UNITED 93 is the best film of the year so far and by far...- Page 5

[RobbO]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 9:32am

many times when a movie opens marketing companies are hired by the film distributors to sample the opening weekend crowd. people are asked to fill-out surveys that may include things like age, marital status, etc. in addition to their impression of the movie.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 9:44am

That makes sense and is infinitely better than the thought of some studio person counting wedding rings in a theater in Burbank and generalizing from there.

It seemed to me that there were many under 30s in the crowd I saw it with. [Dangle dangle!]

[Elphaba]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 9:54am

On the National Geographic channel last night there was a 2hr documentary about 9-11 and all 4 planes. It truly was moving, and what really struck me was how long it took the military to get up in the air, and why, rather than realize they need to look in all directions, they only looked East..........here both towers have already been hit, and Langley senss up ONLY two fighters, and they send them east......they should have sent up much more, and in all directions.

The documentary was very well done, and I will go see United 93.

Anyway.....I also noticed a very cheesy commercial for a movie on in the next week about bird flu in America....REALLY bad acting, and all I thought was that this is NOT what the American public needs right now, as so many are already worried about it. It will just get people freaked out.

Updated On: 5/1/06 at 09:54 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 10:08am

"It seemed to me that there were many under 30s in the crowd I saw it with. [Dangle dangle!]"

Dingle dangle jingle jangle off we go! Betty Hutton, I pushed a button watch him blow! Namo, try to enjoy your moments in the limelight and don't let my little jab get to you so~

Updated On: 5/1/06 at 10:08 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 10:20am

"Namo, try to enjoy your moments in the limelight..."

You know what, Jane? This is all entirely your projection onto my posts in this thread. I took the time to write out my impressions and reactions to a movie I had no desire to see in the first place because my response was complicated, but laden with stuff I never expected. It took time to write, and I was tired, but I did it because I felt I had something to add. Particularly because I started out in a place not at all unlike those in the thread who were apprehensive about the existence of the film at all. I was motivated to write my posts primarily for them.

That you want to cast it as "my moment in the limelight" is certainly your prerogative but it is totally in your own head. And once again, as I finish this post, I have the same nagging question I always have when engaging with you, "What the hell am I doing even discussing this with this woman for?" [Dangle noted, thank you]

[RobbO]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 10:35am

"...but laden with stuff I never expected."

i hate to pick, but it is bin laden not but laden.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 10:40am

I was using the tu form.

[RobbO]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 10:41am

sorry. my bad. my immigrant took the day off in protest so i couldn't have him translate the spanish for me.

[DBillyP]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 10:50am

Driving some friends to the airport on Friday (they are now in Costa Rica, while I am stuck at home in rehearsal ... the b*tches), the discussion turned to the film. One of them said, "It would be interesting to see what effect the film has on Bush's approval rating."

I imagine that it will not create a bump, though it would be interesting to talk to the average American (by which I do not mean any of the people on this Board; most here are far too intelligent and opinionated to qualify as average!) to see if their thoughts had changed after seeing the film.

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 10:56am

"I took the time to write out my impressions and reactions to a movie I had no desire to see in the first place because my response was complicated, but laden with stuff I never expected. It took time to write, and I was tired, but I did it because I felt I had something to add. Particularly because I started out in a place not at all unlike those in the thread who were apprehensive about the existence of the film at all. I was motivated to write my posts primarily for them."

Yes, you did, and it was really well done

"That you want to cast it as "my moment in the limelight" is certainly your prerogative but it is totally in your own head."

My saying it was your moment in the limelight referred to everyone else who was posting deserved compliments to you after appreciating what you wrote.

".What the hell am I doing even discussing this with this woman for?"

That comment is so out of line that I won't even take it seriously. If you had the ability to affect me I might put you in your place for it.

<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 11:01am

Like a lot of art, I think the film IS a Rorschach inkblot in many of the same ways that Brokeback Mountain was. There is plenty of empty space in the narrative, a surprising amount considering how frenetic the pace becomes. Audience members will fill in those spaces with whatever they bring to the experience.

I know there was a particularly terrifying moment in the film where for a minute I flashed on the notion, "I can definitely see the appeal of a patriarchal 'I'm your daddy, I'll take care of everything' response, and how seductive that is for people who are terrorized." Fake, of course, but appealing nonetheless.

I think the film ultimately succeeds because of this fine line... but it feels so private and personal and is devoid of any particular jingoism that I think it's more likely to inspire folks to reflect than beat the drums.

[DBillyP]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 11:39am

Our Senior Pastor yesterday preached a sermon entitled "God is Still Speaking to our Fears," in which she referenced the film. She asked that, if we see the film, we keep one question in mind while viewing it: "What does this movie do to create fear or to create hope in me and in others who will see this film?"

She went on to day, "Following the recommendation of Rabbi Lerner (author of THE LEFT HAND OF GOD), examine everything you read, watch and listen to and ask yourself if this is adding to your fear or your hope and what you can do to turn that fear into hope. Remind yourself and others that you are not alone, that there are countless people all over the world of all faiths and of good will who also want a world of peace, a future with hope."

It was a tremendous sermon, so appropriate for the fear-based times in which our leaders wish us to live.

Updated On: 5/1/06 at 11:39 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 2:59pm

I probably was bringing my antiBush baggage, but I thought that if what was presented in the control room scenes was absolute fact, then it made Bush look terrible:

If we had reports that this might happen, why was a plan of defense not created so that all of those people in the controle rooms would know what to do??

At one point, the military is trying to get authorization to shoot down the planes once they realize what is being done with the planes. They can only get that authorization from the President--not even from Dick Cheney. And the officer asks how long before we get that authorization. And, I thought to myself, "at least SEVEN minutes" while that dumbass hears the book about the goat.

I sourly await papa's spin and justification on what I consider to be a clear cut proof of why that jackass should have excused himself and gotten to work. No one will EVER EVER EVER be able to convince me that is was "ok" that Bush sat in that chair.

Because as this film beautifully recreates that sense of cluelessness we all had--not knowing they would crash the planes, not knowing how many of them there were, not knowing how long the attack would last--Bush should have moved his ass.

And, I have tried to withhold placing what would seem a political angle on this film--because the film does NOT get partisan--I think you can't avoid the facts of that day and the implications that come with. It's part of the discussion. And, so, yes, it reminded me of just how HORRID a President we have. The man prided himself on his post-9/11 actions and the reality is--HE ****ED UP during 9/11!!!!

And, yes, I am angry. I am angry that this man got elected in 2004 (if you consider the election legit, which I DO NOT) and got appointed in 2000 in the first place. I am angry that we have come to live in a world of blind, ignorant sheep who follow such lies, spin, and deception. I hope this man and his admin FINALLY get found out on all their crap and we have some bit of justice back in our country. I pray for impeachments and prison time for men and women who have done (or not done) so much to create an abominable state of the union.

And I really just better stop there. Apologies for the tirade.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 3:26pm

I agree that we all bring our baggage to any representational art work and this movie is no exception.

And while I agree that the buck has to stop somewhere and that Bush actually proceeded to blow a hell of a lot of good will (remember, the French news headline: "We're All Americans Now"?) immediately after 9-11, those failures you mention JRB reminded me of the book I read last year, 102 Minutes : The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn of the New York Times.

In that book, the failures seemed to be, for lack of a better term, Guy Failures. As in, Who-Has-the-Largest-Wang Failures. The acrimony between New York Cops and New York Firefighters resulted in unused new communications technology that was not only purchased and ready to go, but actually would have saved lives of many of the first responders who perished.

But it wasn't used because the cops and the firefighters couldn't agree on its use and the guyish mantra of "don't fix what ain't broke" was used as a shield of resistance to adopting the new technology. It was fundamentally that failure, that guy thing of one department being better and not working cooperatively and only wanting to beat the competition that served to be a huge cog in the systematic failures that day.

In many ways, the movie reflects that too. If the military and the FAA weren't engaged in genitalia largeness competitions, there might have been a way for them to work together and scramble faster when the stuff was hitting the fan. As the Voice review reminds us, there's really no reason Flight 93 should have left the ground once people were aware of the highjackings going on.

And, of course, we subsequently learned that the CIA and the FBI weren't talking to each other either. Good, decisive leadership could have fostered a better atmosphere all around. But we had who we had on Sept. 11. To paraphrase Hedwig, "It's what we had to work with." And it obviously wasn't much.

[And Jane, if I thought I had the ability to affect you, I wouldn't have been so honest. But since I don't, I was.]

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 3:36pm

I must say that I did not want to see this film. After reading through this thread, I'm on my way to the 1:30 showing.

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 3:37pm

"[And Jane, if I thought I had the ability to affect you, I wouldn't have been so honest. But since I don't, I was.]"

I'm not sure what that meant. Bottom line-I really don't want a feud with anyone. I'm able to exchange words with people and then just as quickly forget it, so I'm over it.

Updated On: 5/1/06 at 03:37 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 3:38pm

Thank you, Namo. I know I shouldn't place ALL the blame for various events on Bush. Things are more complicated than that. Perhaps he acts as a symbol I can lash out at. But, that's what his job is--the figurehead, the symbol of our nation. And that is utterly depressing.

[Luscious]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 3:42pm

Jerby writes (on a related thread) in response to my belief that United 93 was taken down by the US military, rather than anyone on board the flight:

"And yet, you choose to believe this imagined version of the events. You contradict yourself, and I wonder if you truly know what the word "propaganda" means. Clearly propaganda has influenced you to believe the military took it down because as you already said, "we'll probably never know for sure".

"Your personal opinion? So, it ok to make up what happened out of your random theoried imagination?"

Jerby writes above:

"And, yes, I am angry. I am angry that this man got elected in 2004 (if you consider the election legit, which I DO NOT) and got appointed in 2000 in the first place."

Jerby... actually, I couldn't agree with you more. However, why is it that your belief that the 2004 Presidential election was rigged is any less "imagined" than my belief that United 93 was brought down by US fighter planes? You must have come to your conclusion and based your opinion about the election on something more than "your random theoried imagination". And why are the sources that you base your opinion on are any less "propaganda-free" than the sources on which I base my opinion and conclusion?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 3:46pm

Dude--I never once was arguing against your belief of what happened. I was arguing over your calling the film propaganda--as if one version of events was less dignified or legit than your own.

I do understand the difference between what is being recorded as fact and what may be the truth that differs from that fact.

Though I get my lil jabs in, I do understand that as a matter of record, Bush was legitimately elected. And, though there are many theories as to what happened on 9/11 (any COULD be true), it is a matter of record that what happened on that plane is that the passengers fought back and somehow that led to the plane crashing in a field and not a building in DC.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 3:57pm

I had a candid and off the record conversation with one of the fighter pilots from Otis Air Force Base about 10 months after the fact. The story he told was exactly that documented in UNITED 93. They didn't make it on time.

[Luscious]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 4:00pm

Jerby... I haven't seen the film. I'm still not sure if I will. (At least not in a movie theatre. Although I suppose I'll eventually see it somewhere: Cable, DVD, etc.) So allow me to ask a question. Does the film suggest that the plane MAY have been taken down by US aircraft? Or does it present a clear cut reenactment of the passengers rising up against the highjackers and being responsible for bringing down the plane? Is the ending at least somewhat ambiguous? I'm asking seriously. This will play a large part in whether I choose to see the film or not. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Updated On: 5/1/06 at 04:00 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 4:05pm

No, the film reports what is believed to be fact: Bush didn't give the authorization until it was too late. The passengers fought back (WE KNOW THIS). And whether or not the plane crashes because the terrorist pilot caused it or because the passengers couldn't get to the steering in time is unknown and to my recollection--a titch ambiguous in the film.

But those details don't matter to me--the essence is that these people fought back and prevented that plane from getting to its target.

I don't care if you see this film, but I really don't want to discuss it with you anymore until you have seen it.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 4:19pm

Just read this whole thread. Very interesting responses--thank you all. I think I'd like to see this movie with DG and Lescious--the two posters who least want to see it--for completely different reasons. And, wow, Namo--such open and revealing posts, almost vulnerable.

I'm planning on seeing the film, despite my notions of what I think might have happened. The events of 9/11 tend to defeat all my conspiracy-theorist notions anyway. Like JFK's assassination, it's too enormous for any one conspiracy. I'd like to believe that the passengers fought back, and I'd like to believe it was a gay rugby-playing passenger who led them. But none of what I'd like to believe matters.

And it's "fraught" not "frought" (not that that matters either).

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 4:23pm

Who said frought?

[RobbO]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 4:25pm

it doesn't count unless you preface your correction with the phrase, "i hate to pick, but..."