Had Greengrass previously made a film about heroic Al Quada freedom fighters being thwarted by evil Americans, I think you'd probably have a bit more difficulty accepting his involvement in U93. I'm afraid, bearing in the mind the track record of those involved, this still looks like exploitation to make a buck to me.

Actually from a personal standpoint what Howard's done has to do with something more offensive to me than making Al Qaeda the heroes in a movie. But if I can judge a movie independent of that fact, just as I can also enjoy Jane Fonda in "Barefoot In The Park", or find that certain other books by authors who've written some offensive books to me can be good, I do the same thing in this instance and just look at the specific story/event being depicted.

Maybe it is time for us to calm down a little bit here. It's obvious that this topic still stirs up some extremely powerful emotions and will for years to come.

My own feeling is this: how long shall we wait to tell the story of 9/11? There seemed to be no waiting period for WWII stories being told by the studios, and newsreels of the time didn't wait very long in showing us what happened at Pearl Harbor (although the uncensored version took a few years).

Not having a direct or personal connection to the tragedy, I can only sympathize with those of you that did. My interest in what happened that day (and I think many others) can be summed up this way-what were the people who were closest to the story thinking and feeling and what did they do? I hope these films will make people think-what would I do if that was me in that spot? Any story can be made into exploitation, and I remember that many critics and moviegoers were put off by the disaster movie cycle of the 70's for the same reason (the Irwin Allen NATO reel on the TOWERING INFERNO special edition could be seen as in questionable taste, considering what films both present and future he was pushing).

Maybe we still need some distance, but I still want to know who makes the decision that-OK, now we can tell this story.

This has been a passionate and heartbreaking discussion.

Trevor, your disgust with Greengrass notwithstanding, I'm curious to know why you have an "open minded" approach to WTC, which, to me, is no less a "fictional" account of what happened that terrible day (for what it's worth I live in Washington, D.C., and I was underneath the Pentagon 20 minutes before the plane hit) than U93. It's tough to completely dismiss one without completely dismissing the other. Yes, there is a key difference of the protagonists of WTC still being alive, but not every word of their experience is being redone verbatim. There will be an element of someone else's interpretation of those events (script, music, editing, cinematography, direction)-and therefore an element of fiction-in every frame of that movie, just as in U93.

With all due respect, is this just a bias against Greengrass?

Jedbu wrote:Maybe we still need some distance, but I still want to know who makes the decision that-OK, now we can tell this story.

That's a great post and food for thought. As I wrote before I have a very difficult time looking at the trailer for 9/11, seeing Nicolas Cage playing a cop, and then trying to move past that and accept that it's a dramatic re-creation of what happened.

It's true, studios certainly made Pearl Harbor and WWII movies without much time separating them from when the events occurred, but we live in a different time and place now. There are so many documentaries, so much real footage, so many books, so many interviews, so MANY kinds of media out there about 9/11, that right now -- having all of this still fresh in the memory -- I think it's very difficult to ask people to accept a dramatic film -- produced by a studio with the intention of profiting from it -- on this subject, regardless of how well-intentioned it may be. Why listen to Oliver Stone when I can hear the actual people who lived and experienced that day? Why accept a dramatic interpretation when I can even see the real thing that the rescuers responded to in that documentary?

Making the movie is one thing, and I agree keeping the subject alive and telling the story is important...but is it truly necessary for these movies right here and now, being aimed at the very people, it seems, who lived through it? I think future generations would benefit more from a fictional re-creation of these events, as a way for them to experience the emotions of that day away from the confines of a documentary, yet I dare say it's just too soon for these pictures for most viewers.

As a critic I will be objective and watch them both on DVD, yet as a paying customer, I find it uncomfortable to accept either as a form of "entertainment" (which they are to some degree) and I certainly don't need either movie to make me, personally, remember the emotions I experienced on 9/11. If that's their intention, I think they should have waited to produce them -- wait for more distance, wait for emotions to cool, and for others who didn't experience that day to do so -- because I have the feeling a lot of people do feel the same.

MikeSkerritt wrote:I'm curious to know why you have an "open minded" approach to WTC, which, to me, is no less a "fictional" account of what happened that terrible day

My point was simply that it seems inexplicable to take the position that Stone's film is dishonest rah-rah stuff and not take the same view of U93. Both directors have gone off on cuckoo tangents before, so to give one the benefit of the doubt and not the other seems both absurd and hypocritical. On a pure filmmaking level, however, Stone has at least directed some good movies while Greengrass is both obnoxious and incompetent despite his self-importance. Of the two, Stone is the lesser evil.

It's tough to completely dismiss one without completely dismissing the other.

Exactly the point I was trying to make originally: to dismiss WTC automatically due to a prejudice against its director does entail turning more than just a blind eye to Greengrass' own transgressions in the past. While I have no hopes or expectations for WTC, I do know people involved in the picture and, as tasteless as it is, they are going to great lengths to make a purely accurate survival story. To attack that movie as a fiction while applauding the necessary fictions and dramatic licenses in U93 is pretty hypocritical.

It seems as though I've misunderstood your argument, Trevor, for which I apologize.

But here's the bit from your initial post that I was going from:

Carlson2005 wrote:Oddly enough, I'm open-minded about WTC but totally opposed on every level to United

What I couldn't understand is how you could be open minded about WTC considering your misgivings about U93. If U93 is every bit as exploitative as you claim it to be, so too is WTC, for the same reasons.

MikeSkerritt wrote:What I couldn't understand is how you could be open minded about WTC considering your misgivings about U93. If U93 is every bit as exploitative as you claim it to be, so too is WTC, for the same reasons.

It simply comes down to the fact that while everyone else was happy to damn WTC sight unseen because of their opinion of Stone, of the two I have far less reason to have any confidence in the people involved in U93. And not just Greengrass - if you're familiar with the producers' work you'll find schlock exploitation horror titles and pro-IRA fantasies like The Devil's Own or distortions like Hidden Agenda on their resumes from the days when Americans still thought terrorists were admirable as long as they were killing other nationalities.

Andy, this has been one of the most fascinating discussions I've ever seen about one film subject-and fiery, as well. I wish to go back to one of your statements:

". . .but is it truly necessary for these movies right here and now, being aimed at the very people, it seems, who lived through it? I think future generations would benefit more from a fictional re-creation of these events, as a way for them to experience the emotions of that day away from the confines of a documentary, yet I dare say it's just too soon for these pictures for most viewers."

What you said about how we have been bombarded with this horrible day is very true. We didn't have iPods, camera phones, webcasts, satellite dishes and all these other wonderful technological advances that are so in-your-face today back on 12/7/41 or when the Lusitania was sunk, or when Lincoln was assassinated or whatever historical event you wish to choose pre-minicam. The problem I have when people say "it's too soon" is that when we don't speak of it, you now have an 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about but it is there and you don't know when it will want your attention. This is something that cannot be ignored, and as we get further away from it, two things will happen: 1) any possibility of telling the truth-as much as there is to glean of the truth-will fade, and we will be forced to make up truth as a way of "filling in the gaps;" and 2) we will have hacks like Michael Bay telling the story not because they want to give us a human story that will reach people in both the heart and the gut but because they have discovered a cool way to "blow things up real good!"

I admit to being a "bleeding heart" liberal (and this is not a forum for airing my political views, that I realize. If you wish to blast me for that E-mail me privately.), but I must tell you that I really admire MM's film-not because it totally convinced me of everything he presented (you do have to take him with more than a few grains of salt), but because I was really drawn into the story he was telling me, and I admire him for not showing the planes crashing into the towers. The blank screen with the sounds and the shots of people reacting were able to hit me harder than if he would have included the images, and I remember one very pro-Bush friend of mine who hated the film giving Moore credit for that much restraint. But was ANYONE expecting subtlety from MM, or should we from Oliver Stone? If you do, than you must think that MTV videos have a snails pace.

As painful as 9/11 was, I would rather have someone telling the story today when it is fresh and accuracy is a bit more possible than waiting until it is not so painful. If it bothers you to see something like this-don't see it. No one is forcing you to. But I think a film like UNITED 93 is necessary for some people if for only one reason-to show that even when the worst is possible and maybe probable, there are some people who are willing to say "screw that-that's not the way it's gonna be!"

I'd rather see that story than one about some post-teenage morons getting eviscerated by some unseen evil-at least I can care about the others.

"It simply comes down to the fact that while everyone else was happy to damn WTC sight unseen because of their opinion of Stone,"

Well I'm not in that category even though I think Stone's "JFK" is probably the most repulsive distortion of an event of recent history that there's ever been. Most people in America know Stone because of that movie, and I don't think the average person who knows Stone knows Greengrass. I've never heard of him at all, I only know that he made a movie about an event of interest to me that people I respect had nothing but praise for. That's more than enough for me.


"from the days when Americans still thought terrorists were admirable as long as they were killing other nationalities."

I don't think we need to drag those kinds of political discussions even into threads like this. Suffice to say, I think that's not an accurate premise and I'll just leave it at that.

Eric Paddon wrote:"from the days when Americans still thought terrorists were admirable as long as they were killing other nationalities."

I don't think we need to drag those kinds of political discussions even into threads like this. Suffice to say, I think that's not an accurate premise and I'll just leave it at that.

From your side of the pond, maybe not. But over here, ignoring the US' ongoing policy of refusing to extradite terrorist suspects to the UK, we've had to put up with endless runs of American films about how wonderful the poor old IRA were at a time when they were happily killing children or blowing up remembrance services amed purely at causing civilian deaths - and often financed by misguided Americans through groups like NORAID. Had the British made films about Timothy McVeigh showing him as a heroic freedom fighter against tyranny, you'd know how it felt. And Greengrass was part of that movement. In the UK and Europe, we've lived with terrorism for a generation, and we've seen the terrorists romanticised and misrepresented in films for years.

I'm not an IRA sympathizer and I've never liked films that try to romanticize that movement. I even thought it was a cop-out for "Patriot Games" to give us Richard Harris as the "good" IRA representative (though when it comes to copping out in a Tom Clancy film, nothing will ever top the cop-out of "Sum Of All Fears" changing the Arab terrorists to Nazis).

Eric Paddon wrote:I'm not an IRA sympathizer and I've never liked films that try to romanticize that movement. I even thought it was a cop-out for "Patriot Games" to give us Richard Harris as the "good" IRA representative.

Which is a huge problem on this side of the pond - whenever Americans made a film about Northern Ireland, they would pander to their perceptions of the Irish-American market, with the IRA as romantic freedom fighters who never, ever target civilians and the British as evil jackbooted Nazis. If the plot absolutely had to have IRA villains, then they'd be mythical 'splinter groups' disowned by the real, cuddly little leprechauns in the proper IRA. Or they'd be honourable 'soldiers' with high moral codes of ethics as in The Jackal. We've had going on for 40 years of this.

Interestingly, both McTiernan and Baldwin walked from Patriot Games because they felt that even that watered-down compromise was too harsh, and when, years later, Mace Neufeld tried to make a film about Bloody Sunday that took an impartial view dealing with mistakes on both sides, the only way he could get it made was by changing the IRA to Arabs and the British to Americans (the film was Rules of Engagement, if you're wondering). In fact, the only US production I saw that ever came close to getting a realistic take on the problem was an episode of Lou Grant.

Considering this was happening on a regular basis at a time when the IRA were targetting civilians on a regular basis (including sectarian killings, where they would kill people simply because they were protestant or, worse, if they hired Catholics in their businesses), forcing people to become human bombs by kidnapping their wives and children and threatening to torture and kill them one by one if they didn't, running drugs to fund terrorism, carrying out 'punishment killings' of teenagers guilty of 'anti-social behaviour,' and on occassion even murdering housewives for the crime of calling for an ambulance for injured neighbors - among other things - racking up a four-figure body count, you can imagine how insensitive and insulting it was from this side. What's even more interesting is how closely Bin Laden followed many IRA tactics, albeit on a much larger scale (such as the Baltic Exchange bombing, when the IRA broke their ceasefire without warning): Bin Laden was living in the UK for much of this period and would have been well aware of their activities.

Post 9/11 it's changed very, very slightly (although Ken Loach's new partially American-backed film about the Irish Civil War is much more crudely stereotypical about the British than the warring Irish factions), but there's still a sense of denial about the IRA's ongoing violence and criminality, which is now directed almost solely towards the Irish population rather than the British.

As you can tell, it's a sore point, and not just with me.