*** Official UNITED 93 Discussion Thread (PLEASE READ POST #29!) (1 Viewer)

[Bryan Beckman]

I made the comment about the shaky-cam work in my message, which was later moved to the Review thread. I just wanted to make a note of that because I remembered that that was a common gripe in the discussion thread for The Bourne Supremacy a few years ago. I'm not usually prone to motion sickness, but I did have to close my eyes every few minutes because the sense of vertigo was so strong.

The Bourne Supremacy worked a little better for me on the small screen, and I imagine United 93 will too.

In the context of the whole movie, the shaky camera work is really just a small thing. It would be quite regretful if that one aspect of the film kept potential movie-goers away who felt ready to see the film otherwise.

 

[Cory S.]

Chuck,

I think you're right about the bluff. After thinking it over, I figured that the passengers suspected that the hijackers were bluffing, hence the excessive whispering that I felt they would've picked up on. Again, not really a gripe, but something I noticed while it was happening.

As for the shaky camera, it actually worse in the Bourne Supremacy than this. The final sequence of 93 is purposely that shaky because of how barbaric and chaotic the situation was. I can totally understand that call. But the rest of the film, for me, was rather light in terms of shaky camera.

Again, I felt Supremacy was worse in that department, eventhough I love that film immensely.

And to add on what Chuck mentioned, this isn't really a film. It's like Gibson's The Passion. It's an experience. It doesn't have the traditional narrative like all films tend to have. While The Passion does have a narrative, it's still a very, very emotional experience. It's the same with 93, without narrative. I actually felt 93 has character but it's an overall thing with character because you see how numerous professionals as well as the passengers respond to the situation. You see how they start out during the situation and then you see how they adapt quickly.

It's not the standard character development fair we are use to but there is some if you look at specific characters during the film.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

You really felt that way? Like I mentioned above, I strongly disagree - and my nausea seconds that motion! The film offered jerky, shaky camerawork from start to finish - I can't think of a movie I've seen with more issues in this regard...

 

[TheBat]

I just got back from watching the movie. I had a very strange thought about it.. the last ten minutes is so intense.. I relized that michael bay could never make movie like that.
what do you think?

JACOB

 

[Holadem]

Michael, there are flaws somewhere in there I am sure, I just can't think of them right now, except for one that I will mention later.

I am tempted to say were the story fictional, much of the power of the film would have been preserved, because it looks and feels real. One might argue I feel this way because it is real... It's very possible, and there is no way I could prove otherwise, so I will just stand by my statement as is.

I am utterly shocked at how perfectly realized this thing was. I've had never made such a 180 deg about a film before.

A difficult, but yes, and excellent film, and one I will watch again before it leaves the theaters.

Now is my one issue: I thought it had been established that the passengers never made it inside the cockpit. I thought the movie could have respected that fact, and the climax could have still been as harrowing.

--
H

 

[Holadem]

I kept wondering the whole time who the actor with the big forehead was, the sorta "leader" of the passengers. Then a revelation: Joss Whedon!

Then I get on imdb and it's not him?

They certainly look alike, no?

--
H

 

[TheBat]

he the character actor from boston legal.

Jacob

 

[Chuck Mayer]

H, I believe the cockpit recorder indicated that they might have been breaching the door at the time of the crash. If you can see it again, you are an iron man. And I mean that in the best way. I know I couldn't, but I'm very thankful I made the trip once. It was very meaningful for me.

 

[Patrick Sun]

He played "Jerry (AKA Hands for his peculiar habit of keeping his hands on his thighs") on Boston Legal.

The shaky-cam footage didn't really bother me (not as much as it did in the Bourne Supremacy, for sure), but the feelings and emotions that stirred within me from viewing the events as they unfurled to the harrowing, but heroic, conclusion just left me drained. I don't think I'll ever watch it again, but that's because of the subject matter, not because of a lack of cinematic merit or artistry (of which plenty was in evidence and did not ever lack in tension or dramatic import or urgency).

It's a tough viewing experience, and it's not for the faint of heart.

I got chills when I heard one of the passengers utter "Let's roll."

 

[Robert Anthony]

David Rasche. aka Sledge Hammer. I think.

Isn't "Let's Roll" completely thrown away in the middle of another actor's line reading? I actually appreciated the realism of that. no rack zoom into his face as the music swells.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Sledge Hammer played the would-be pilot.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Yeah, I liked that too. It wasn't some big iconic hero moment...

 

[Robert Anthony]

That's right. damn. Sorry for that.

 

[Bryan Beckman]

If memory serves, I believe those findings were released to the public just a few weeks ago. Or maybe I just missed something. Anyway, that might explain why the passengers were depicted breaking into the cockpit: that may have represented the best information the filmmakers had at the time. I thought that one of the final shots in the film, showing multiple hands fighting for the plane's controls, was a perfect speculative compromise (if there is such a thing), since the plane could have been brought down for multiple reasons and by any number of individuals.

But I digress. The passenger uprising is perhaps the primary reason for the film's existence, and I thought at least that aspect was handled perfectly.

Just thinking out loud . . . could the vertigo which was so intense for some and not so bad for others be partially due to projector differences? I'm no expert, but I thought it was worth a guess.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Yup. As far as I can recall, there isn't a single music swelling heroic moment in the film.

I'm so glad this movie was made now, while the visual iconography - and the key players - still are closely aligned with the time it happened. Like All the President's Men, I think Greengrass has captured as much as we'll ever know about United 93 for future generations. Sure the real thing will always overshadow the film for those of us that lived it, but I'm glad to know that someday my children and my grandchildren will be able to experience the day that will have changed their lives for ever.

 

[Tino]

According to the 911 Commission report, the highjackers knew they were making calls but didn't seem to care, possibly because they already knew that their comrades had been successful in crashing into the WTC.

From the 911 Commission report of "We have some planes":

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf

 

[MichaelBA]

Some movie critics have commented that at least one of the hijackers received a fairly sympathetic portrayal, and a few noted also that Greengrass' choice to intercut at one point the passengers' prayers with the hijackers' seemed to indicate a kind of moral equivalence -- or at least a careful neutrality that's clearly inappropriate in terms of respecting the victims.
Any validity to these thoughts?

 

[Robert Crawford]

No! The scene had nothing to do with the hijackers being on the same moral ground as the passengers except to show the hijacker as having some fear of death too. Which critic wrote that so I can make note of that person?




Crawdaddy

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I've been meaning to discuss that sequence. Since there is no evidence it happened as such, that was one of the very few editorial choices that was "Hollywood". It was in some ways brilliant, but since there is little other evidence presented in one way, the audience is left to determine the meaning.

I don't think for a minute there is moral equivalence. It's not that they sympathize with the hijackers...it's simply that they were humans. Making them fictional monsters does nothing to better the film. Of course they had people they loved. Of course they were also scared and confused. But they chose to murder hundreds of people. The film never shies away from that. They killed several members of the crew/passengers, and lied to the rest to achieve their goal.

When both sides are praying, it's been made clear through previous scenes what they wish for. The terrorists wish to be successful, to kill as many people as they can for their beliefs. The passengers are praying for salvation, for peace, to NOT die. Any moral equivalence in that scene is brought by the viewer, not the director. He merely leaves it open. It is very likely terrorists and passengers were praying at the same time near the end.

I think critics are confusing sympathetic with "they aren't shown as slavering dogs". They are shown as human. Which they were. That doesn't mean there is sympathy for them. I could argue there is little sympathy for the audience by way of directorial choices. The camera does not judge. It just shows what happened. The events lead to sympathy, not the direction.

 

[MichaelBA]

Robert, here's the review that made the above spoilerized comment.