“Let’s Roll”

By Jesse Stehouwer

[1] Needless to say, September 11, 2001, is one the most tragic days in the history of America. 2,752 innocent people were senselessly killed, and millions of lives were changed forever. Like with the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, movies will be made about 9/11, and United 93 is just the beginning. Director and writer of United 93 Paul Greengrass took a very intriguing approach to the creation of this film, one that should certainly be explored and dissected. Greengrass listened to recorded phone calls and radio transmissions along with interviewing the families of the victims, providing his actors with biographies of their characters and, in many cases, he cast actual characters to play themselves in the film. In short, Greengrass went to great lengths to make the film as authentic as possible. Yet, even with all his research, what actually happened on that plane died with everyone on board, leaving Greengrass to interpret what he knew and then use this to decide how he wanted to portray the occupants of United 93 35,000km above Pennsylvania. During the moments leading up to and the passengers’ heroic revolt, Greengrass must employ this leeway he is given as director.

[2] The great directors know how to capture an audience by creating specific emotions in the audience and then capitalize on what the viewer is feeling at very strategic points. Thus, before critiquing Greengrass’s interpretation of the revolt, it is important to first recognize what the audience is feeling during this scene and how he has created such feelings. When thinking back to this scene, the emotions that come to mind are hope, panic, and anger.

[3] On September 11, 2001, at 10:06am flight United 93 crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It’s like watching Titanic: every viewer knows the ship is going to sink. However, unlike Titanic there is no hope for the passengers; from the moment the door on the plane is sealed, which Greengrass intentionally shot in close up, the audience knows nobody on that plane will get off. They will never see their families again and never feel the earth beneath their feet. So why does the viewer have any hint of hope in this final scene, when, in reality, the entire situation is utterly hopeless? The way Greengrass narrates the story is remarkably similar to the Hollywood playbook. It has become the norm in movies for a happy ending, making such an ending expected by the audience. The expectation leads to the simple conclusion that the passengers are successful and miraculously survive in order to fit the Hollywood ending. Furthermore, Greengrass is playing on the obvious fact that we are human. Though the majority of his audience cannot possibly imagine the situation these passengers are in, we, as the audience, still try relate to them, thus causing us to go against every ounce of logic and to hope for their success.

[4] Greengrass is a lot more tactical when it comes to creating confusion and panic in his audience. Indeed, during this scene the audience is not confused, but, at a closer look, the panic the audience feels stems from the confusion Greengrass creates earlier on in the film. To create this sense of confusion, every shot of the FAA control rooms shows the panic and chaos that seized those responsible for tracking air traffic that morning. The communication between cities and to the military is practically nonexistent, and the rooms are filled with people shouting over each other. Greengrass also constantly switches between FAA control rooms in different cities and between FAA control rooms and the plane, causing viewers to be physically confused as to where they are. Also, throughout the film Greengrass uses jagged camerawork to physically simulate what the passengers were experiencing. This jagged camerawork made it near impossible for the audience to focus on anything before the camera is moved. Greengrass creates this confusion leading up to the scene, because the revolt is a last effort -- the lingering confusion now transpires into panic.

[5] Greengrass does not need to do much to create anger within the viewer; the situation handles that. But what Greengrass must do is to gauge the anger of his audience to determine the amount of violence he wishes to portray. For instance, he must decide the amount of detail he wants to show of the first hijacker being beaten by the fire extinguisher, the faces of the passengers during the revolt, and the actual invasion of the cockpit. Lastly, because how the revolt actually happened is not known, this is one of the instances in which Greengrass can adjust the screenplay to fit his goal for the film. For example, originally Greengrass had all the passengers attacking the hijackers, but he then changed it so only a select number were involved and went so far as to have one passenger, ironically the character whose family refused to talk with Greengrass because it was too painful, protesting the revolt and at one point physically trying to stop them.

[6] With all emotions in check, one can step back and take an honest look at the scene itself and Greengrass’s interpretation of the events and how they unfolded. As previously mentioned, Greengrass originally had all the passengers attacking the hijackers but then decided against it. It makes sense that there would be a number of passengers who would not have participated because it wouldn’t have been practical. Had they stormed the hijackers, they would have got in each other’s way, being bottlenecked by the isle, the doorway to first class, and doorway to the cockpit. Thus, in this instance Greengrass was likely correct in his interpretation, but nonetheless it is important to recognize that it is indeed just one man’s interpretation and not actually factual.

[7] Via radio transmission Greengrass was able to hear the hijackers constantly praying, so he shows them that way in the film. However, there was one instance when Greengrass shows a number of passengers reciting psalm 23, which is a very common verse to go to when people are afraid because it talks about the Lord always protecting and guiding those who love and follow him. Again, it makes sense for this to be occurring on the plane. However, what is interesting is that Greengrass chose to flash between the passengers saying their prayers and the hijackers saying theirs. Is Greengrass trying to create a common link between the passengers and the hijackers? These people had little idea about what the actual plans of the terrorist were. From phone conversation they may have known that there was a strong chance they were on a suicide mission, but nothing in the history of America has been done like this before -- thus there is no precedent for how one should handle such a situation. So, yes, Greengrass is creating a common link. Both the passengers and the terrorists are putting their lives in the care of a higher power. More importantly, Greengrass is saying that no matter what the case, no terrorist can conquer what is the foundation of America. Freedom.