Today the movie United 93 opnes in theaters and plunges the American public back to the dark day of September 11, 2001. When I first saw the trailer last month I was chagrined. I was at a movie for a good time, trying to unwind, and then the trailer was there and the whole theater went quiet. No one was ready to be plunged back to that place. I was just reading a review of the movie and how it was made. I don't plan on seeing the movie. There are certain days and events that I try not to relive and 9/11 is certainly one of them. But the whole concept of the movie, and the multitude of others about 9/11 that are coming out over the next year or two has lead me to a lot of questions.
First, do movies about this event honor the victims or do they dishonor them by taking tragedy and making it enterntainment, no matter how well they are made? There is obviously a line somewhere in the making of a film between recreating history in visual media to honor the history and keep it in our conscious (A film like Schindler's List for example) and a film that sensationalizes history for profit and entertainment (Pearl Harbor for example). What factors go into determining where a film falls on that line?
Second, what am I to make of companies whose only purpose in production and distribution of such a movie is profit? I refuse to believe that any of these studios are acting for the comon good. You don't become a studio executive by working for the common good. So, does the reality of consumerism and profit making preclude these films from existing for the common good? Certainly films can have a powerful voice and impact on individuals and communities, but, I doubt that most film companies have that in mind. It makes me distrust films that try to accomplish something for society and are released by major production companies.
Third, with the reality that movie making is an art, and all art carries with it interpretations and stylistic elements, how true to the details of the story do we expect these films to be? Certainly we must expect all the major aspects to be in the right order, but the reality of that day was chaos, miscommunication, and mayhem. Trying to make a movie about Flight 93 or about what was going on in the Twin Towers between the crashes of the planes, or about the terrorists as they planned and implemented the events, includes a lot of guess work. How do we balance that artistic license with the reality of the pain and suffering people brought? How do we balance that with the reality that whatever images and ideas are produced by these films will alter history for the audience in some way. No one who has watched historic films such as JFK, Malcom X, Braveheart or even the Passion of the Christ, can completely remove those images from their conscious as they reconsider the events of the past. In many ways that is a helpful tool of media. In other ways that is the downside of living in an image driven world.
Any thoughts on the film? Will you go see it? Any reviews to share? I would love your thoughts……
April 28, 2006 at 9:24 pm
I read that some support this film because it will allow people to remember or help them to never forget. I don’t know who could. I can recap the horror of that day and the months to follow on my own, thank you. It vividly replays in my head often enough. I will NOT see this movie.
April 30, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Greg,
We see eye to eye on I think 90 percent of things, but I have to disagree with you on this. I think the movie serves a purpose, to what purpose I think will be left to the individual movie goer themselves. I think this movie will serve to honor the victims of that flight, their efforts on the plane, and the memories of those who died in the Twin Towers. I doubt I will see it, not because I don’t want to see it – I do – but because I have very little time to actually go to a movie and often can’t see paying $15 (ticket, plus drink) for a two-hour bore fest.
I heard Rush Limbaugh (take your own biases into account) talk about the movie last week saying how they tried to respect the day and reconstructed through information that has been released.
Anytime Hollywood steps into the historical realm – as a history buff – I am naturally skeptical. Movies and mini-series like The Patriot, Bravehart, Passion, Glory, Roots, and others have been effective media tools in telling stories about our traditions, our sufferings, and our past.
And Maggie, I understand what you are saying about never being able to forget. I was a senior at West Virginia University taking a pysch exam and was walking to my car in the parking lot when I heard Peter Jennings on my radio. I went home for two hours and then I went to work at my newspaper where I was working trying to put out our sports section early and helping the news staff gather as much information as possible. It was mass chaos and I remember just about every second of every image of every conversation that day.
But, as much as we hate to admit it, there are people who have let their guards down. Darrel Waltrip said today during the pre race for the race saying that drivers were getting a little too confident thinking they won’t get hurt in the big one. I think we, as a country, are starting to get too confident that Sept. 11 won’t happen again. Just my opinion.
May 2, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Although this movie doesn’t appeal to me, I think capturing the impact and enormous tragedy of 9/11 will be necessary for future generations…I don’t think this is the movie that will do it. And I agree Greg, something more like how Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan, and not Pearl Harbor. I think it’s a risk to be the first movie about 9/11 and to attempt to recreate that day for the current audience, considering how we all felt 9/11 in some heart wrenching way or another. But I agree with Shannon, that’s up to the movie-goers to decide. Which they did…more people went to see RV (starring Robin Williams) than Flight 93 over the weekend.
May 5, 2006 at 3:00 am
Greg,
Great web site. I come down on this issue closer to your friend Shannon, but let me give a little background.
I think there are people in this world who do things purely out of self interests and these are the kind of people who end up in jail for insider trading. There are also people out there who do things purely out of selfLESS interest — these are the kind of people feeding, clothing, and providing for those in need getting nothing in return. But in our capitalistic society (which I propose is not a perfect system, but its the best one we have), we have a system which takes advantage of human beings’ propensity to do things that they have an incentive to do, which also often happens to benefit the greater good. For example, many good scientists at drug companies who are working to find a cure for cancer do so because they truly want to end the sickness and death associated with the affliction. They seek grants, work in obscurity, do research, and promote causes that raise money for such research. They also work for companies that can pay them because if they do find ways to treat cancer, they can get an economic benefit – yes they profit, and in the process add a good to the society. Its not a binary outcome (or more simply, black and white). As both a Christian and a participant in our capital markets (and I don’t claim to be a model example of either), I can identify situations where the desire to profit and the desire to benefit the greater man can both exist and motive the same action (and in fact facilitate the enterprise). There are numerous other examples, but what does this have to do with United 93, the movie?
Let me give a little background on this specific issue. I live in a part of the country where everyone either knows someone or is someone who lost loved ones on 9/11. The litter of office files showered the building I work in every day, only several blocks from ground zero. I personally was in Chicago on that day, working in the Sears Tower on the 51st floor. Watching plane #2 hit the South Tower live on television and realizing it was a terrorist act and that I was watching this in the next tallest building in the country, I caught only whiff of the fear others that day truly had tasted. After moving to New York 3 months later, I became witness to the remains of a tragedy, up close and personal. I also watched during the next five years, how easy it became to be lulled into a safe feeling and question the vigilance required to pursue and destroy those who would want to do far worse to our country, despite the occasional scares riding the subway, walking by the armored vehicles and machine guns outside the Stock Exchange every day, or public officials constantly saying, “when, not if.”
My wife and I saw United 93 last weekend. It was obvious that many in the audience had personal connections to the tragedy. To answer your questions based on only my opinion,
1. Yes, the movie honors those who died that day and I can assure you that “entertaining” was neither the reason for nor result of watching the movie.
2. Yes, Universal Pictures will surely profit from the movie, but I believe that the pursuit of profits and the common good do in fact coexist here, as submitted above (although we often think of the two as strictly mutually exclusive).
3. Many details of what happened on that day, on that plane, went down with those aboard, but I think the point of the movie was not to get every detail right but to portray what we do know and capture the spirit of those who prevented further destruction.
I think Todd Beamer’s dad summed it up best when he wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal last week encouraging every American to see the movie. I encourage you to read it:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008294
I also encourage you to read this article which I think does a good job addressing the topic further.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110008299
Thanks for the thought-proking blog! I enjoy these.
Best,
Raji
May 8, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Raji,
Great to hear from you and I am glad to hear you are doing well. I have been encouraged by the people who have seen the film and reviewed it. I hope that it both honors the victims and benefits society in general through its remembrance of that dark day and the power of its message. Thanks for the response.
Peace-
G
May 12, 2006 at 1:48 pm
On Sept. 11th, the thing that struck me was how fast the media began to manipulate the footage of the plane hitting the second tower and the towers falling. Within minutes, the footage was being replayed in slow motion and within hours there was music underscoring the footage. The movie about the event was made almost instantly with footage of the actual event.
These images are preserved both in our memories and on tape for all generations to see and remember. We don’t NEED a movie about 9/11 to insure we never forget.
The second thing that struck me about the images from 9/11 is that they “looked like a movie.” Hollywood has effectively created the images they produce as the norm so that when reality happens to us (good or bad) we think back to fiction rather than being able to truly live in the reality as it happens. 9/11 is an example of this taking place in a negative reality, but when we see a beautiful waterfall, sometimes our first thought is, “This is just like in that movie!” It is important for us to maintain distinctions between “real” images and fictionalized images. I think it is a loss when our memories of 9/11 are either the slow motion replay of the plane hitting the tower or worse, Hollywood’s recreation of the events. I’m not saying that we will confuse fact and fiction, but we can all agree (pardon the strange analogy) that a real flower is more beautiful than a fake flower. In the same way, real images and experiences of any kind are more meaningful and valid than representations of those images and experiences.
The following is a highly debated area of part of this conversation: Does a saturation of images dull us to the reality of life? I know many people who argue that it does not, but I can say that personally it does and I have seen it in others. When I watch a lot of war, gangster, horror movies I become less and less sensitive to those images. If I stop watching those types of movies for a while and start again, it is hard to watch at times. The news media is a popular example of this. It blows me away that people can watch the news reporting on 30-50-100 people being slaughtered and then yawn and flip the channel. I think that a movie about 9/11, however well made and for whatever reason, will serve more to numb us than wake us up.
All of that is not to say that we need to be awakened to the “reality” of a perpetual terrorist threat. I think that fear was exploited in many ways by many people following 9/11. We cannot live in the grip of that fear. We have to keep going even though there are armed guards at the subways, politicians saying “When, not if”, and new and constant threats coming from radical Islamic leaders. To say that a movie about 9/11 serves a purpose in that it will ensure we don’t become complacent to the dangers of living in America is not reason enough for it to be made or viewed.
I see no reason for this or any of the other movies about 9/11 to be made. The media has already fictionalized it through their manipulation of the footage, the “real” images are already preserved for our individual and collective memories, Hollywood renditions of events like this only serve to blur the lines between real and fictional images thus diluting the effects of real images and events, and this over saturation of images (real and fictionalized) causes us to be unable to give the appropriate attention and response to the images and events that should affect us.
I remember 9/11. I turned on my TV about 10 minutes after the second plane hit. I asked myself, “Is this important? Is this a big deal?” My mind had to take a moment to filter out all the junk and see the images for what they were.
May 12, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Shay,
I like to kick the media in the rear, but as a media member during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack I can recall no moment where we tried to manipulate our coverage. If anything, I can recall we were overwhelemd with what to do with the coverage. We were shocked like all Americans. We were nervous, also, about how we would portray it in the news section the next day. You also have to remember we (the media) were making decisions on the fly as events were unfolding.
I remember sitting at the Times West Virginian offices in Fairmont, W.Va. as decisions were being made on what photos to run. We had several ethical decisions to make throughout the day on what to run or what not to run. We chose on the front page to show a panaramic view of the skyline with the flames from the tower. Others chose to show photos of the plane hitting the Towers. Both were correct decisions to make. There were also decisions made on whether or not to publish photos of victims jumping from the burning buildings.
Those moments in the newsroom that week was some of the most intense I’ve ever experienced. I saw the faces of people who went to Pennsylvania to the crash site. They wouldn’t talk about what they saw. We did the best we could under the circumstance of what we were faced with.
May 13, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Shannon,
I’m not critiquing the media’s coverage. By manipulate, I do not mean distorting the truth intentionally, but I mean that when you make decisions on which pictures to show, you are manipulating the event through your decisions. I know you know this. I’m not saying that these are bad choices, but they are choices and thus they alter the reality of what happened. There was also the intentional choice to add music and slow down the footage which is an intentional manipulation of the images of the event. This is the main point I am trying to make about the coverage. First, the media beleives they need to add music. Is this because they feel they need to let the audience know how to feel? Any time we re-present an event it is a distortion of the event, but are we trying to be honest and present the event and images as acurately as possible, or are we trying to show a certain angle of the event and emphasize certain images? The media did this in the months and years following 9/11 as they built a culture of fear with the images of 9/11 and other bombings as a basis for this fear. My point is that a fictionalized version of the events on 9/11 have already been given to us through the media. Not necessarily a false or inaccurate version, but a fictionalized version.
November 29, 2008 at 12:23 pm
This website is very nice and colorful too. Its nice to have something to show others where you attend church and to show all the smiling people filled of the goodness of the Lord. You have a wonderful website here. May God rich bless you always.