spread); if only the pilots would pay more attention to the "possible intrusion" message and refrain from opening the cockpit doors. The inevitability of the events is demoralizing.
While watching "United 93" one gets the impression that Greengrass try to make everything appear as ordinary as possible. The IMDB lists Morocco , Stansted Airport (UK) and Pinewood Studios among the filming locations but one could swear everything was done in the actual places (including mid-air). There's hardly any music to accentuate the mood (nor is it needed). The visual effects are effective but subtle. When looking at the scenery from the cockpit, things look so ordinary that we have to remind ourselves we are not really watching the actual landscape (the main reason why audiences usually spot visual tricks is that they often call attention to themselves, the furthest thing from happening here). There is none of the usual, flashy CGI that other spectacles would have surely used, such as external shots of the plane in distress. Greengrass realizes that the audience's point of view must reside inside the cabin (along with the rest of the passengers) and once the chaos starts he doesn't allow us to take a break until the plane has hit the ground. All this time our subconscious has been made aware that this is a different kind of movie experience and that makes everything all the more frightening.
Every role in "United 93" was cast with complete unknowns. Five years have passed since my first viewing I realize I still can't tell the name of a single actor in what was such a memorable movie. Their anonymity was an absolute condition if total realism was to be achieved. Had there been, say, a Nicholas Cage (as in Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center") this would have allowed the audience to take a step back and remember they were only watching a movie, resulting in a standard and altogether different experience.
Without resorting to the slightest bit of sentimentality Greengrass turns "United 93" into a painful, stomach turning experience that leaves the viewer completely drained. We spend so little time with each of the characters that we hardly become attached to any one of them and yet the film couldn't be more devastating. It may also be a little too real for its own good as we'd rather not have to see it for a second time. Still, we come away realizing we've just gone through an important experience as we are finally able to have at least an idea of the human suffering behind this event. We also can't help but wonder how we would have reacted ourselves under such circumstances. My guess is that most of us would have simply frozen from the fear of such a terrible death so it's remarkable that the United 93 passengers were able to pull themselves together in the first place. The word "heroic" is thrown around too casually these days when in truth two conditions have to be met: a remarkable, self-less effort and a noble cause. These people's actions would be remembered incorrectly if based on the premise that they gave their lives to save a particular building or landmark from destruction (actually, I suspect this was the last thing on their minds). It was the potential pain to their loved ones (on the other side of the line) that likely compelled them to act.
This is a tough film to watch, and it means a lot to me for several reasons. When I watched it for the first time in September 2006, it was an unforgettable experience with escalating level of tension and dread; I remember how a girl sitting next to me reacted to the finale with tears. When some local critic lambasted it as a patriotic right-wing movie showing ‘the heroic act of the American passengers’ and emphasizing US as the victim of terrorism, I defended the movie with a short, calm writing as a refutation. I confirmed my thoughts on the film later at the end of that year before I wrote my personal Top 10 list for the first time, and it was placed on the top of the list(No.2 was “Pan’s Labyrinth”, by the way).
During the second watching, I noticed John Powell, one of usual collaborators of Paul Greengrass, composed a considerable amount of music. The movie may not need music, but Powell provided a functional, restrained score which does not ruin that sheer realism in the film. The music is mostly ambient and neutral like James Newton Howard’s score for “Michael Clayton”; even the finale cue, far more dramatic than other parts, maintains that austere attitude of the film. Overall, it does a good job of reminding us subtly that this is not a documentary while not distracting us.
In case of anonymity you mentioned, some actors got more prominent roles after this movie. A good example is Christian Clemenson, who is now recognized by me and others as one of the regular characters in TV series “Boston Legal”. However, he is not a star actor like Nicholas Cage, so he still remains as one of the passengers just like his co-actors in the film.
You somehow manage to pick my favorite movies every time and write excellently about them. Thank you for another great piece.
Brings to mind the classic mashup "United 57."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mm3qpW6KsQ
What's interesting to me is that it's not just a recreation of what happened on that particular flight but it manages to capture the terror of that WHOLE DAY just using United flight 93 as the center of focus.
That was a good read, Gerardo. Well written indeed.
I was quite moved by the film when it came out. The tension builds, even as you already know the outcome. Precisely because you want to change the outcome, and can't.
What struck me most was the choice not to use any narration to tell us what was happening. It just happens.
@Seongyong Cho: I would have thought a movie like this would have caused virtually no political controversy, for one reason and that is the fact there isn't a single scene that exagerated any of the events or the character's virtues or shortcomings. When discussing works based on real life events, Roger has often said movies are not the best place to discover the truth behind a story but, If there was ever a feature that tried to be as accurate to real life events as possible, that is certainly "United 93".
@Claus Petersen: thanks so much for your very stimulating comment.
Sadly there are those rare tragic moments in history like September 11, when we all remember forever where we were, and what we were doing as certain horrible events unfolded. Others seared permanently into my memory are the nightmares of both Kennedy assassinations and the Challenger disaster. My father still vividly recalls the events he experienced at seventeen on that terrible day, December 7, 1941. You surely have your own. These stories inevitably seem to get retold in one form or another. I think critic Ann Hornaday best mirrors my feelings about this particular re-creation:
"United 93 may be the best movie I ever hated."
Terrific piece, right on the money about everything. Has there ever been a better quality movie that you just can't bring yourself to watch again? The only way to watch it a 2nd or 3rd time is with someone who hasn't seen it. Your dread and despair gets displaced to them. I chose to watch it a 2nd time with a friend of mine's wife(whom I actually don't like very much). Watching her struggle with it made it much more tolerable for me!
I salute your intention to reward Greengrass's craft and professionalism as he recreates one of the most dramatic events in history, yet your article is somewhat confusing as it mixes the pain in our personal memories and this film's actual achievements. I believe that Greengrass's true contribution lies precisely in that it brings in the personal complexities of both victims and terrorists with such depth and nuance that he ultimately transforms them into characters that at points diffuse the borderline between cold description and vivid storytelling. This is the kind of brilliance learned from watching and studying Pontecorvo's "The battle of Algiers" and Hitchcock's "Lifeboat", or Shakespeare, for that matter: watching a documentary on the life of Richard III in The History Channel is no match to Laurence Olivier planning to murder the princes in the tower. It would have been interesting to read your ideas from this perspective.
While I do admire aspects of "United 93," there is one troubling thing about the film that consistently goes unaddressed in postive reviews I read. One of the passengers, a German man named Christian Adams, is portrayed as someone who argues against the other passengers' plan to storm the cockpit, going so far as to try to sabotage it when it goes into action. There is no evidence to support this depiction. I think it's safe to say that some viewers may consider the Adams character's actions to be cowardly, or at least less heroic than what is displayed by the other passenger. So when I hear about how the filmmakers intended to honor those who lost their lives on that day, I can't help but be confused and disgusted. Why would you take such liberties in depicting the final moments of this particular man's life? Didn't they think of how his family would feel if they watched the film?
Here's an article from a while about about this particular issue: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/jun/07/news.xanbrooks
I'll never forget sitting in a theatre that was about half-full watching 'United 93.' At the end, when the screen went black, you could have heard a pin drop. I don't think I've ever experienced so many people in one place being so absolutely quiet.
Even the trailer gives me chills and leaves me with a sick feeling in my stomach. I think this film will be important for future generations to understand what that they day was really like.
How can you review a movie about a crime... without mentioning the men who committed the crime?
It was an act of jihad... and the men who committed the crime were Muslims. They were motivated by the teachings of Mohammed.
There. That wasn't so difficult. Proper journalistic rules and all that.
Who. What. Where. Why?
the "why" is the most important. Because they were victims of a terrorist organization who convinced them that God wanted them to commit suicide.
I thought this was one of the greatest movies I had every seen. I still can't believe it wasn't one of the five best picture nominees that year. Something tells me it wasn't because academy voters just didn't want to watch a movie like this.
Immediately after United 93 ends, the credits included a website for the United 93 Flight Memorial... The movie made such an impact on me, I went upstairs, logged into the website and donated $10. Over the past 10 years, they must have spent about $30 in postage and various high-end mailings in an effort to have me send MORE money. The memorial cost $15,000,000 when I first sent money in. Now? It's estimated to cost about $40,000,000. Somehow, even tragedy has lead to profit (for somebody out there) and I'm just glad the movie fulfilled its mission; it seems sad that the memorial's goal is not one and the same.
@J.Bradley: That may just be the movie’s biggest accomplishment.
@Randy Masters: It just happens and you feel like you lived through it yourself.
@john in Denver: Coincidentally, a few days before 9/11 I had just read a book on the Empire State Building which discussed how a bomber crashed there during WW2. It mentioned how this happened on the foggiest of days and that the last thing the pilot told the tower was “I can’t even see the top of the Empire State Building”.
When I turned on the TV on 9/11 and noticed how clear a day it was, the nature of the events on-screen became rather obvious.
@Eric: The only other quality movie which I can’t bring myself to watch again is “The Exorcist”. The negative repercussions clearly outnumber the good.
@Mario Zavala: Sad to hear I should have focused more on those topics because that was precisely my intention.
@John A: Those are the normal choices that filmmakers have to make all the time. Personally, I don’t think Greengrass did the story any kind of disservice by not including it.
@gbj: “United 93” is one of those rare movie-going experiences for which it will be impossible to ever forget the circumstances we lived while watching it.
@Darren: And that is why it was so important that a film on this topic be made.
@Bill Hays: If one is to watch “United 93” and give special focus on those who brought the plane down, then this is one of the most pointless, depressing movies ever made and frankly, one not worthwhile sitting through.
The perspective that you suggest represents the exact same attitude that made the response to this terrible act, infinitely worse (in terms of the number of deaths and suffering) than the event itself.
Reply to: The perspective that you suggest represents the exact same attitude that made the response to this terrible act, infinitely worse (in terms of the number of deaths and suffering) than the event itself.- Gerardo
Not true. Not even remotely true. Sorry, Gerardo, but when you report a crime... and this blog appears on the Chicago Sun Times website --- there are certain rules that apply to journalistic integrity.
If things were different, I might have started a religion. L. Ron Hubbard was a silly example with Scientology. What religious people fail to realize is, their "holy books" were written by ordinary men who were, for the most part, accomplished liars.
Islam, unfortunately, has taken the next evolutionary step. Instead of being merely a religion, it is not a political organization. It controls governments in Muslim countries such as Iran. There is a high council that controls the democratically elected government.
If the United States is to avoid disaster, we have got to get past the "big mistake" that we can't assign blame for criminal acts if the guilty parties claim they were "religiously motivated" or "doing the will of God." Once you understand what's going on, you will realize how wrong you are. This is not a church Sunday School class where we are prohibited from saying anything that would violate the "party line." This is a crime story, and the Muslims who ordered the jihad... the men who wrote the Qur'an verses calling for jihad against the non-Muslim world... are still in charge. The death of bin Laden didn't end anything. It merely added a few more names to the list of people who must be killed for jihad to be successful.
Just because a terrorist wears a t-shirt that says "I'm training to be a pilot" or "God is great," that doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist. Learn something from the movie. The men who hijacked the planes were criminals, and they worked for a much larger organization.
Think of this as a drug intervention. No one likes to be told they're an addict (or an alcoholic) but if enough people care, they might be able to make you see what you're doing wrong. Following the words of a terrorist who pretended to be a prophet... dooms you to being less than half of what you could be in life.
Try the scientific method. Get the facts right. All of the facts. Use the rules of logic to draw logical conclusions. And then, don't pretend the answer isn't "correct." Don't let a terrorist organization recruit children in American schools. Don't pretend that the hijacking was United 93 wasn't a terrorist act committed by criminals under the delusion of a phony religion.
Gerardo: "Those are the normal choices that filmmakers have to make all the time. Personally, I don’t think Greengrass did the story any kind of disservice by not including it."
I understand that filmmakers have to make creative decisions when working on fact-based films, but in this case I feel that an egregious blunder was made. Perhaps it can be argued that the depiction of Christian Adams doesn’t affect the overall accomplishments of the film, but it most certainly does a disservice to the memory of Adams and his surviving family. Wouldn’t it have been far more tasteful just to refrain from depicting him in such a manner, especially when there was no evidence to support the idea that he attempted to sabotage the other passengers’ plan to overtake the plane? The filmmakers of “United 93” had no real idea of what he did on the flight, so it just strikes me as incredibly disrespectful to portray this one passenger in what is arguably a very unflattering light.
One more thing: I notice you're in Mexico City. The terrorist attack was on the United States, not Mexico. Maybe it's more real for me than it is for Mexicans.
But... there were four hijacked planes. Two were targeted for the World Trade Center. One for the Pentagon.
And one for the White House. That one crashed into a field.
But... the criminals in this movie... were trying to destroy the White House in Washington, D.C.
Maybe you don't care about that. But Americans had to ask, who is behind this and how do we stop them from doing it again?
Reply to: the exact same attitude that made the response infinitely worse (in terms of the number of deaths and suffering) than the event itself
You've got your facts wrong, Gerardo. When a crime has been committed, catching the criminals is not "infinitely worse than the event itself."
Destroying the leaders of a terrorist organization known as Islam... has occupied this country for the last few years. We're not done yet.
I think the movie would have been much better if we saw how the Muslim terrorists pretended to be students who wanted to become commercial airline pilots, and had the cash to pay for private lessons.
@Matt I'm sure they all saw it, but the vote of those Academy memmbers who go for "feel-good movies" surely didn't help.
Personally I've never understood how voters can choose a film for Best Director and not for Best Picture (and viceversa). Those two categories go hand in hand.
@Drew: I'm sure those who included the website's link in the movie did it with the best intention.
@John A. : That decision was up to Greengrass. The resulting film is pretty good.
@Bill Hays: Reply to: Maybe it's more real for me than it is for Mexicans.
No, not really.
Reply to: ....how do we stop them from doing it again?
You could try been a little nicer to them.
Reply to: You could try been a little nicer to them.- Gerardo
Well, I can see where people would think that, but if you do your homework, and try to understand why those four planes were hijacked... Gerardo, how old are you? How much experience do you have with terrorists?
Here's the situation: in the name of Islam, orphans in the Middle East are taken to special Islamic schools, where the only book they are allowed to read if the Qur'an. Many of them think the Qur'an is the greatest book ever written. They are taught that becoming a martyr is the only way they can go to heaven and receive a reward "of unimaginable delight."
This isn't a bedtime story to them. It's what they study and memorize in school.
According to the word of God, we all fall short of God's standards. The only way to avoid punishment is to die in battle while fighting the enemies of Islam. That's the nonsense. And to them, it's very real.
The hijackers were brainwashed by Islam and bin Laden, into thinking that dying during an act of terror would get them instant admission to Paradise. The President of the United States, the White House, and especially the Pentagon, were targets because Americans were non-Muslims killing Muslims in a Muslim country.
Now, given that background, how does "being nicer to them" change anything?
The only possible scenario that MIGHT change things... is to speak out.
Explain why Islam is not credible, and maybe before they try to commit suicide, they will realize, "I don't have to kill myself. There are bad men in every organization and the United States is only killing the bad men."
The crucial element... is a blanket attack on the credibility of Islam. Let these people know that America doesn't think Islam is credible, that Mohammed was a terrorist who created a phony religion in order to recruit victims to die for his cause. That MIGHT stop it in the future.
Reply to: You could try been a little nicer to them.- Gerardo
I'm trying to save their lives by letting them hear the truth, instead of the lies they've been taught in school. How much nicer can you be?
Terrorists blow up things with bombs. If you're nice to them, and hold the door open, they will be able to carry the bomb inside your house before it detonates.
Do some research. Try to learn why terrorists think they need to wage jihad against the United States. Then, your next review will be better.
I explained my position, but your approach is basically wrong.
IF... and this is called a premise... IF Muslims believe that God delivered a message for them through Mohammed, and they will be rewarded with Paradise for dying while fighting the enemies of Islam...
Then... every time you are nice to them, or say you respect their beliefs... you are reinforcing the principle of terrorism. You are telling them, "I'm an educated person, and I think maybe the angel Gabriel did appear to Mohammed in a dream and deliver that message."
You've got to forget that approach. It hurts everyone. You've got to start from a solid foundation. Like, dreams are the left-over garbage from the emotional traumas of your life. You can't treat a dream as a message from a supernatural source. We know better. Many people don't have the education to understand, but we've learned that dreams have actual meanings. If Mohammed had a dream, and he woke up and said, "God promised you an eternity in Paradise if you die for my cause," that makes Mohammed a cheap con man.
Here's my challenge: have a conversation with a Muslim and try to explain why Islam is false. You will learn why being nice doesn't work... after about 20 minutes. When they show you the door and slam it behind you.
Reply to: it brings in the personal complexities of both victims and terrorists with such depth and nuance... the borderline between cold description and vivid storytelling. - MZ
We had talked about the 9/11 attacks at length, previously. I shouldn't have jumped back into the middle of that conversation.
Have you ever tried to be honest? It's amazing how difficult that can be. There's always a tendency to slant the truth, to bury certain facts because you have a certain agenda. Way back in high school, I was doing a science experiment. And I learned an important lesson.
Record the facts Honestly. Don't slant the date from your experiments to fit a theory. Create a new theory to fit the facts.
If you want to understand the crime, there are books about the hijackers. Maybe that's more research than you want to do. Maybe you want to review the emotional impact of the movie. But the first thing you learn is, be honest. Report what happened and don't try to twist the facts to fit a theory.
Why did they hijack a plane and commit suicide? Isn't that the most interesting part of the story?
Reply to: The hijackers are not your typical imposing villains and instead seem like nervous high-scholars sharing a common secret.
I think you mean "high school." They certainly weren't scholars. Unless you mean they hold themselves to be experts on one book. Most of the flight schools they tried to join refused to take them as students.
Reply to: We also can't help but wonder how we would have reacted ourselves under such circumstances. My guess is that most of us would have simply frozen from the fear of such a terrible death
That's not how the United States works. We try not to infringe on the rights of other people... did you see the Conrad Murray trial? A doctor was sentenced to four years in prison. The judge said, "Dr. Murray made a video where he explained how he wasn't guilty of criminal behavior. In order to give probation, I have to see that the defendant understand he committed a crime and feels remorse. I studied Dr. Murray's statements in that video, and I saw no sign of remorse."
I know it's hard to think of sentencing criminals to death... but they ARE criminals. Be honest about the nature of the crime, and why these men were willing to take their own lives in such a horrible way. That's a place to start.
If we're honest... killing the hijackers would have been more than justified.
Nope, there are two actors I can name in United 93: David Rasche (a familiar character actor) and Olivia Thirlby (the gorgeous young actress from JUNO and THE WACKNESS)
And yes, the response and the causes for 9/11 were objectively "worse" than 9/11, unless you believe that an American life is worth ten foreign ones. I don't know, some people believe that, I suppose.
Reply to: And yes, the response (to) 9/11 were objectively "worse" than 9/11,
Absolutely not.
Four flights originated inside the United States, for destinations inside the United States. They were hijacked by Muslims who were not American citizens.
I don't care how many foreigners were involved in planning the attacks. The principle is, everyone who murdered Americans on American soil was brought to justice.
When the ringleaders are protected by an army... literally an army of soldiers armed with automatic weapons... you send a Special Ops team across the border into Pakistan, enter the house and shoot the ringleader.
unless you believe that an American life is worth ten foreign ones
That's a strange way of looking at it.
Many in the government considered 9/11 an act of war. Know why?
Because they didn't know enough about Islam.
They didn't know that Mohammed declared war on the non-Muslim world 1,400 years ago. America has always tried not to respond to Islamic attacks. And you seriously don't see why 9/11 was an attack that demanded a response? A response that would tell the Muslim world, "This will NOT be tolerated again."