A Contention with Greengrass

By David Primak, with comment by Kenneth Herring

[1] Robert Burgoyne applies an interesting term, "acting out," in his analysis of United 93. He says that Dominick La Capra defines this term as "a melancholy possession of the subject by the past." Burgoyne expands on this meaning and sees the film as insisting to stick to a narrow and literal representation of the events that occurred. This focus on the re-creation of the traumatic events are, according to him, "largely depleted of context of temporal extension."

[2] These are analogous to my own sentiments about the film. United 93 lacks an attempt to make conclusions about anything. It is an overly objective and politically correct attempt at re-visiting one of the most harrowingly memorable tragedies in American history. The film’s structure makes no segue from 9/11 to the present, and as the viewer we are stuck in a moment of the past. We are forced to linger and ask the wrong questions. Burgoyne quotes Slavoj Zizek: "we were all forced to experience what the compulsion to repeat and jouissance beyond the pleasure principle are: we wanted to see it [the destruction of the towers] again and again, the same shots were repeated ad nauseam, and the uncanny satisfaction we got from it was jouissance at its purest. . . . The question we should have asked ourselves as we stared at the TV screens on September 11th is simply: where have we already seen the same thing over and over again?" This is the right question. This is what Burgoyne would call "working through." In contrast to "acting out," this method allows for "breaking out; without freeing oneself from the trauma, the subject attains a measure of critical purchase on problems." United 93 lacks this critical concept of reflecting on 9/11. There is no looking back. Greengrass is essentially entrenched in the trauma. For Freud, trauma is a "delay in attention to the event," and a subsequent process of revision of memories assisted by fantasy. The trauma causes a fragile state where our opinions and memories of the matter can be easily swayed. This concept applies directly to the argument regarding the timing of the film’s release. Did it change the way people remembered 9/11? (see comment by Kenneth Herring)

[3] Zizek’s question "Where have we already seen the same thing over and over again?" also brings to the surface one of the greatest criticisms about this nation -- our constant tendency to separate ourselves from the rest of the world. The carefully plotted and executed plans of the terrorists shook this country awake: "For some historians, 9/11 precipitated a dramatic re-framing of the narrative of nation, provoking a belated recognition of US history in relation to the rest of the world." Burgoyne goes on to observe that historians now view the American Revolution not simply as a struggle for power within this country but part of an international global competition among empires such as England, Spain and France. Burgoyne quotes a writer as saying that "American history is being studied less as the story of a neatly packaged nation state and more in a global context, as part of something much larger." Terrorist attacks had been going on outside this country for decades, and there had been recent notable instances in England and Spain. Americans felt entirely impervious to such devastation. The attacks on the towers in 1993 did nothing to raise our sense of vulnerability, since the mostly failed attempt only heightened our sense of invincibility.

[4] Burgoyne says further that "Reconsidering the past from the perspective of the present, historians have drawn widely divergent conclusions about the patterns that the event illuminates, as if they were looking at the past through different color filters." This kind of perspective is crucial because it can help us to look at 9/11 in a larger world view. Instead, United 93 leaves us the climactic moment of an eruption of terror in the final scene. This is an introduction of "absolute negativity" and pulls us into a "zone of incomprehension and panicked anxiety, into a zone that might be described as traumatic." The fatal crash, the death of the passengers on board, and the shift to a black screen with somber music, all add to our remorse, but there is no hint of reflection as to why this has happened. Greengrass fails to make any connection to a grander worldview. All we are exposed to in this film is the experience of the people on the plane and their incredibly stereotypical American portrayals. We see utter confusion at multiple air traffic control centers and have a somewhat odd representation of the terrorists as humane, hesitant, and as serving a greater purpose they believe in wholly. The film does not take any sides. This only adds to the fact that it focuses on the traumatic moment without any reflection. America is not blamed for any ignorance, the terrorists are not evil, and the only negative reference made for some reason is the depiction of the sole European passenger on board. Why was he made out to be the ignorant one who thought everything was going to work out? Burgoyne compares the devastating and empty end of this film to those of many WW I movies and quotes Pierre Sorlin as saying, "the emptiness of the end overwhelms the spectator: makes them feel as if they have been caught up in some vast, impersonal, meaningless disaster . . . no one has been spared. It is like a world’s end: no story can be told, there is not the possibility even of a history."

[5] Burgoyne concludes that United 93 "prevents the traumatic events of 9/11 from being relegated to memory." I disagree that the film has even succeeded on this level, because it only tells part of the story. We feel only the pain of those on United 93 and their loved ones. We do not see the panic of New York City and subsequently the entire country. The images of bodies jumping from the top floors is missing; the streets filled with smoke and people running from the scene are left out. The firefighters who risked their lives, many of whom died, are not portrayed. The economic calamity that followed is not there. And, most importantly, the artificial national pride sparked by the event and its quick dissipation have not been criticized. America’s introduction to the grief and suffering the rest of the world had already experienced is isolated as an American travesty. The film is safe, and it is understandable why. 9/11 must be approached cautiously and tenderly, but when attempted it should be done right. This film does no justice and vindicates those who booed the trailer in theaters.

Comments

Kenneth Herring (August 2009)
As an opposing point of view to both Burgoyne and David, I feel that "acting out" was more than appropriate and that the film did not need to relate to the present to get the point across. A movie about an historical event, especially one with such impact, does not need to present new information. It is history after all. I was struck by the quote Gallagher gave us: "A nightmare that heals." David gives us the idea that "acting out" does not allow for someone to free themselves from an emotional trauma and that only in "working through" can this happen. "A nightmare that heals." I like to think of this movie in that sense. While I was not overly affected emotionally by 9/11, I feel as though going through the day again, reviewing the same images, and being put back into that day for only 111 minutes made me feel more at peace with the whole situation. What I mean to say is that when the event happened myself and the rest of the 2010 class were only in 8th grade. Through class discussions it has come out that most of us were barred from watching the news as the events were unfolding. Having the event at such a young age when we are worried about everything else, and at the same time being restricted from going through many of the emotions, we may feel too distant from the event. By having this movie "act out" that day all over again it can still be the medium needed to provide some solace to certain people without the need to relate to the present. Indeed, it is "the nightmare that heals" for me.

Did it change the way people remembered 9/11? Not for me. All it did was reinstate many of the facts about the event I've forgotten or was absent to since that day.
-----

Burgoyne, Robert. "The Topical Film: United 93 and World Trade Center." The Hollywood Historical Film. Malden: Blackwell Pub., 2008. 148-69.