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.
I’m going this week-—and thanks for your review.:-)
.
I am sure he did mean “reliving” and you are right proofreading is a good practice, but he was probably in a hurry and since relieving and reliving are actual words the spellchecker did not catch it.
I’m old enough to have a sense of humor.
The investigation was straightforward and clear. No recriminations, no blame, he was commended by the NTSB for his and his crews performance. He was not second-guessed or his decisions faulted.
Have no idea where Eastwood get’s the idea “they” were faulting him in any way.
“climatically?” Didn’t know Clint was one of the AGW crowd.../s
“Whom God would destroy He first makes INSANE!”
America has been INSANE for decades. Our destruction must be right around the corner.
His decisions were NOT second-guessed.
The NTSB did a normal post-mishap investigation to determine cause and lesson’s learned.
The investigators lauded Sully’s decision and his skills, and only mentioned “task saturation” as part of dealing with the ditching.
See http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf for the report.
Posted on this thread: “And it is not in my nature to stick up for a bunch of federal bureaucrats, the witch hunt portrayed in the movie is fiction to add drama to a movie that is essentially about a routine non-lethal accident investigation.” Absolutely true.
Too bad Clint — a pretty solid conservative — tapped Hanks — F**KING LIB — to play that role. I watched my last Tom Hanks film years ago!
An airline pilot (Airline Transport Pilot rating) has three physicals each year. Two First Class FAA physicals and one company physical. If a 40 year old pilot fails a physical he can no longer exercise his license to fly. If the reason he or she failed the physical is such that the Medical certificate can be downgraded to a Second or Third, the pilot may still fly, but not as an ATP. It could be that the pilot could still fly commercially. In my experience, Pilots usually took an early “Medical Retirement.” The pay would be about 50% of what he was making. Additional money could be paid if the pilot had “Loss of License” insurance. Very few continue to work for the company. Sim instructors usually are expected to fly, on the line, the aircraft they are teaching on. Having a less than first class medical, they could not hold that position. They might teach ground school but the money isn’t there.
I agree....many were the times we would look at each other and say “just think, they are paying us to do this!”
After a long flight with weather enroute and then flying an instrument approach, breaking out at 200’ to land on a runway that has packed snow with a braking action of fair to poor,
the comment would be, “maybe we earned some of that pay today.”
Hey thanks for the info. That makes sense. I should have known better than to assume a movie would not add fictional drama. :-)
Thanks
Thanks for perspective. I respect experience.
Actually, I probably should just have kept my long-winded big mouth shut. I love Clint Eastwood and hope the film does well. It pays to remember that anytime anything bad happens no matter how good a job you did someone most likely will be coming back and second guessing your actions later.
When I look back over my time working on a fire department for 25 years, a job where by definition we were responding to things that had gone wrong... my finest hours were often the ones that I ended up taking the most flak over later, and usually from some know-it-all idiot who didn't have a clue. That is the way that the world works, and maybe this movie will help remind people of that, regardless of how accurate the portrayal of federal investigators was. Most of them actually are jerks and they probably deserve criticism for other crap they pulled and got away with.
60 Minute Video February 8,2009
Sully's story as first told to 60 Minutes
Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, the pilot who deftly guided U.S. Airways Flight 1549 into a crash-landing on the Hudson River, first told his harrowing account to 60 Minutes in the report “Saving Flight 1549,” posted in the video player above.
Now, the new film “Sully,” directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Tom Hanks, tells a different part of story: the aftermath of Sully’s instant celebrity and the investigation into the near-miss tragedy of Jan. 15, 2009.
More in the link
You’re not flying in an un-power’d turn.
A lot of pilots have been killed trying.
Did they ever figure out which Passenger opened the rear door of the Airplane which caused the flooding if the Fuselage while People were evacuating?
I dislike most bureaucrats. I worked for 35 years with 2 privately held companies. Both were family owned, had honest intelligent leadership. I saw what reporters, state bureaucrats, etc did to them at times. When they were stabbed in the back they reciprocated, but until they were treated badly they were totally open and up front. Refreshing in the world today. And growing increasingly rare.
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.