I thought as a film student I would add some content to the discussion, specifically addressing some of your concerns and my own thoughts on the film as well.
I was particularly proud to see someone identify the film as being in the style of "cinema verite" or "direct cinema".
This type of filmmaking was popularized by artists like Robert Drew in the 1960s by films such as "Crisis" and "Primary" and continued by the Maysles brothers during the 1970s in films like "Gimme Shelter" (the document of the Rolling Stones disaster in Altamont) and "Grey Gardens". In verite, the camera is an objective viewpoint. The goal of verite is to present the most unbiased and truthful portrayal as possible. Greengrass accomplishes this in UNITED 93 by using minimal exposition and his now signature handheld camera style.
As some of you surely noticed, there is hardly an exposition in the film. We meet the passengers and the hijackers, though we are never formally introduced by way of greetings (as passengers sit next to each other and make casual conversation) nor do we learn more about the characters through flashback or other similar cinematic devices. The image we are presented onscreen is as much information as the film allows us to absorb. I'm sure many of you did not know who Todd Beamer was in the film until he almost incomprehensibly mutters the word "roll" before the eventual attack. Mr. Beamer's portrayal brings up another reason why cinema verite is so effect at humanizing the portrayal of the characters. In a lesser film, the camera would have slowly dollied into Beamer in a close up before exclaiming "LET'S ROLL!" as the music swells to an emotional crescendo. I think this is a masterful touch on the director's part, because the immediacy and disorientation of the scene are brought at full speed to the audience. If this film were made according to traditional Hollywood sterotypes, there would be numerous cutaways to perfectly manicured houses on residential streets as people receive their horrifying phone calls from the passengers on United 93. This is not a part of the verite style, and only serves to drain the tension from the scene. Greengrass wants your insides to be in knots, but he does not want to rub your nose in the terror that took place.
I don't know if some of you noticed it, but the last 25 minutes of the film are spent entirely inside the cabin of United 93. The editing (which I'm sure will be nominated for an Oscar) does not allow the audience to catch it's breath. The immediacy of the drama I feel is one of the film's strong points. We are not allowed to breathe, to relax and scenes that some of you requested to be thrown in such as shots of mayhem in NYC would only be a detriment to the film. The plan to retake the aircraft and implement it is also stunningly brief. Again, in a lesser film, there would be an entire act of anticipation before the rush, while in this film, Greengrass has it occur mere minutes after first being brought up.
It is in this sense of gripping terror that we experience in a minute form what those passengers surely must have felt. In the end, the film was catharsis for me. As the camera finally finds focus on a patch of green Earth out the cockpit window, we are allowed peace, even though the fuzzy flash of arms and weapons stray across the screen until the end.
The film does not fetishize, nor does it apologize. I too experienced the same panic and feeling of helplessness that I experience as a 17 year old in a lonely high school radio station on the morning of September 11th. I have never cried in a film before, but United 93 made me weep and I strongly credit director Paul Greengrass. Some of you may find fault with Greengrass because he is an avowed liberal and to boot, not an American. I think it is incredibly irresponsible on the part of some of you to find contention with this, or to fault Greengrass because of it. I think he has made a horrifyingly beautiful document of an important moment in American history that only 44 people experienced.
I myself am politically moderate, but I think that it is important to realize that this film serves as a document to a time when Americans united in love for their brothers and sisters. The effects of this film transcend political spectrum. I went to the film with members of both Republican groups and Democratic groups at my school. We were all in tears by the time the camera cuts to black, if not sobbing.
I think one critic put it best. "In 111 minutes, a film went from being inappropriate to indispensable." This is not a film that apologizes for the actions of the hijackers, nor is it a piece of jingoistic patriotism. Both would weaken the film, and I am glad Greengrass found no place for either in his telling.
I think it is the most of important film of our time. I hope you all agree with me, for the right reasons.
A wonderfully written review.
...And welcome to Free Republic; that was your first post. Unlike a lot of newbies, your stay will be long and fruitful with posts like this one.
Again, welcome.
Well said. Welcome to FR.
When the screen went dark at the end there wasn't a sound in the theater. A fitting tribute.
Excellent Analysis - Welcome to FR !!!
Fantastic post with a lot of great information, thanks!
You express yourself very well.
Thanks very much for adding to our knowledge of the film.
...the last 25 minutes of the film are spent entirely inside the cabin of United 93. The editing (which I'm sure will be nominated for an Oscar) does not allow the audience to catch it's breath.
It Should be nominated. It will be interesting to see exactly what various awards groups actually do next winter. I bet they will try to ignore it as "old news."
Interesting that Greengrass is credited as the writer as well as producer. Part of his genius was being able to get actors, and some playing themselves, to ad lib their own dialogue.
It really is a masterpiece on so many levels.
Thank you for an excellent review. You articulated why this is an important film beautifully.
And welcome.
Where I saw it last evening, the (large) showing theater was 3/4 full. At the end, people waited a moment, and then applauded.
I was one of the few who stayed for all of the credits. I saw that several of the monitoring tower and armed services people played themselves (not just Ben Sliney).
Someone in my family found the handheld verite cinematographic style to cause extreme dizziness to the point of being physically ill. I therefore believe the film would appeal to more people if the number of handheld shots were minimized instead of maximized. My impression is that Greengrass is unfortunately unaware of this...
great review, please read mine also
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623402/posts?page=691#691