United 93

[grady]

I'd been waiting for a while to jump in on this one but I'm feeling a bit more energy today and this film among the other 911 films have been doing two things for me.

1. Making me Pissed off

and

2. Curious

One. From the get go of 911, it was only a matter of time before this started happening. My main problem and why films like Mr. Greengrasses' and Mr. Stone's piss me off is that it seems to perpetuate and cement the uncertainty of that day and what happen into a mythological truth of sorts that people will then believe as actual truth.

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but there is just too many damn questions that I have, many more left unanswered or ignored by the government and the american public. With the media now being spoonfed to people I can imagine people buying these stories as fact and taking it just as fact on face value.

When I saw the trailer for this film United93, about a month ago on Inside Man, my antagnoistic friend leaned over to me and whispered into my ear, "Just be quiet, I don't want to hear it." Fine, I'm not going to bitch and moan about this and that in the theater, but seeing the trailer on the big screen projected, had a different effect on me.

Kind of a sick morbid curiosity to see what the director Paul Greengrass is up to and felt so compelled to make this film.

Two. As I read a few reports of advance screenings, one by a journalist whose writing and opinion I admire and enjoy, my curiosity grew to see what the film was. The filmmaker side of me that wants to know and feel the details and the hows and whys of decision made in the production kicked in.

Part of this spurred by this piece. Now it didn't entirely sway me over from seeing it right away, but brought about a few different perspectives to light that I hadn't really been considering or seeing from my perspective.

At the moment I'm still undecided on when I will see it, but I know it's only a matter of time before the curiosity will get the most of me.

Finally one last point of interest worth reading in regards to the film about the two NYC Fire Fighters being directed by Oliver Stone. This piece is from 10.06.01. It's a report on a discussion at the NY Film Festival with of all people Oliver Stone, a few studio executives and some indie film producers.

Reading the piece, that's the Oliver Stone I want to see make a film about Terrorism. Perhaps the wind in his sails was heavily deflated by Alexander, but you read those comments and then see the turn he's taken.

Immediately what comes to mind is he's doing one for the studio to get himself back in good graces before he can do a picture for himself. Then maybe he'll head back down that erradic course that he was on following the inevietable sucess of his film.

[Future Proof]

Originally Posted by adam

I find calling a movie you haven't seen an abomination to be pretty objectionable. I understand everything you're saying, but as soon as you use language that strong, I can't agree with you. It could be "an abomination", I suppose, but it isn't by virtue of its subject matter. Your analogy about the sister is totally unfair; making a movie about a tragedy is in no way being over to the extent you're suggesting. You can make a movie about events while in no respect being "over" them. I don't think any subject is "taboo" for a serious discussion, and I think any type of serious artistic effort can qualify as serious discussion. Can we infer from the quality of the preview or the people involved that this likely isn't a "serious artistic effort"? That's a matter of opinion. I would say not, myself; I can see how others could say, "Yes, from the preview it seems clear to me that this a plain attempt at emotional manipulation without any real value. It's a cash in." But I think that's possible, and jumping from that possibility to "abomination" is a nice leap.

Ok -- it's not an abomination... just a wierd twisting of my stomach. Layer that on top of the fact that I've got quite a few doubts about the validity of how things actually happened on 9/11 and what you have is a wierd mis-mosh of feelings on this thing.

I don't see why I have to be neutral on this; I don't see why this plus numerous other things always get a hall pass when you throw the "art" term on it. "Art" isn't the be-all, end-all and there are numerous reasons why one would object to someone's art and choose not to support it. And that's all I'm doing, I'm not telling others not to support this movie or anything.

[ffolkes]

Not only is the subject off-putting, but also the fact that Paul Greengrass agreed on directing this is kinda disappointing.

He did ok on Bourne Supremacy (shaky cameras aside, which might've been more of the cinematographer's fault) so it's a pity that he's moved on to this.

I guess there's always Bourne Ultimatum...

[adam]

You should be neutral on it, Paul, because you haven't seen it. The reason the art label gives it a pass is because, as I said, I don't think any topic is exempt from artistic representation. Therefore, I think criticism of the movie isn't fair solely on the basis of its topic, therefore, I think it makes sense to remain neutral until you see it. Otherwise, you're saying, "You shouldn't make a movie about that! I don't care what your intent is!" Do you not see why I might have an issue with that?

"There are numerous reasons why one would object to someone's art.." Fine...except that you haven't seen the damn movie. That's a troublesome form of censorship. Granted, you say you aren't telling others how to feel about it...but you plainly feel that the movie shouldn't have been made, and you are expressing that. That's not far from censorship, emotion-wise, and that's not far from burning books you haven't actually read.

Extreme comparison, of course. And you're not really under attack here, you said, "I don't see why...," and I'm trying to explain my point of view. All in the spirit of discussion.

[Future Proof]

Originally Posted by adam

You should be neutral on it, Paul, because you haven't seen it. The reason the art label gives it a pass is because, as I said, I don't think any topic is exempt from artistic representation. Therefore, I think criticism of the movie isn't fair solely on the basis of its topic, therefore, I think it makes sense to remain neutral until you see it. Otherwise, you're saying, "You shouldn't make a movie about that! I don't care what your intent is!" Do you not see why I might have an issue with that?

"There are numerous reasons why one would object to someone's art.." Fine...except that you haven't seen the damn movie. That's a troublesome form of censorship. Granted, you say you aren't telling others how to feel about it...but you plainly feel that the movie shouldn't have been made, and you are expressing that. That's not far from censorship, emotion-wise, and that's not far from burning books you haven't actually read.

Extreme comparison, of course. And you're not really under attack here, you said, "I don't see why...," and I'm trying to explain my point of view. All in the spirit of discussion.

I know buddy, no big deal.

The only problem with all of this is that these filmmakers chose to make a movie on a controversial topic, I've chosen to speak against it (though I have not recommended a course of action for anyone else to take, nor have said that people that will go watch the movie are bastards or anything like that) and you're saying that this is close to censorship, but aren't you teetering on the same line by trying to correct me?

People have to make up their own minds about this. About whether they believe the movie should've been made, whether it was good, et cetera, et cetera. However -- just because a whole slew of critics come back and say "WOWOWOWOWOWOW movie great yeah heroes terrorists BOOM! 3.5 thumbs up!" doesn't mean that I'm going to rush out and see this movie. But at the same time, I don't expect people listening to me fuss to have my POV, or to make their decision based off of mine.

[adam]

I'm NOT trying to silence you, I'm trying to persuade. But point taken.

NOT

THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO SAY "NOT"

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by adam

I'm trying to silence you

*snigger*

(s'ok, we know what you meant to write )

[Sean]

Originally Posted by myrrh

And the family member being involved is wack. I am sure he/she got a nice chunk of change for his/her part in it.

It was actually ALL the family members that they got approval from. It was through interviewing them, and dealing with phone records and such that they apparently pieced together the overall story as best they could.

This article about the premiere makes me feel a bit more open to the idea of it...

http://www.variety.com/VR1117942055.html

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by ffolkes

Not only is the subject off-putting, but also the fact that Paul Greengrass agreed on directing this is kinda disappointing.

He did ok on Bourne Supremacy (shaky cameras aside, which might've been more of the cinematographer's fault) so it's a pity that he's moved on to this.

I guess there's always Bourne Ultimatum...

Well, he was responsible for:
Bloody Sunday
The Stephen Lawrence Murder (TV)
The One That Got Away (about an SAS man stranded in Iraq at the end of the first Gulf War)
Open Fire (about the shooting of David Martin)(TV)
Ressurected (about a british soldier after the Falklands War)

So it is more a return to form really

[gambit]

Personally, I'm with adam here. Eventually, someone was going to make a movie about this, and the only questionable thing I see with this is the timing, which is going to be different for each person. I'm not so concerned with how close the events of the movie coincide with the events of real life because any sort of dramatization of any event is never going to be exactly the same. That said, I don't know if I want to see it or if I'm going to see it. I'm not really a movie guy, and I still get worked up when I see video of 9/11.