The World Newser
World News' Daily Blog
The World Newser is World News' daily blog. Here, you'll find our staff's thoughts on the day's news and the way we build our broadcast. Plus, we'll share reports from our team of correspondents in the field, as well as producers behind-the-scenes.
RECENT POSTS
- Anatomy Of A Rumor
- Car Czar?
- Sing It, Baby
- Hillary Clinton is Throwing a Party
- Karl Rove Has Figured Out Why Obama Won
- The Morning Meeting
- Ridiculously Low Mortgage Rates Might Only Get Better
- Gov. Rendell's Hot-Mic Mis-Hap on Napolitano
- Buy One Car, Get One Free
- Were The Heavens Smiling On Us?
- Quick -- Who's The President?
- Summarize Your Life in Six Words
WORLD NEWSER CATEGORIES
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Watching United 93
April 26, 2006 8:31 AM
Investigative Unit producer Jill Rackmill blogs about attending last night’s screening of United 93.
The mood outside Manhattan’s Ziegfeld Theater last night at Tribeca Film Festival’s world premiere of the movie “United 93” was an unusual mix of excitement, anticipation and dread. How difficult would this movie be to watch? Is it supposed to entertain us? To educate us? Should this movie even have been made?
The evening had the trappings of any movie premier – the black limos, the jockeying, the flashing paparazzi, the red carpet. But the stars of the night were not the movie’s mostly-unknown actors, nor the important New York City officials in attendance, or even the Hollywood celebrities who showed up (Gabriel Byrne, Julia Stiles and Steve Buscemi, to name a few).
The evening’s real guests of honor were the family members of passengers who died on United 93, many of whom sat in the audience and wholeheartedly support the controversial film. The movie was dedicated to them -- and was made, according to Gordon Felt, brother of passenger Edward P. Felt, “so that the lessons learned in their sacrifice can last forever.”
The movie takes place in almost-real time on the morning of September 11th. From the opening shot of four hijackers in a dingy motel room reading from the Koran to the closing image shot through the spiraling plane’s cockpit window as the brown and green Pennsylvania earth comes closer and closer, United 93 the movie is an agonizing dramatization of an agonizing day.
But the most painful part of the movie did not appear on the silver screen itself. As the final shot faded to black, and the credits began to roll, the theater reverberated with the moaning, wracking, heaving sobs of the family members, seated mostly in the Ziegfeld’s balcony. Powerful cinematic feats can do much to transport us to other worlds, but no Dolby-stereo sound system could ever faithfully recreate the real cries of those hurting souls.
Still, United 93 is a mesmerizing and meticulous piece of filmmaking. Shot in a shaky, hand-held, hyperkinetic style, at times it feels like a documentary, with scenes inside simulated air traffic control centers, the Northeast Air Defense Sector, and, of course, the now-menacing United Airlines Boeing 757 itself.
Filmmaker Paul Greengrass has an astoundingly accurate eye for detail, down to the mundane routines that all bleary-eyed passengers on morning flights go through – a young woman applies lip balm, a businessman turns the pages of that day’s newspaper, a stewardess describes the contents of a breakfast omelet. All of these normal, everyday rituals are almost unbearable to watch, knowing what will eventually befall the passenger and crew.
“Here we go,” say the pilots as they back away from the gate – and the inevitable unfolds. The story itself is, of course, painfully seared into history’s memory, but as movie viewers in a darkened theater we once again relive that day: first one plane, then another, hits the World Trade Center, then the Pentagon is in flames, then yet another plane is reported missing.
The scenes of the actual hijack of United 93 are the most graphic and terrifying to watch. It is a dark exercise, but one can only imagine what they would have been like to be a passenger, let alone one brave enough to overthrow the hijackers in an attempt to seize control of the cockpit.
We will never know exactly what happened in the final moments of United 93’s flight. But as true as this movie is to life, in the end, it is a movie, and many things that will remain forever unknown are filled in by fictionalizations.
Surprisingly, some real-life known details are left out. As someone who has reported extensively on United 93, I was surprised that the hijacker Ziad Jarrah’s own spoken transmissions – “We have a bomb on board” -- were not included. In talking with Greengrass after the movie, he explained to me that he left that out because it wasn’t useful for the “storytelling.”
Universal Pictures announced that 10 percent of the opening weekend’s profits will be donated to the Flight 93 National Memorial project. Generous, yes – but it begs the questions, why just the opening weekend? Why just 10 percent?
In all, the filmmakers deserve credit for honoring the memory of those lost on United 93, for telling the story straight down the middle with very little politics, and for never, ever slipping into melodrama in the telling of this tragic day.
With material like this, you don’t have to.
April 26, 2006 | Permalink | User Comments (5)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/4749507
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Watching United 93:
Thank you for this report. I was so afraid for the families' sake - and in fact for the sake of our collective psyche, still so recently scarred - that "United 93" would seem at the least exploitive or manipulative, and at worst like a violation. My family lost an extremely close friend on AA Flight 11, so the idea of reducing the horror of that day to what might easily have become a formulaic disaster film has greatly troubled me. I'm relieved to know that someone who must almost inevitably have become emotionally involved in what happened on Flight 93 through extensive reporting felt it honored the victims.
"As the final shot faded to black, and the credits began to roll, the theater reverberated with the moaning, wracking, heaving sobs of the family members . . . ." That sentence brought me to tears. I imagine the echoes of those sobs will haunt you for a very long time. As I try to step back and consider the film on its artistic merits, based on your description, it occurs to me that the sounds of grief over the credits are something Greengrass may have counted on as, in effect, part of the film. Nothing else could recreate as profoundly the progression of emotion we all experienced on that terrible morning.
"Universal Pictures announced that 10 percent of the opening weekend’s profits will be donated to the Flight 93 National Memorial project. Generous, yes – but it begs the questions, why just the opening weekend? Why just 10 percent?" Thank you, as well, for raising these questions. In my opinion, the more ethical thing to do would be to recover the cost of making and promoting the film, perhaps take a modest profit, and donate *all* the rest of the revenue from the film to the memorial - if indeed the filmmakers' intent was to honor rather than exploit. One would think Universal could go a long way toward defraying the $58 million the memorial will cost. What they would gain in good PR would likely repay them many times over.
Posted by: Jill Nikolaides | Apr 26, 2006 7:22:09 PM
I have just recently visited the Temporary Memorial to Flight 93 near Shanksville, PA. It is not at all a great distance south of route US 30, the Lincoln Highway. More people should take a half hour out of their travels to know what is planned in the way of a permanent memorial.There is not much to see at this time. However, the dedication of local residents who have become volunteer "Ambassadors," ever-present at the small shelter and short length of fencing holding tributes from visitors which are regularly collected and stored for future permanent display, is testimony to the spirit of ordinary Americans who recognize the need and duty to remember what happened on a day that is already as indelibly seared into our collective national consciousness as Pearl Harbor. Despite the minimal nature of the site presently, the "Ambassadors" ensure that every visitor receives a brochure detailing the plans for the Flight 93 National Memorial. It is a beautiful design, and fitting in its thoughtful remembrance of the passengers and crew not just collectively, but also individually. Yes, individually. No donations are taken on-site. I will provide the brochure information on this issue below. I just wish to second the thoughts of those who have suggested that more of the profits from the movie should be put toward the cost of the memorial after production costs, salaries and a modest profit are met. The brochure quotes a cost of $30 million for the memorial. Not a high price at all for the plan as presently envisioned. I think that such a response on the part the moviemakers through viewers who, by their participation in this common activity of our culture, will for once demonstrate the power and the positive value of the medium.
Sites to visit: www.flight93memorialproject.org and www.honorflight93.org
Contribute: The Flight 93 National Memorial Fund
c/o The National Park Foundation
P.O. Box 17394
Baltimore, MD 21298-9450
Posted by: J.R. Fanchalsky | Apr 26, 2006 8:39:32 PM
J.R. Fanchalsky, thank you so much for the information you gave about the sites to visit and the memorial fund.
I just want to clarify the $58 million dollar figure I quoted. According to an AP article I read today on AOL News, you're absolutely right that $30 million is to be raised through private donations. The total cost is given as $58 million, and apparently the House Appropriations Committee is being less than cooperative. If the filmmakers were to donate more of their profit, Congress might not be an impediment.
Unfortunately, I can't find the article on ABC, but here's a link to the one I read:
Posted by: Jill Nikolaides | Apr 26, 2006 10:05:08 PM
Somewhere between $2.7 and $4.1 BILLION dollars were donated to various "911 charities" in the period following 911. Seems to me if the public desired a large memorial, they'd pony up and not leave it to the government.
Frankly, while I have much sympathy for the casualties of 911, I have even more compassion for the 2,392 American troops who have been killed thus far in the insane neocon adventure in Iraq. I don't see any rush to "remember" those folks.
Posted by: Jim Nicholson | Apr 27, 2006 8:17:32 AM
When I heard that Universal was only donating %10 of the first 3 days' profits I couldn't believe how cheap that is.
If this movie is *really* supposed to honor the efforts of the people on flight 93, then Unviersal should donate 100% of profits.
Regarding Jill Nikolaides' comment, I don't like the war in Iraq either, but "the 2,392 American troops who have been killed..." voluntarily entered into the military; the people on Flight 93 didn't volunteer to be hijacked.
The soldiers and sailors will be honored- we also should honor the people who valiantly tried to save a full plane.
Posted by: Scott | May 10, 2006 11:06:15 AM
Post a comment
