Here’s Why - Responding to United 93 critics.

The events of September 11, 2001, were unique in American history, public tragedies so overwhelming that they altered not just the politics of the nation, but its entire cultural consciousness. Nearly five years later, the political consequences of that day are apparent, if far from resolved. The cultural effects, however, are just beginning to take shape. From a host of mediocre novels to TV shows like 24 and The Sopranos, the lingering effects of that day have brushed up against our popular culture. But until recently, the day itself remained sacrosanct, as artists and critics have struggled with how one ought to depict the most horrific and politically significant day in recent history.

Last weekend saw the release of director Paul Greengrass’s United 93, the first Hollywood-produced narrative feature to directly depict 9/11. For once, Hollywood got it right. The film, which deals primarily with the passenger uprising that kept the hijacked United Flight 93 from hitting its Washington, D.C. target, is a devastating experience, a solemn memorial, and a harrowing reminder of both the enemy we face and the heroism and sacrifice required to overcome it. Eschewing overt political statements, United 93 takes a broadly experienced national tragedy and makes it intensely personal. Meticulously researched and detailed, there is none of the usual manipulation involved in a big screen retelling. Such exaggeration would be unnecessary: The horror speaks for itself.

The critical response to the film has been largely positive, but a vocal minority have come out against it, not for any particular aesthetic reason, but because it is refuses to take sides in the contentious world of post-9/11 politics. Complaining that the film is too narrow, too neutral, even too hopeful, these contrarian critics seem disappointed that United 93 is a stirring memorial instead of a political diatribe. In the run-up to the film’s release, the oft-asked question was “is it too soon?” But the prevailing cry has shifted to “why was this made?”

The bluntest criticism of the film comes from two separate essays in Slate. In one piece, Ron Rosenbaum grouses that the movie is “a symptom of our addiction to fables of redemptive uplift,” while another essay has film critic Dana Stevens writing that “Greengrass' exquisite delicacy and tact toward all sides… smack[s] of political pussyfooting. What is Greengrass actually trying to say about 9/11?” In the New York Press, Matt Zoller-Seitz echoes this sentiment, claiming the film is “dismaying precisely because it is so outwardly safe and neutral in its politics.” In somewhat more favorable reviews, Salon’s Stephanie Zacharek and the New York Times’s Manohla Dargis also question the film’s intent, with Dargis writing that the film’s “narrow focus, along with the lack of fully realized characters, and the absence of any historical or political context, raises the question of why…this particular movie was made.”

Part of this reaction might be chalked up to simple critical contrarianism. There is a tendency amongst critics to want to make bold, standoffish statements, as few critics make names for themselves by falling in line with the consensus.

But I wonder if there might be something else at work, a frustration that many left-leaning critics rarely face: how to deal with a well-made film that is also deeply conservative in its values. United 93 doesn’t follow the rules of the politically correct playbook: The heroes are ordinary Americans, mostly white, who say prayers and love their families. They are lead by strong, quick-thinking males who understand that it is their duty as men to take violent, physical action against foreign attackers. The villains are religiously motivated Islamic terrorists who unabashedly celebrate news of the World Trade Center’s destruction and cry “In the name of God!” while slitting a flight attendant’s throat. A European-accented passenger who insists on negotiating is tackled when he tries to warn the terrorists of the other passengers’ plan to storm the cabin.

But for once, there can be no complaints about diversity, about male dominance, about “unbalanced” portrayals of foreign terrorists or any of the left’s other pet causes, because what the film shows is exactly what happened.

Nor can there be much in the way of criticism made on technical grounds. Seitz agrees that “[t]here’s not any single egregious creative misstep,” and Zacharek writes that the film is “brilliantly crafted” and “made with tremendous care.”

So what’s a contrarian critic to do? The only thing that’s left: complain about what’s there. Thus, in a film that is scrupulously neutral on specific political issues—most notably the war in Iraq—its neutrality gets recast as hollowness, as an unwillingness to take a divisive stand. But what would these cavilers have instead? Does anyone really want to see an openly biased, partisan film about 9/11? Maybe that day will come—and with Oliver Stone’s film World Trade Center slated for release later this year, it may come sooner rather than later—but for now, the place for debate about post-9/11 politics is the op-ed page, not the multiplex.

Those looking only for broad political assertions will find none, for United 93 is not about specific politics; it is about people. From the passengers who stormed the cockpit to the air traffic controllers harangued by unimaginable chaos, it is a real-life reminder of how ordinary Americans can become heroes. Ron Rosenbaum may find the film’s glimmer of hope to be a “symptom of our addiction to fables of redemptive uplift”—as if only a fool would find anything other than despair in the courageous actions of those passengers—but he can keep his fashionable pessimism. United 93 is as free of schmaltz and emotional manipulation as a movie can be, but it is not too dour to recognize acts of genuine bravery.

And, of course, the film acts as a memorial—a way to honor the dead in public fashion. We are a nation of moviegoers, and it is only fitting that we use cinema to tell this story. Though this memorial is celluloid rather than engraved stone, its concern is nonetheless with portraying the dead—creating a permanent public memory around which to gather. With its carefully researched depictions of each passenger and crew member, that is exactly what the film does.

But a film memorial does something that a stone monument cannot: Not only does it restage the events of 9/11, it recreates the overpowering experience—the sense of loss, the bewilderment and shock, the unshakeable feeling that everything, somehow, has changed. What has changed, exactly, may not be clear, but it is certain that the world is no longer the same. When I walked out of the theater on Friday afternoon, it was to the sound of adults weeping. Moving through the streets of Washington, I felt an otherworldly disconnection from the day-to-day occurrences around me, as if reality had undergone some sudden, drastic shift. The events of September 11^th, 2001, changed our world, not just as a nation, but as individuals. To watch United 93 is to experience that deeply personal change once again.

Asking why this film was made is like asking why we go to funerals, why we visit gravesites, why we build monuments. We do it because we need to remember. We do it as a public expression of grief. We do it to honor the dead. We do it because we must.

Here’s Why if the GOP is unable to secure our borders, then it deserves the dustbin of history. If the Chamber of Commerce has as much contempt for the people of the United States as the rest of the world apparently has, then there's no reason to vote for their puppets in the GOP.

It was made as a reminder of why we fight. The politics of the film is clear. We were asleep to the threat of Islamo Fascism prior to that day. Treating it like a liquor store holdup instead of a world war. This after four prior attacks on the United States.

The film is political. The left simply doesn't like the politics they prefer the rants and twisted view of Michael Moore to the reality of United 93.

But I wonder if there might be something else at work, a frustration that many left-leaning critics rarely face: how to deal with a well-made film that is also deeply conservative in its values. United 93 doesn’t follow the rules of the politically correct playbook: The heroes are ordinary Americans, mostly white, who say prayers and love their families. They are lead by strong, quick-thinking males who understand that it is their duty as men to take violent, physical action against foreign attackers. The villains are religiously motivated Islamic terrorists who unabashedly celebrate news of the World Trade Center’s destruction and cry “In the name of God!” while slitting a flight attendant’s throat. A European-accented passenger who insists on negotiating is tackled when he tries to warn the terrorists of the other passengers’ plan to storm the cabin.

BINGO!

I hope to and will try to go see this with my wife...

But I know it will be a hard experience....

"...A European-accented passenger who insists on negotiating is tackled when he tries to warn the terrorists of the other passengers’ plan to storm the cabin. ..."

You know, these people are going to get us killed...

I can imagine the opening scene in Oliver Stone's 9-11 starts the night before when a security guard at the WTC catches a government agent planting explosives in an elevator shaft beore he is murdered.

From a host of mediocre novels to TV shows like 24

Just a small nitpick with the article. 24's TV premier was postponed because of 9/11. It was debated if it would ever be aired because it was so "precognitive".

YUP, the leftists are seething because the FACTS portrayed in the film are: depraved Islamist terrorists take over airplane, slitting throats of innocent people and preparing to crash all into DC landmark; courageous AMERICANS, take the initiative, fight back to re-take the plane or die trying; the heroes of the story are ..... gasp ...... white bourgeois males from imperialist AmeriKa, and the villains are..... psychotic Islamists from the Middle East.

NO NO, the left does not want this story to be told, and they are bothered even more when it is told in a very factual, non-political way since then it is harder for them to dismiss it..... so they have to whine about "where is its political viewpoint?" and "why can't I find something in it I can get away with attacking so I can dismiss the whole thing as propaganda?" The leftists are sweating this out, hoping the film does not have too much of an impact against the constant stream of b.s. propaganda they have put out for so long.

Saw the film on Sunday.

This review nails it. The reality of the movie is what is disturbing to the agenda-driven. No idealized, politically correct characters, just Americans like you would see them.

First movie I remember leaving to the sound of adults crying.

My thought concerning the critiques is the critisim if from those who make their living talking about things. The film adequately demonstrates that the passengers (read us) had nothing left to talk about once the aim of the hijackers was known. The problem for the left, is like the doomed passengers, there is no room for discussion any more only action is required. This is why the left has swung wildly with their anti-Bush nonsense, they know, as we all do, that action was required. Now they preach that they had better ideas following 9/11. I have yet to hear any leftest with any plausible plan to make us safer. The only lesson to learn from 9/11 is to hit harder and faster next time. Don't worry about hearts and minds, just unleash the full fury of America on the ragheads. Maybe once the mugwumps understand the full force of our wrath (read Dresden) maybe then they might begin to think twice about screwing with us. Its nice to be liked, but it is better to be feared.

Then don't vote for the GOP! Stay home, vote Democrat, vote Libertarian, whatever, just make sure the World Socialist win. Are you that stupid?

I used to say the same things you are saying. Now, I guess I really am that stoopid. The twin issues of Border Security/Illegal Immigration Refom are slam-dunks for the Republicans, yet they waver because they want to appear to be compassionate. If they cannot accomplish anything with the support of most of the American people, you cannot expect anything from them if it is an unpopular issue.

And, speaking of the horrors of 9-11 mentioned in the article: with Norm Mineta in charge of the Dept. of Transportation, those islamofascists who perpetrated the acts on Flight 93 would probably be allowed to board peacefully while the TSA's frisk some old lady with an artificial hip.

Hell, yes I'm staying home on election day.

I'm voting for the (electable) candidate that most effectively demonstrates an understanding of the enemy we face.

For the first time in my life, I am a single issue voter.

Then don't vote for the GOP! Stay home, vote Democrat, vote Libertarian, whatever, just make sure the World Socialist win. Are you that stupid?

I'm not that stupid. I'm just stating that if the GOP is unable to secure our borders, it is as surely demonstrating that it cares more about business than our physical security and survival. IMHO, that shows as much concern for our welfare as any dem who declares it illegal to bear arms during a state of emergency.

I can hold my nose to vote for the GOP in national elections as long as the next guy, but the old line of "What's good for General Motors, is good for the U.S.A.," does not seem to apply any more. IMHO, it's not a winning strategy to motivate the base, much less to appeal to new voters or disaffected dems.

Some on the left (not all of them conspiracy nuts) have come out saying that we don't know for sure what transpired on Flight 93. That how can we know the film is factual?

This is from the same people who will use any scrap of unproven information to reinforce their mantra that Bush is evil.

"But the prevailing cry has shifted to “why was this made?”"

It was made to show the human spirit, how we as a people refuse to be enslaved.

Libs just don't get it.

The heroes are ordinary Americans, mostly white, who say prayers and love their families. They are lead by strong, quick-thinking males who understand that it is their duty as men to take violent, physical action against foreign attackers. The villains are religiously motivated Islamic terrorists who unabashedly celebrate news of the World Trade Center’s destruction and cry “In the name of God!” while slitting a flight attendant’s throat. A European-accented passenger who insists on negotiating is tackled when he tries to warn the terrorists of the other passengers’ plan to storm the cabin.

Nobody will struggle with this set of characters except those who never set foot outside NY or Hollywood.

We must relate to reality, history, whatever, through Hollywood melodramas? That seems to be the unspoken and unconscious consensus here (and elsewhere in this culture today.) No, I won't see it, for the same reasons I don't go see biopics and docudramas. I like my fiction fictional, not a clever fantasy "based on a true story". A noted film director once told me, "You're interested in truth? Make drama. Interested in fiction? Make documentaries."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.