Posted on 09/10/2016 7:06:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
The story of Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger could’ve been fodder for a predictable inspirational film that ends with the main character climatically saving 155 lives (including his own) onboard a disabled plane. But director Clint Eastwood isn’t known for taking that route. As a director, he’s known for asking larger questions and he’s done so in movies likeFlags of our Fathers(2006) and the controversialAmerican Sniper(2014). He’s continued that route withSully, a feature that daringly presents the Captain as an introspective man who faced off againsthis critics after his incredible act of heroism.
Tom Hanks stars as the title character, a pilot who faced the toughest 208 seconds of his life on January 15th, 2009. In less than three and a half minutes, the plane he was piloting was struck by a group of birds who paralyzed the vessel. Alongside his loyal co-pilot Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart), Sully made an intense water landing on the Hudson River. The passengers were all safe but Sully’s reputation wasn’t.
As the film explores, Sully’s choices that day were intensely scrutinized by investigators, insuranceofficials and bureaucrats.
After a brief opening dream sequence, the movie shows Sully’s journey after the dramatic landing — flashbacks later show the events of the flight — as he faces these questioners.
In his methodical story, Eastwood focuses on the facts of the case. This is a serious film about the investigation and there’s barely an extraneous moment in it.
Instead of sentimentality or schmaltz, the film offers a sturdy performance from two-time Oscar winner Hanks who quietly conveys the emotions of the even-keeled captain. Here, Hanks is is tasked with bringing to life a captain we thought we knew. In the media, Sully was often simply portrayed as a resolute hero. In the story, we watch Sully as an introspective pilot who couldn’t help relieving those 208 seconds. Even as he was publicly adamant that he did the right thing, the captain was constantly re-evaluating and reassessing his actions in private.
The screenplay was written by Todd Komarnicki and adapted from the bookHighest Duty(co-written by Chesley Sullenberger and Jeffrey Zaslow) but the story never feels like a simplistic tribute to the captain. This is a movie that is more interested in offering a complete portrait of the captain and the investigation than it is in simply offering praise for his actions. With that in mind, Laura Linney is given limited screen time as Lorraine, Sully’s wife who kept him grounded during this difficult period.
There are two major settings in this film. There are several scenes that take place in the cold outside where Sully walks and talks privately with Skiles. Then there are scenes inside — in tight-quartered investigation rooms and conference areas — where there’s plenty of heat but little warmth exhibited by cynical investigators.
The dichotomy of these settings is similar to the dichotomy of how Sully was viewed at the time. By the outside world, Sully was a hero to be revered, applauded and respected. To the investigators (looking for weaknesses in his story), Sully was a target to be questioned, scrutinized and criticized. Both perspectives are portrayed here with the captain caught in the middle of the fracas.
Viewers can make up their minds onSully but Eastwood offers here a fuller glimpse of the captain than what we’ve seen before. It’s a telling and daring look at a sturdy captain who faced some of the greatest criticisms of his characteraftera daring act of bravery.
Looking for more movies about inspirational figures? Clickhere for a list of10 movies about American patriots.
TWA 800 didn't receive the scrutiny it deserved.
So many accounts of a bright light arcing up from the ocean surface to TWA 800 right before it exploded, and all those accounts dismissed out of hand for a "static caused the fuel tanks to explode" b.s. excuse.
It's about the investigation of Sully and lack of investigation (or truth) behind TWA 800. That's what the original poster was referring to.
They weren't. It's a Hollywood movie. Every movie needs a villain and Eastwood chose the NTSB as his. But in his book, Sullenberger never mentioned any unfair treatment from the NTSB. And the actual investigators, by all accounts, conducted a fair and thorough investigation that completely exonerated the flight crew from any wrongdoing and agreed completely with their decisions and credited them with saving the lives of everyone on the plane.
.
I think the story line of the movie exaggerates the nit picking in order to create a reason to see the movie.
Eastwood has always done this well.
.
Numbers 33:3 And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.
It's another one of those signs that sailed right by, because "everybody knows" that the first month refers to the Hebrew month of Nisan. Yeah well meanwhile, passengers crossed the river on "dry land" on the wings of an eagle.
US Airways Jet crashes in Hudson River in NYC
Re the "passengers": compare to "Hebrews".
עברים
עברים
Doubled, like a bird strike.
Bookend (first and last) signs timed in accordance with election...
Better keep your "Red Alert" handy, and keep me on your ping list... :)
Saw the movie this afternoon. When that tidbit came out I nearly hit the ceiling. Why in the Hell did the Feds allow the results of that simulation be taken seriously? The fact that they did, and then had to be ASKED about it shifts their investigation into the witch-hunt category.
Suspicion started, for me, when I heard "algorithms" and "computer simulation". I thought desk jockeys and geeks acting like they know more than the guys who went through it.
I get the distinct feeling that, despite their kudos at the end, the Feds were looking to advance their careers over the pilot and co-pilot's bodies.
Midnight (Passover, Paul Revere's Midnight Ride, end of British Mandate)...
"One if by land, two if by sea" = famous SIGN (two lights)
Check the Torah Reading for Jan 15, 2009. If not this sign, then that sign...
On and on.
http://www.chabad.org/dailystudy/torahreading.asp?tDate=1/15/2009
Absolutely! Many parallels - too many to be coincidence.
And from your link, another:
'The Lord God of the Hebrews has happened upon us, and now, let us go for a three days' journey in the desert and offer up sacrifices to the Lord, our God.'
The exact number of days Yeshua was in the tomb.
IMO. Eastwood is like a fine wine——he just keeps getting better & better with age.
I truly don’t want to witness his obit- I want to be gone first myself.
They didn't. This is a movie. The writer needed a villain so they picked the NTSB. In fact when Airbus first came up with the simulations that showed the airplane could have made the airport it was the NTSB that pointed out that the simulations had not included the 30-odd seconds the crew used to analyze the situation and requested the simulations be run again with it. The NTSB completely exonerated the crew and early on arrived at the conclusion that Sullenberger made the only possible decision to save the life of his crew and passengers.
Glad to hear that. There was some snarking at IMDB about Eastwood being anti-govt and I figured, this being a movie, one had to be careful, but who did the 17 rehearsals? Sloppy Sloppy.
Eastwood directed the film, he didn't write it. And I understand that Airbus had practiced the landing a lot of times before the official attempt.
OK Everybody, I rarely get critical but “Ace,” my Jet Airline Captain (honors college student) son weighed in on the subject of Captain Sully and doesn’t have a lot good to say on his airman-ship. I have two total engine-out landings to my credit and have to concur. Now that’s not to say that Captain Sully is a bad guy, but aviation is known for critical thinking. I haven’t seen the film, but I will this week.
You do know Clint has worked Matt Damon multiple times right?
Love your tagline! Lived in Texas for about six months when I was younger. gorgeous country; friendly people. Ad great barbecue!
Although they do have good barbecue in North Carolina. ;)
My wife was born in Fayetville, NC
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.