Log in

No account? Create an account
Thoughts on Flight 93 - De File
Does Collecting Make You Feel Dirty?
Thoughts on Flight 93
I watched United 93 last night with cpratt. I think I liked it better than he did. It's hard to make a story arc interesting when we all know where it will end and are also looking for the faithful reproduction of various details. But I think the film did a pretty good job, particularly with the various command center scenes, which were edited for suspense.

As cpratt notes in his own entry, I told him right afterwards that the film was interesting from a cinematic standpoint because the opening shots align us with the future hijackers. We see them getting ready for their mission, nervous and intense, just as we prepare for our own, which is to make it through the film. The difference between the hijackers and everyone else is that they know what's going to happen. Because we also know, the analogy is clear. For much of the film, they sit anxiously in their first class seats, just as we sit anxiously in our similarly proportioned movie theater seats.

It's not until they finally go into action that we are consistently pulled in another direction. Once the passengers begin to plan their revolt, our identification starts to shift away from the hijackers. But by that point United 93 is almost over. And even then, the film still encourages us to feel some sympathy for the most conflicted Al Qaeda operative, the one who takes over the plane after the pilot and co-pilot are killed. Those who appear hapless are shown to be the victims of bad information and an even worse chain of command. It's significant that the film is dedicated to everyone who died on that day, not just Americans. Perhaps this is a reflection of the filmmakers' desire to have a product that will be marketable outside of the United States. Or maybe they simply wished to establish critical distance from the way the Bush Administration has exploited the event. Either way, the film's studied neutrality is surprising.

I wasn't offended by it, though I can see how someone with a personal stake in the story easily could be. Indeed, I had been expecting the film to be pretty obviously biased against the hijackers and figured I'd be offended on that basis. It could be that the absence of that sort of offense canceled out my reservations about being encouraged to regard the hijackers, crew, and passengers alike as equally human. That's an odd sentence, I realize. Obviously they all were "equally human" in real life. But sometimes even the most contemplative people want to see their enemy dehumanized. When Chris and I nearly got into an altercation with the rude teenagers sitting in front of us, it made sense to me on an emotional level. That was early in the film, but we'd already prayed and shaved and dressed with the hijackers and must have felt the film's willingness to make them available for identification. It was almost like he and I needed to act out a taking of sides to counterbalance the film's nearly perverse balance.

Like the German film Downfall about the last days of Hitler's inner sanctum, which I wrote about here, United 93 is a fascinating film to think about. Indeed, the fact that the film doesn't particularly encourage us to think may be its most interesting quality. I was amazed to get back to my room last night and see that Chris had already composed an entry on it, because doing so required overcoming the film's resistance to the interpretive impulse. The film also intrigues me because of its documentary aspect. It's not often when that high a percentage of dialogue in a film is the sort that has already been made public. In a sense, anyone who had read the newspaper stories about the events of that day and poked around in the 9/11 Commission's report had already read the screenplay.

Of course, the fact that many of the people in the Redmond, Washington theater where we saw the film seemed to be teenagers out on dates raises the question of what they brought to the film. Was 9/11 a major watershed in their lives, as many of my undergraduates report it to have been? Or did they just want to see the latest hyped movie on Friday night? Trying to make sense of audience response to United 93 is no easy task. In essence, we are all being asked to become hijackers ourselves, not only because of the identification with them that the film elicits, but also because we bring the same knowledge into the theater that they brought onto that plane. We know what's going to happen. We know that everyone in the plane is going to die. And we even know that, to the extent that we identify with the people on that plane, we are going to end up suffering a metaphoric death ourselves. In other words, going to see the film is a kind of suicide mission. I suppose one could argue that the result is catharsis, of the sort that the audience is meant to experience when watching a tragedy. But I'm not even sure I felt that.

As I was heading east over the bridge on 520, trying to make sense of the film and my response to it, I realized I had tears in my eyes. I didn't when I was in the theater, however, And those tears felt curiously mechanical, like a physiological response to a stress too great to process. Maybe that's what United 93 is attempting to achieve. It may well be that the film turns out to be an allegory that only works in retrospect. We don't perceive its allegorical dimensions when watching it, but realize them later, as we look back on 9/11 through the window it provides, like those air traffic controllers in Newark airport who, after tracking one of the planes that hits the World Trade Centers with their scopes, belatedly realize that the answer to their question about its fate is staring them in the face like Edgar Allan Poe's purloined letter that hides in plain view.

The funny thing is that, like may people I've talked to, I already perceived the possibility of 9/11's allegorical potential right after learning what had happened. In fact, my first conscious thought about that day's events was that they would be turned into an allegory with lightning speed. And that's what I feared. Somehow I'd made the conclusion that Americans' allegorical response to the film would translate into a military response with world-changing consequences. "Fuck," I thought, "we're going to do something terrible."

I wonder whether my delayed emotional response to the film, which was of limited duration, might not provide a clue to the filmmakers' purpose. If we undo the initial allegorical response that drove us into the endlessness of the War on Terror and replace it with one of a different sort, maybe there's hope of breaking out of the destructive story arc in which we are presently trapped. That is, if we perceive Flight 93 as a film about what happens when we identify with terrorists, maybe we will be able to imagine another path besides self-destruction. Even as I was watching the last third of the film, I had the clear sense that the heroism of the passengers who led the revolt was being turned into something else. By the time we got to the revolt itself, the parallels between the scenes of the hijackers preparing for their day at the beginning of the film and the scenes of the passengers preparing to strike back were too difficult to ignore.

When the revolt finally comes, it turns out to be so confusing in its chaos that it feels more like a mass of undifferentiated aggression that a battle between good and evil. Indeed, the conclusion of the film reminded me more of Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch than of one of the patriotic films where one's nationalism is confirmed. Indeed, the passengers' decision to act seems more existential than anything, a realization that they would rather do something than sit passively resigned to their fate. Like United 93, The Wild Bunch is structured according to the logic of the heist genre, but takes a turn into murkier narrative territory. In a way, both films are heist-disaster hybrids in which mere anarchy is loosed upon the world in spite or maybe even because of a struggle for control. Although my own response is bound to be idiosyncratic relative to the majority take on the film, I think it's possible that many moviegoers will at least come out of the film with the power to rethink their notions of command and control. If the plane's pilots are lying dead on the cabin floor and the nation's "pilots" are incommunicado, then it's up to us to take matters into our own hands.

Tags: , ,
Current Location: 98109
Mode: devoid

6 comments or Leave a comment
masoo From: masoo Date: April 29th, 2006 05:42 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
I often decline to see a movie because I sense in advance that it will be crappy or I simply won't like it (of course, those may be the same thing). I rarely decline to see a movie because I object to it on some level, regardless of whether or not it's any good. I really hate people who make choices about movies, or books, or music, or whatever, based on how much they agree or disagree with what they perceive will be the socio-political stance of the work (so that people who couldn't tell you which Dixie Chick is Natalie will start buying their albums the minute they diss George Bush).

But I am pretty sure it is going to be a very long time before I watch United 93. I'm not sure why it was made, and I find myself disapproving of the reasons even before I know what they are, no matter what they are. Part of this may be the lack of distance to the event ... it was Lenny Bruce who pointed out that time is needed to make something funny (in the 50s and early 60s, he could make all the jokes he wanted about Napoleon, but Hitler wasn't funny yet to most people, because most people still remembered Hitler). But that's not entirely my problem ... I just read a review of a new film called The Bridge that is about suicide jumpers off the Golden Gate Bridge, with footage of actual jumps, and that seems far more exploitative than United 93 yet I wanted to watch The Bridge the minute I read of it (suicide being something I probably obsess about too much).

I also don't object to revisiting past horrors for what we might learn. The Sorrow and the Pity, to take one excellent and very long example, is near the top of my lists of all-time films, and you don't see me objecting to it because it's an honest documentary look at the German occupation of France (any more than I object to what is clearly set up to be a metaphoric representation of that occupation in the upcoming Season Three of Battlestar Galactica). But United 93 just doesn't feel right to me. I only have second-degree-of-separation connection to the people on that flight, and based on your post here, I know that others with a much closer connection were willing to see the movie on the first night of its release. But me, I'm going to pass for a couple of decades.
cbertsch From: cbertsch Date: April 30th, 2006 09:20 am (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
Obviously, this is a film that elicits strong responses, even from people who haven't seen it. It's intense that you would write so much about not wanting to see the film in response to something I wrote with a mind to encourage people to see it because it's interesting to think about.
gpratt From: gpratt Date: April 30th, 2006 04:30 am (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)

I won't see it in the theater, but I never go to the theater.

Talking about this movie in passing with (seven to be exact) coworkers or fellow students, all have told me they would not pay to see this movie. None were able to express why at the time of the various chit-chats, but reading masoo's comment sheds light on it for me. It seems no one (at least in my world) wants to see it because it's just too soon. I have not pulled the numbers yet to see how well the movie grossed, whatever it did will be the best way to determine how wide spread that "disapproving" opinion is.
As I wrote in my subject line, I'm a bad person to ask, "So will you go see it?" because I rarely make it to the movie theater anyhow. If I was single, on a date, this movie would not be at the top of my list for a night out on the town. In my opinion, a major motivation for people to go see movies like this is in hopes to get answers.
masoo From: masoo Date: April 30th, 2006 03:05 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)

Re: I won't see it in the theater, but I never go to the theater.

I would read a book about the subject. I have already read Charlie's take, and cpratt's, and am thankful they've both written their immediate responses to the film. I would go to a movie that offered a fictionalized version, something that was "about" the events without being literal about it ... the way Elephant is about Columbine, say, although I really hated that movie, so maybe that's not the best example.

What I don't want to see is a recreation of the events, perhaps especially one that does a good and mostly accurate job of recreating. I can't justify my position, I just know I won't see the movie.
kdotdammit From: kdotdammit Date: April 30th, 2006 03:21 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
There are so many interesting things you say in here that I'll wait to talk to you about them because I can't seem to muster the energy to write about them but this is really great film writing. And now I kinda want to see the movie just to think about the things you wrote about it even though I really don't want to see the movie so I guess that means that your writing about the movie is good since it makes me want to see a movie I don't want to see.
cbertsch From: cbertsch Date: April 30th, 2006 04:20 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
Thanks! There are many reasons not to see the movie. I do think there's something masochistic about the experience. But it's interesting to think about. I really think the Wild Bunch analogy makes sense, no matter how odd it sounds.
6 comments or Leave a comment