An Emotional Tie to History through a Hollywood Film
By Aishleen Radetich, with comments by Melissa Barrero, Michael Berilla, Yue Chen, Samantha DiStefano, Rachel Dorrell, Kelsey Duffy, Jack Golden, Patrick Hammond, Lynsey Hervey, Suzanne Hyslip, Kaitlyn Landers, Thomas Mazzucco, Sarah Morgan, Parimal Patel, Erika Ross, Teresa Salvatore
The meaning of an event is never concrete, but is instead always undergoing remolding through strategic acts of communication designed to produce specific shared understandings. (Jordan)
[1] Events in history often stray from the actual truth as time passes and different individuals offer their own perspectives on what they believe to have happened. Often in the media important things are left out or told in a different light to the general public in order to gain attention and support from them. History is also often forgotten because of the loss of emotional ties that are connected to specific events, which more or less affect the way in which people remember the event. The idea of learning about historical events and understanding what actually happened is extremely difficult without actually living through them. However, textbooks or history classes are not the only way society as a whole can try to understand a specific event in history. History can be remembered through the creativity of so many directors and screenwriters who are able to re-create the reality of the event in a way that evokes emotion and truth. (see comment by Michael Berilla)
[2] On the morning of September 11, 2001, no one in America was expecting the tragedy that was about to occur, one that would not only change the guidelines and securities for airports across the country but also the American innocence about terrorism that was ever so present. The actions of the Islamic terrorists who were trained months in advance to destroy so many American lives were devastating. The way in which the terrorists manipulated the security systems of the American people in order to invoke harm and stress upon the country as a whole caused questioning of the American government and security guidelines. Further, what actually happened aboard all four of the flights that were hijacked on this day will never be known. This is the reason why filmmakers and screenwriters, in an attempt to create a memorial for the passengers aboard these flights, have re-created this horrific day and used detailed research to portray what possibly happened. It is difficult to portray such a horrific event successfully; filmmakers must be careful in creating such a film. United 93 is based upon the actual known events that happened on land before the planes were overtaken, yet once on board the plane, history is re-created for Americans to develop a sentiment for their country as a whole. (see comment by Suzanne Hyslip) (see comment by Kaitlyn Landers) (see comment by Parimal Patel)
[3] United 93 was created in an attempt to show Americans what more likely than not happened aboard the actual plane of flight United 93. It was the first major film about September 11th, and the media was unsure if it was too soon to create a movie about something that was so clear in the minds of Americans. Because of the impact of memory that Americans still had about the day, it was unclear if the movie would be able to exhibit a successful portrayal of the ghastly day while still staying close to the factual truth. "To chronicle the events of the morning of September 11, 2001, on film is to accept a set of inescapable constraints. It is to venture onto sacred ground bearing a daunting burden of responsibility -- to the facts, to the sentiments of the immediate families, to the American mood, to the sensitivities of a still fraught and roiling national psyche" (Smith). (see comment by Rachel Dorrell) The film was released only five years after the actual event, while Americans were still questioning the reasoning and truths behind the events that happened. "Like many of us, [the filmmakers] were trying to make sense of 9/11 with the resources available to them. Examining the rhetorical character of the media commentary reveals how public remembrance of 9/11 is still very much ambiguous, contested, and difficult to articulate" (Jordan). Creating a film so soon after could possibly sway the audience to believe that certain things may have happened, while in actuality, they may not have. The question of whether the film would memorialize those lost yet still remain mostly factually true was something that haunted most film critics as the film was released. "As United 93 neared its public release, audiences were confronted with messages seeking to shape the meaning of the film and of the tragedy itself--to reframe the film not just as a movie that portrayed those events, but as a cinematic text symptomatic of larger social concerns still influencing the cultural meaning of 9/11" (Jordan). (see comment by Teresa Salvatore) (see comment by Jack Golden) (see comment by Yue Chen)
[4] As the 9/11 Commission Report was published (before the release of United 93), the answers to most Americans questions were addressed. Why did this happen? Who is responsible for all of this? What is the aftermath of this large act of terrorism upon our country? Americans learn of the motives and history of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the terrorist acts: "Bin Laden saw himself as called 'to follow in the footsteps of the Messenger, and to communicate his message to all nations,' and to serve as the rallying point and organizer of a new kind of war to destroy America and bring the world to Islam" (9/11 Commission Report 48). We are able to understand his organization of nineteen men who would serve as the hijackers on the morning of September 11th and the extensive training program they went through in order to carry out his plan. We learn of the aftermath -- the way in which President George W. Bush declared war against this nation soon after the attacks in an attempt to protect Americans from similar attacks in the future. Although individual opinions and speculation about the day are forever changing, as exists with every large historical event, the facts are openly presented to Americans in the Commission Report. However, Americans were still not at ease about what they have stored in their memories - images of Americans lying in rubble around the World Trade Center, the plane crash site where United 93 hit, millions of individuals grieving over lost love ones, a sense of no remorse from the eyes of Bin Laden: "The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy" (Osama bin Laden,"The Most Wanted Man in the World." Time 16 September 2001) . Thus, strong feelings of hatred and misunderstandings of these acts were still very prominent as Paul Greengrass released the major film, United 93. (see comment by Kaitlyn Landers)
[5] People were uneasy with addressing the fact of seeing, once again, an image of what happened on September 11th. Right after the attacks, anything in the media having to do with terrorism was immediately removed or shut down - television shows involving terrorist remarks, posters involving the World Trade Centers were re-created to ones without them, and previous TV shows and films that had the World Trade Centers in the background were edited. No one wanted to be reminded of the day, and those in production companies had to abide by what the mass media wanted. Even five years later, with the release of the film, the words "too soon" were heard in previewing audiences: "the realization that Hollywood was finally addressing 9/11 transmuted into arguments over whether a Hollywood film could appropriately commemorate the Flight 93 passengers, or whether it would only cheapen their memory" (Jordan). (see comment by Erika Ross)
[6] Because the actual flight United 93 gained the least speculation and attention after the events of September 11th, Greengrass knew his film would have to incorporate a type of positive plot line that would gain the attention of viewers around the world. And this he did. Through his concentration on the passengers aboard the flight as "American heroes" and fighting back, it became the perfect proposal for a Hollywood film. He was able to combine both the horrific and never-forgotten September 11th tragedy with the idea of strong Americans to bring a type of positive aura to the film as a whole. With the film first showing what went wrong on the ground at Air Traffic Control Centers headed by Ben Sliney (who played himself in the film), the camera shows an inside look at the defenselessness of the individuals trying to save the day. This introduces the real-life second part of the film that occurs on board flight United 93. The reason the film was so successful in re-creating such a traumatic event was Greengrass's lack of Hollywood sensationalism - something that would drastically decrease the respective sentiment that was still so strong about those involved with September 11th. The actions aboard the flight were set in real time as the actual events that happened, showing that no dramatization was used at this climactic part of the film: "The predominant reason for that was that I wanted to make a film that felt collective, filled with many voices, all of whom were engulfed in this event, in the suddenness and unimaginable nature of it. You do come to know characters. But I agree it's not structured or told in a sort of conventional character sense, because I wanted it to feel real" (Greengrass, qtd. by Smith). (see comment by Samantha DiStefano)
[7] Audiences around the world were able to catch a glimpse of how people reacted aboard the plane and on the ground as all four of the planes were hijacked. Individuals were able to feel the sentiment of the day through the confusion at the Traffic Control Centers, the images of people on the ground reacting to the collapsing of the World Trade Centers, and the re-enactment of the people on board the actual plane. Emotions were strong as passengers struggled for their lives, calling loved ones to let them know what was happening and tell them this could possibly be their last goodbye. The film successfully presents to audiences a small glimpse of the devastation of the day, while surrounding itself with the actual facts of how everything spiraled out of people's hands. (see comment by Sarah Morgan) Yet, how did people feel about the way in which the terrorists were portrayed in the film - the ones who acted upon all of this to harm the lives of so many Americans? After reading the 9/11 Commission Report and understanding how Bin Laden executed this plan in order to follow his deep religious beliefs, Greengrass ingeniously created these men not to be the evilest of villains but humans warped by their religious leader to do what is "right." Presenting them praying to themselves both before they boarded the flight and before they crashed the plane into the ground showed to the American audience the reality of their intense Islamic religious beliefs and a simple answer to why they did what they did. (see comment by Thomas Mazzucco)
[8] Even after all of the criticisms and fears that resulted from a major film being released so shortly about the events of September 11th, the United 93 became a commemorative film for those aboard the plane that day. Avoiding all of the usual Hollywood commercializing that comes from producing such a film, Greengrass was able to present to audiences throughout the country a memorable account of this historical day. "Greengrass and his crew apparently were so successful in generating a sense of authenticity that those who witnessed the production process reported feeling transformed" (Jordan). The incorporation of the real life situation into a major motion picture such as United 93 is important for the sentiment of the day to continue for generations to follow.
[9] Because the events of September 11th were so unexpected and so many innocent civilians were killed, Americans seemed to develop a deep hatred for the enemy. Maybe that is why there was so much controversy over the film. Maybe people just were not ready to face the horrors again in their mind after having to experience the traumatic event first-hand. (see comment by Lynsey Hervey) Whatever the reason, Greengrass knew he would have to manipulate the direction of the film to have success in the industry of Hollywood. He found a way to present what happened that day yet adding a large element of commemoration to the plot for those passengers killed. (see comment by Melissa Barrero) "If readers were worried about seeing a Hollywood movie of 9/11, these reports argued that they could lay those fears to rest because this was the anti-Hollywood movie version of 9/11: more commemoration than commercialization" (Jordan).
[10] Only five years after September 11th, 2001, United 93 made its way to the big screen. Using creative camera work and real situations, Greengrass was able to successfully create a film that would allow audiences to experience the emotions of the day for generations to come. While textbooks in classrooms will describe in words and color pictures what happened on the morning of September 11th, United 93 will allow people to experience the chaos of the day and the fight that people on board the planes had in an attempt to save themselves. Fear is felt, tensions are high, and a feeling of empathy is felt for anyone involved in what happened on this memorial day. "Greengrass's film is many other things besides: a cathartic act of bearing witness, an experiment in therapeutic reenactment, an anti-procedural, a meditation on the agonizing limits of communication -- and a memorial" (Smith). Audiences, both now and in the future, will forever be able to understand the horrific events of September 11th through the gripping story of the heroic flight that fought back. (see comment by Kelsey Duffy) (see comment by Patrick Hammond)
Comments
Michael Berilla (August 2009)
It is impossible to ignore the astounding job of the directors and actors of this film to evoke "emotion and truth." However, as we have experienced this event first-hand and all have our own stories to tell, should it be Hollywood that does the story telling? As history continues to grow, events must be documented in order to teach future generations the truth of what happened. But we don't actually know exactly what happened up there in that plane; the film has been credited as "faithfully recreating" what is thought to have happened. I feel what United 93 was tasteful and deeply respectful of the passengers aboard that flight, honoring them as much as possible.
But couldn't we honor these brave men and women without Universal Pictures profiting from it? I know that they donated 10 percent of the first three days of the film's grosses to the Flight 93 National Memorial, but I feel that may not have been enough. I also know that someone has to eventually profit from something like this, but why couldn't Americans unite, as they did in the days and months following the attacks, to create their own personal memorials to these events, recalling their individual tales and passing them on for generations to come?
A more documentary-based film with proceeds donated to memorials/charities would be more acceptable to me, proving that the filming of this picture was not just another way for producers to pocket some extra cash, but the recording of a devastating event in our history that united a nation. I don't feel that entirely from this film, although I do recognize the magnitude of the passenger's courage and the depth of emotion felt by all that this movie represents.
-----
Erika Ross (August 2009)
I was surprised how anxious I became while watching United 93. I forgot how even though I was lucky enough to not lose anyone close to me on this day, it still stirs up emotions. I felt the urge to hit the fast forward button many times during the first twenty minutes. I felt my throat tighten and heart pounding during the build-up to the devastating events I already knew I was about to witness. Before watching this film, I reviewed some memorabilia of those who died on that flight, such as the homemade video posted on Blackboard. Doing so gave me more than just faces to focus on when I watched United 93. When I put myself on that plane with those forty passengers, I knew many of them had families back home, I envisioned what they each saw themselves doing if they had landed in San Francisco as planned. From the time the hijackers began slashing their knives at these people all the way through the events leading up to the crash, I was grieving for these people. I wondered, if I am this upset by this film, how must the families of these people feel about this? These heroes, who in their last moments came together to protect us and our capital, have families and friends who love them and miss them terribly. Having a Hollywood drama come out about the plane crash in which a mother, husband, daughter, or friend died had to be too much too soon. But after a quick review of the special features, I saw that all the families of those forty on board flight 93 were contacted prior to the movie. I can only imagine how it felt to receive a phone call or letter asking how they felt about a Hollywood film being made about their loved one's last hours of life. Reopening wounds that may or may not have begun to heal over time, I think anyone that opposed this film felt too weak to fight it. I can imagine in the weeks, even months following September eleventh these people were bombarded by reporters, local press, and government officials interrogating them about the very day they wish to put out of their minds. Five years later I picture these people fed up with questions, many choosing the path of least resistance, agreement.
I am not saying that Greengrass had bad intentions, but when it comes to Hollywood films, the main goal will remain to revolve around money. It gives me some comfort knowing that they had a say, but it does not change how I feel. Furthermore, these are not the only people who were affected by 9/11. Though today we are looking to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, years ago when this movie was being made, we were still immersed in the war that followed these events. This movie was meant to evoke emotions, and I believe in the middle of war producing a film about the attacks that it resulted from is insensitive and, yes, too soon.
-----
Suzanne Hyslip (August 2009)
Aishleen states that: "United 93 is based upon the actual known events that happened on land before the planes were overtaken, yet once on board the plane, history is re-created for Americans to develop a sentiment for their country as a whole." This reminds me of critic Roger Ebert's assertion that film is a place for emotion, not necessarily fact, and his belief that Stone was correct in adding his own conclusions regarding the assassination to his film, JFK. In the case of United 93, however, I think it was more appropriate for the director to insert his own speculations; after all "what actually happened aboard all four of the flights that were hijacked on this day will never be known." That is to say, the movie could not have been made or even contemplated without that speculation of what may or may not have happened. In Stone's JFK, on the other hand, I don't think this is necessarily the case.
-----
Parimal Patel (August 2009)
United 93 was created to remind us of the events of September 11, 2001, and that is all. It was not meant to show the audience the impact the event had on the country or show that the United States has stayed strong even after the attacks. The filmmakers "re-created this horrific day" "to create a memorial for the passengers aboard these flights" (Radetich). Critic Robert Burgoyne says that United 93 "attempts to 'act out' a historical trauma," not "work through" it (149). "Working through" the event dives into the emotions a person feels from the trauma and attempts to overcome the after-effects of the event. United 93 is the opposite, which just re-creates the event to remind the audience what happened. The film had to be "acted out" because a "working through" film would have been "too soon" to show (148). Greengrass combines parallel events occurring at the same time in different locations into a "homogeneous" film. He shows the different perspectives of people that day to help remind that audience what happened on 9/11. United 93 "provides a limited but useful sense of the power of visual representation to preserve the memory of traumatic events" (168).
-----
Samantha DiStefano (August 2009)
Greengrass made a remark about the film and said, "I wanted to make a film that felt collective, filled with many voices, all of whom were engulfed in this event, in the suddenness and unimaginable nature of it. You do come to know characters. But I agree it's not structured or told in a sort of conventional character sense, because I wanted it to feel real." One of the major issues surrounding the film United 93 was the issue of representing those aboard the flight. The crisis of representation is especially relevant so soon after the tragedy. Schindler's List faced harsh criticism almost fifty years after the holocaust; United 93 was released only five years following September 11th. Not only was this a short time to grieve over the tragedy, it also meant that the families of those on board were still very much a relevant concern. Another issue that United 93 faced was that there were only ninety-two passengers on board, and many of them had become familiar to the public. Many of these heroes became household names in the days and weeks following the attacks. Greengrass combated these obstacles by creating a film that paid respect to those who lost their lives without relying on characters to drive the plot. He simply let the story speak for itself. One way this was achieved was by refraining from including passenger's names. The only names explicitly announced on the flight are those of the captain and co-pilot. At one point one of the men addresses a flight attendant as "stewardess" because we do not know her name. The choice to exclude names where possible made the film effective in achieving a "collective" feel. The film was never about one character or experience. Also, the sense of reality was enhanced by the fact that the action was in real time. Overall the film provided an historic account of the events as they happened rather than a comment on the attacts themselves. These choices Greengrass made guarded the film from the expected criticism.
-----
Sarah Morgan (August 2009)
The aspect of United 93 that stays with the audience long after the credits end is its emotional impact. Paul Greengrass captures on film the urgency and terror that were such a part of the events of September 11, 2001. The critic Robert Burgoyne calls the mood of the film an "adrenalized stasis." This could be defined as disconnection, helplessness, and isolation in an atmosphere of trauma and life and death situations. The audience and the characters are constantly on the edge of their seats and confronted with a new crisis every minute, but no one has any control over the situation. We are trapped in the moment of crisis. This allows the audience a brief glimpse into what it might have been like to be on United flight 93 or on the floor of the Air Traffic Control Centers. This lends a feeling of authenticity to the film that it never could have achieved otherwise. I believe that for an American audience, this "adrenalized stasis" feels like an authentic representation of most people's emotions on that day. The mood of the film is also an appropriate introduction to the emotional complexities of 9/11 for someone not already familiar (think citizens of foreign countries and future generations). Overall, United 93, through its juxtaposition of situations and characters, is a very successful portrayal of the emotional impact of 9/11.
-----
Teresa Salvatore (August 2009)
John Jordan's article arguing Flight 93 as memorial makes some valid points. Flight 93 provided the movie-going public a vehicle by which to verbalize about such a traumatic event in their lifetime. He talks about the filmmaker's use of media "to provide glimpses of the heavenly and hellish aspects of the here and now -- to reveal reality at its most transitory and ordinary, where it is also most extraordinary, but where it is also all too often most overlooked."
Jordan includes reviews that tout the film as one without "Hollywood bull," a "therapeutic reenactment," and a "meditation on the agonizing limits of communication." He says that Flight 93 revealed "how desperate film reviewers were to talk about 9/11." Oddly enough, the men and women who were there and lived to talk about that day don't share that sentiment. They don't need to view what haunts their sleep every night -- years after the dust settled and the good byes were said.
This film explores a tragedy that happened on my own doorstep. My brother, a New York City firefighter at the time, arrived at Liberty Plaza that day only minutes before the second tower fell. He experienced first-hand the devastation and horror September 11 brought and continues to bring. My brother coordinated the "bereavement committee" set up after so many firemen lost their lives. He rarely speaks of that day and chooses what he will speak about very carefully. One of the statements I've heard him say more than once is, "The weeks that followed September 11 found me present at more than a lifetime's worth of bagpipes, weeping wives, and confused children. Your heart breaks every time you help plan a funeral and pick up a fallen friend's kids for a ballgame."
This last assignment left me feeling kind of odd about watching a film I, too, refused to watch. I have spent the last eight years communicating with a brother who will never be the same. When the subject of that day comes up, he gets this glaze over his eyes, and he seems to be looking up for some kind of answer. One of his fellow Hurricanes committed suicide recently after years of battling depression. The fireman's wife asked Richie, retired at 49 because of lung disease, to coordinate the funeral. Of course, he did not refuse.
Jordan's observation about reality being revealed "at its most transitory and ordinary, where it is also most extraordinary, but where it is also all too often most overlooked" through film is true for just that -- those who observe from a distance. However, healing for those who experienced the tragedies depicted on film find their solace in remembering their fallen friends by loving their families. We should love those extraordinary men; that is truly memorializing what should be memorialized, and loving will bring healing also.
-----
Melissa Barrero (August 2009)
While no doubt the film was made to honor and remember those killed on September 11, I think Greengrass tried to capitalize on the event itself rather than memorialize those involved. Much of the film revolves around the heroes of United 93 but as Frank Rich writes, "Rather than deepening our knowledge of them or their heroism, the movie caps an hour of air-controller nail biting with a tasteful re-enactment of the grisly end." In his attempts to commemorate the victims of United 93, Greengrass almost alienates them. There is such little information presented about the passengers that it almost seems as if they are insignificant in comparison to the events of 9/11. An event like 9/11 was so monumental and affected so many people that is impossible to honor the memories of all the victims. Greengrass should have taken a more personal approach in his representations of the passengers in United 93. Like Spielberg with Schindler's List, the story as seen through the eyes of one person involved could have made more of a connection with audiences. Greengrass seems to rely on the recency of the event and playing on the emotions and vulnerabilities of those affected to connect with his audience.
-----
Thomas Mazzucco (August 2009)
I must start by saying that I was very reluctant to watch this movie before this class. However, a friend talked me into watching it my freshman year. I was not sure what to expect from the movie besides showing the events of Flight 93 through the course of September 11th, 2001. I knew that what was factually known about the events on board that plane had gaps, and I expected director Greengrass to fill in with what he imagined happened. I, however, did not expect to see that fateful day through the eyes of the air traffic controllers. It makes perfect sense, though, to show the confusion and fear of these people, because nothing like those events had ever happened, and as a result the controllers were overwhelmed. I also expected that the hijackers would only be portrayed as pure evil, because of the close proximity of the release of the movie to the actual event. I, in some ways, was pleased to see the director explore the idea that these hijackers, while acting in extremely vicious and evil ways, may not have just been evil, but led astray as blind followers to an evil leader. It was daring on Greengrass's part to not take the simple description that Americans would have easily accepted, but to explore the humanity of all the people involved in this horrific event, not just those considered heroes. This decision to depict the hijackers as they were and the many details that Greengrass filled in show the reel history helping in the shaping of what Americans view in real history. Greengrass artistically shaped this movie and the way people think about the heroes of Flight 93, the air traffic controllers, and maybe even the hijackers.
------
Rachel Dorrell (August 2009)
Individual Americans faced different experiences and have formed individual and differing opinions and memories of September 11, 2001. Even the mention of the date strikes a sense of tragedy into all who were old enough or aware enough to note the special horror of the day, and the creation of this single film provides a concrete (though chaotic) glimpse of experiencing what very few shared in reality. United 93 tries not to stray from the facts, but Americans will never be completely satisfied with anything that has to do with 9/11 because of its tragedy, scope, and the fact that the day and event still have immediate and gripping shock value. 9/11 is arguably the biggest crisis that has ever hit America, and the tendrils of pain will still be gripping us regardless of how others portray different experiences of the day. United 93, while staying objective and seeming painfully real, still manages to dredge questions of "what if," which will always haunt Americans, regardless of how or even whether 9/11 is represented in any medium besides their own memories.
-----
Jack Golden (August 2009)
Director Paul Greengrass was aware of the possibility that many would be upset with a movie about 9/11 being made so shortly after the tragedy. With that in mind, he wanted to create a film that would inspire, initially setting out to "make a film about 9/11. Make a contribution." While he does make valid points in this ABC interview, saying that it would be shocking if there wasn't a film made to tell the story of 9/11. I don't think he justifies the fact that many were not yet ready for a movie about 9/11. His rational that "a number of films are going to be made, this just happens to be the first" bothers me because it comes off as though he simply wanted to have the first film out there. Even though the film was done in a very tasteful manner and many feel that the film is inspiring, it doesn't take away from the feeling that many haven't let the memory of 9/11 fully sink in. Therefore, when Greengrass states that "people are going to see these films, and see in them the necessary process of understanding this event. Trying to find its meaning," he infers that it will take time to understand the impact of 9/11, which is why it surprises me that he would want to create this film so soon.
Still, Greengrass understands his purpose when setting out to create United 93: "It'll be painful but . . . inspiring." He also takes into account the concept of the "right time." He realizes the gravity of the event, and it shows when he says in that interview, "you're balancing two things: the magnitude of this event, 9/11, compels two things that are contradictory; your silence and your respect, but it also compels us to understand it and discuss it and seek its meaning." I hope that people changed their opinions of Greengrass and his motives when they find that he went to each of the families that had someone on United 93 and they felt comfortable with this film being made. His goal after that was to preserve the legacies and tell about the bravery of the people on United 93, and when he found that the families wanted him to do the same, he knew it was time to make the film.
-----
Kelsey Duffy (August 2009)
"The flight that fought back" is one of the nicknames given to United flight 93. This flight was the only portion of the 9/11 attacks that did not "succeed." We are not positive as to where this plane was intended to crash, but we do know it was not a field in Pennsylvania. During an interview on ABC Greengrass said that "it's a story of courage, more than that there is wisdom to be found in this story." Although the story was pieced together by the phone conversations, actual events and some filling in it shows another side to this tragic day. In some ways this was the "good" story to tell. These people fought and overcame the terrorists and they risked their lives while doing it. Most criticism surrounding the movies about 9/11 are about it being too soon or too graphic. United 93 may have been released soon after the attacks, but it was not as graphic as some other films. Greengrass took the feeling of the families into serious consideration while making the film, and while this story is sad, there is a lesser amount of pain evoked in the viewers. The film gives viewers wisdom, and as Greengrass states, "that dilemma that they faced, is the same dilemma that we face today." He wished for this film to inspire people and to get people to understand the wisdom those passengers had. This film is a way to remember the courage and hope in fellow Americans during a tragic time. It commemorates these people and gives viewers a different view of this tragic day. It is history on film, and while many films will be made about 9/11, this one may be the only one made about the flight that fought back.
-----
Lynsey Hervey (August 2009)
The toughest part about analyzing this film is that everyone has a different memory, a different emotion, and a different response to that emotion, if ever so slightly. I can truly only speak for myself in this situation, since it is one that I actually lived through and did not learn through history.
As for United 93, it can be seen as a unique memorial to the victims of the flight, but because of the slightly oxymoronic "individualistic" nature of September 11th, I think it's hard for viewers to get past those feelings and ultimately be interested in viewing the film. There is just too much pain associated with September 11th. It's too much to endure again. But, as a reporter remarked, "I wouldn't recommend the movie to anyone, but if the families of the victims take something positive from it, as their cooperation with Greengrass suggests they do, that's justification enough [for the film being made]." (Jordan, 212).
Above all, I have had no desire whatsoever to relive this traumatic day again, avoiding 9/11 movies at all costs. In conversations with several friends, all with rather different experiences of 9/11, not one was interested in seeing a movie about these events. Not one! According to Jordan, one critic stated, "I don't need to see the movie, though, to be touched and honored by the heroism of the Flight 93 passengers"(211). This statement speaks at the bottom line of this issue. Greengrass used a "confrontation-as-healing" platform when speaking of the movie's motives, but I don't find this movie to be healing at all. As some say, the "national wound" is still open! We are in the midst of a war that was started by the attacks on the United States on September 11th. I realize there may be a time when movies must exist for "historical purposes" to carry on the events of our nation to future generations. But we are still in pain. Now is not the time. History is still in the making.
-----
Kaitlyn Landers (August 2009)
Responding to Suzanne: Obviously it is impossible for us to know all the events that took place aboard United 93 because all of the witnesses are no longer with us. However, I do not necessarily agree that JFK is much different. Sure, a lot of the characters are still alive, but does that mean we can ever truly know the facts of this event either? I honestly think that the whole and absolute truth of JFK's assassination will never be fully revealed to anyone, and quite possibly no single person will ever know all the facts anyways. There is always room for interpretation. Sure Garrison's encounter with Ferrie was entirely fabricated, but who is to say the facts discussed in the scene were not true? The reality is we will never really know, just as we will not ever know the events that took place on United 93. I really do not see any difference. The only one that I can think of is that what happened on United 93 will forever be an act of heroism, meanwhile Stone is making great accusations against powerful and respected organizations and people. I think this is why most don't have a problem with Greengrass creating his own truths -- because nothing about a group of Americans trying to overpower one of the hijacked planes on September is making anyone in our country look bad.
-----
Kaitlyn Landers (August 2009)
The Janny Scott New York Times article "9/11 Leaves Its Mark on History Classes" represents a sentiment that I have agreed with completely. Following the events of September 11th, there was a sudden need for each American to delve into the past and get a better understanding of the US's relationship with the Middle East. I know my freshman year at Lehigh, I took the course "International Terrorism" to satiate my curiosity that had been lingering since the events took place. 9/11 not only caused us to revisit past events but made things that seemed not as important to our national history become frontrunners in how we were to view our country. Scott states that "The Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis of 1979 to 1981 seem like significant turning points in ways that they have not before," and he is right. I do not think I studied that event before this occurred. For me personally, it was the first time I began to feel as though America was not the loved country by the international community as I was always taught to believe it was. Scott also talks about how "historians are giving new attention to topics like the turbulent history of civil liberties in the United States." The same is probably true of many other historical events. I am sure prior to the Holocaust not many had researched in detail the history of Judaism in Germany and Poland and the growing tensions that were there. This will never change. If tomorrow Mexico were to attack the United States with bombs, our relationship with Mexico would become the most researched and studied relationship that we have. It is fairly scary because of what we may be overlooking, but I guess that is where the phrase from the beginning of the course comes back full circle: "to know our history so we are not doomed to repeat it."
-----
Yue Chen (August 2009)
Five years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Paul Greengrass and Oliver Stone [in World Trade Center] took on a controversial and daunting task of chronicling the horrifying day through images on film. There is no manual on when it will be appropriate to make a film after a tragic event, and amid the criticisms that the films were being made too soon, and because the devastating event was still deeply embedded in everyone's minds, both filmmakers were painstakingly careful to remain respectful and stay true to the events for the victims, their families, and everyone impacted by that day.
Criticizing the films for being a financial success is a specious point and trivializing the events of September 11th. The main purpose for making the films was not for profit, they might have been made regardless of their financial viability -- each director felt it was the right time and important that the stories now be told, which is reflected in the tone and presentation of each movie. And the fact that they were profitable (or solely made to capitalize on the event)? Great -- what would be the criticism if the films had generated a loss -- that people did not honor the memory of those who lost their lives in our national tragedy? The enemy is not capitalism -- it's terrorist organizations, oppressive regimes, and religious fundamentalists -- we are at war for freedom, democracy, and capitalism.
Despite the terrifying events, the country was able to come together as Americans -- passengers on United 93, firefighters, police officers, and countless others -- demonstrated tremendous courage and heroism to help each other and to cope in the aftermath. These films pay a tribute and serve as a memorial to the heroes and victims of 9/11 -- the directors were respectful and did little to sensationalize the films or make them too "Hollywood." Many families who experienced personal losses may not be ready to relive the events, but for others who say the films are being made too soon -- why? The terrible events of 9/11 happened -- it is the "seminal event" not only in our lifetime, but in America's history. Many people praised Stone's JFK for forcing people to think -- the 9/11 films are even more important in making people reflect on the most significant event of our times. If the heroes and victims of 9/11 could face that actual day with courage, then we should have enough courage to look back now and question what occurred. To explore why 9/11 happened and how it has affected the direction and almost every decision of our country since -- what led up to it, could it have been prevented, did we make any mistakes, what are we going to do -- not to execute any blame, but so that history does not have to repeat itself.
Director Greengrass of United 93 describes the day as "a broken republic" -- a system "breakdown in communication" and "failure" in response, because it was unprepared for a "situation [this] unimaginable and incomprehensible." On the day of 9/11, the hijack coordinator at the FAA headquarters in Washington was not there, which compounded the communication problems between air traffic control with FAA and the military command center with FAA. The military had only four planes, which effectively left them unable to respond to the numerous suspected hijackings in the air. Even if those particular incidents had not occurred, it would certainly not have prevented the attacks on 9/11, but even as the Pentagon admitted to Greengrass, "if we can [look at what happened], we can perhaps raise our game for the next time."
In his director's commentary, Greengrass makes a poignant reflection about the ending of his movie -- the struggle for the controls is about the "images of our tomorrow, of where we are headed, unless we find new solutions. Our fight for the controls of our world -- we still have time to find another way." Like WWII, the Holocaust, and assassination of JFK, these films serve to remind us of what happened, and as painful as it might be, we must have the courage to learn from our history -- so we do not repeat the mistakes of the past and in order to find the answers for our future.
-----
Patrick Hammond (August 2009)
While it is easy to criticize Hollywood for making the movie "so close" after the fact, one has to realize that in this country, emotions come after money. I remember the weeks following the attacks the amount of people who made money off of other Americans by selling over-priced flags, t-shirts, bumper stickers, and countless other goods in the name of being a "true American." We neglect to point out these people as profiting from the event and being too soon, but we see the harsh criticism that comes from making a movie about the events of the day over five years after the events. Also, it is difficult to remember the exact emotions of the day, and the film "allows audiences to experience the emotions of the day for generations to come." Made so shortly after the events allows for the film to be as exact as possible, with no large gap between when the events occurred and when the production of the film began. One has to stop seeing the "malicious" intent of the director and take the film for what it really is: a documentation of the events of September eleventh and a chance for all of us to see the utter pain and damage that can be inflicted through hatred -- hatred that we should see in this film and never duplicate because of the tremendous negative consequences.
-----
