"United 93": Too Soon?

[Andrew]

NEW YORK - The first few hours of the Sept. 11 attacks have been imagined and replayed countless ways in the minds of many, but for the first time, a movie of that nightmare premiered on the big screen.

"United 93," the first feature film to dramatize the Sept. 11, 2001, story, opened the Tribeca Film Festival on Tuesday in front of a somber audience that included Hollywood stars, city officials and victims' relatives.

"The vision is something we see in our heads every day," said Jan Snyder, whose daughter Christine was on the flight. "It's time for this. The public needs to know, they need to remember and know what the families have gone through."

The 90-minute movie takes place in real time and portrays the gripping story of the flight that left Newark, N.J., and crashed in a Pennsylvania field after passengers rallied against their hijackers and tried to recapture control of the jet.

At Tuesday's premiere, the screen went dark after the stomach-turning sequence showing the plane's nosedive. The theater was silent except for the gut-wrenching sobs and wails from the loge, where the relatives were seated together.

Moviegoers absorbed and shared their pain. Throughout the screening, they wept, drew sharp breaths, gasped and covered their faces with their hands. They shifted in their seats, sometimes to look back at the family section.

"You saw moviemaking and real life come together," said Jeffrey Sachs, a consultant from Manhattan who attended the premiere. "It fills in the mystery of what happened."

Flight 93 was the fourth plane hijacked that morning, crashing near Shanksville, Pa., minutes after the first trade center tower collapsed in lower Manhattan.

In the film, the Flight 93 story is juxtaposed with that of the air traffic controllers, who watched with disbelief as four planes were seized and crashed by 19 terrorists. American Airlines Flight 11 slammed first into the north tower, United Airlines 175 hit the south tower and United 77 went down at the Pentagon.

Officials believe Flight 93, carrying 40 passengers and crew plus the four hijackers, was headed for the White House or the Capitol. The film uses that idea to suggest that the passenger uprising might have saved lives — a subtle bright spot amid the heartstopping devastation.

Relatives of people who were on Flight 93 collaborated with writer-director Paul Greengrass to lend authenticity to the characters and story of the movie, which opens nationwide Friday.

Greengrass did take some creative license — using what relatives told him about the victims' personalities to envision what they might have done or which role they played in the revolt.

"Only 40 people truly know what happened that day and I thought he went to painstaking grounds to make it feel that all 40 of them were a part of it," said Ken Nacke, whose brother Louis J. Nacke was killed.

Nacke said he found himself "rooting for them, for a different outcome."

For some, seeing reminders of 9/11 on the big screen was too disturbing. A few theaters in the New York area pulled the film's trailer this spring after moviegoers complained about the upsetting images.

Cindy Somma, who came from Long Island to see the premiere, described it afterward as "very upsetting, truthful, realistic and painful."

Greengrass and film festival founders acknowledge that the film stirs powerful emotions but say the Tribeca gathering was appropriate for its premiere. The festival, which runs through May 7, was created to help lower Manhattan recover economically from the 2001 attacks.

"Remembering is painful, it's difficult, but it can be inspiring and it can give wisdom," Greengrass told the audience before the film started.

Robert De Niro, who lives and works in the neighborhood and co-founded the festival with his producing partner, Jane Rosenthal, said the film "is a story that honors bravery."

-SOURCE- (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060426/ap_en_mo/united93_premiere;_ylt=AjHU3aNY.231dH9.oEs2Pjys0NU E;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YXYwNDRrBHNlYwM3NjI-)

-------

There is another 9/11 movie coming out this year: "World Trade Center" (Directed by Oliver Stone, Starring Mario Bello & Nicholas Cage).

But the question remains: Is it too soon?

[Kari]

I don't know? Is it?
I think it's always a very strong conflict as to when it is the point where you should start confrontation and the point when it leads to repression.
But I can completely understand that this trauma is something that needs to be treated extremely careful and with a lot of sensitiveness.

[tantucky]

It's been 5 years but I personally think that for the americans it's too soon. They should wait 15 years.

[Krazy]

hmmm 5 years, not everyone has come to terms with what happened and a lot of people are still in the early process of greiving. But maybe this film can help some people come to terms with things.........

[OCallyFaN80]

Personally, I think it's too soon. I think people are still recovering the tragedy of what happened. I know some people that had their loved ones in this tragic accident and I think it's too soon. Even though it's been 5 years, too soon. Maybe 10 years after would be okay, but 5 years? That's pretty early. And I still can't believe that people in Hollywood is making movies out of this misery people have. I think they should've waited. They should've thought about the other people instead of themselves in a way.

[nadia101]

I don't think it's too soon at all. In the entertainement industry, there aren't times things "should" come out. If the time is right then it's right. It's based on what sells and the movie is hardly about what exactly happened and how people suffered but an on the edge of your seat thriller similar to Red Eye. There have beens LOADS of movies made about plan hijackings in the past and this one will be no different.

Yes, it was a tragedy but seriously, a LOT of bad things happen in the world. There's wars and thousands dying daily yet we tend to only focus on certain events. Maybe it's because it happened at the epicentre on America but its been 5 years. Unless someone was directly affected ( aka Family member), I don't see how they're so touched by it. At least I'm not, there are lots of occurences like these that have have happened, I don't see why an emphasis is put on this particular event.

[Andrew]

I don't think it's too soon at all. In the entertainement industry, there aren't times things "should" come out. If the time is right then it's right. It's based on what sells and the movie is hardly about what exactly happened and how people suffered but an on the edge of your seat thriller similar to Red Eye.

While I'm not naive enough to say the movie was made without an ounce of "a lucrative thought," I highly doubt it was the central intent. And I wouldn't exactly call this docudrama "entertainment," but the very fact that you equate it as such is baffling.

There have beens LOADS of movies made about plan hijackings in the past and this one will be no different.

Really? There are LOADS of movies where a group of terrorists hijack a plane with the intention of flying it into a building only to have their plans foiled by the rebellion of all the passengers and airline employees, even if it meant losing their lives as well? Please name 5.

Yes, it was a tragedy but seriously, a LOT of bad things happen in the world. There's wars and thousands dying daily yet we tend to only focus on certain events.

Yes, there are bad things happening in the world today. And this movie is about a group of people that prevented one.

It's called keeping within the focal point; just because it isn't addressing the whole "list of bad things going on today" doesn't mean the filmmakers are placing the subject on a higher pedestal than other modern day issues.

It would be like saying a person who donates to AIDS research is vehemently snubbing cancer research.

Maybe it's because it happened at the epicentre on America but its been 5 years.

Uh huh... I'm sure you also tell Holocaust victims/those affected by it "Gee guys, more than half a century has gone by: get over it."

Unless someone was directly affected (aka Family member), I don't see how they're so touched by it. At least I'm not, there are lots of occurences like these that have have happened, I don't see why an emphasis is put on this particular event.

Taking a look at your profile and subtracting the subsequent years, you would've been 10, maybe 9 years old at the time. So maybe you were a little too young to understand the extremity of the situation:

19 hijackers used airplanes as missiles, which resulted in the death of innocent people, damage to the Pentagon, and the destruction of the two 110-story WTC buildings, along with its surrounding buildings.

It's deplorable how you can't see the connection between "tragedy" and "empathy from others."

[OCallyFaN80]

You made great points there Andrew.

I just watched the news about the movie and they got a talk from the director and he said that it was right to film this movie to have people learn from what happened. What is there to learn about, really? I mean, seriously? But, I hear they'll give some money for donation for the plane crash in Pennsylvania. I think that was. But, only money from this weekend box office.

And the other movie, World Trade Center. Now, that's stupid. I just read a brief description of what the movie will be about. I'll just take it out from the newspaper:

"Port Authority police officers John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and William Jimeno (Michael Pe-a) become trapped under the rubble of the World Trade Center after the September 11, 2001 attack." - Eagle Tribune

I think they should've waited. I mean, we all know that they'll make a movie out of it sometime, but how did you think they were planning to show it, now? Seriously . . . It's even sad to actually see the previews or even hear about it.

[Kay]

I dont really the point of it, its something that should never be made..In many ways its seems disrespectful to those who lost their lives/someone in the whole thing...

"Remembering is painful, it's difficult, but it can be inspiring and it can give wisdom," Greengrass told the audience before the film started.


Give wisdom and inspiration with what exactly? how people should kill others? If it'll do anything [apart from making people remember and go through a pain they might have started to forget or deal with] it'll cause racial trouble, and more violence

[Andrew]

I guess it serves more as a reminder.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I know some people who have, and the consensus is that it's good but extremely depressing in a reminiscent way since it doesn't exactly end on a happy note (but I guess we can all assume that since we all know the outcome of the flight).

Quoting a critic who sums it up well: "It's the best-made film I never want to see again."

[Kay]

Its not something easily forgotten though..plus if it was a like documentary sort of movie it would have been better, a movie about a made up plot [since it doesn't say that it actually happened with the police officers] makes it so normal and just...another movie.
Plus it gives that..approval, or right, for someone in the future to make yet another movie about it but make it less meaningful as this seems to be [according to that critic at least]

[OCallyFaN80]

Director Greengrass has been making bad statements about why he filmed this movie. One was to give people a lesson of what happened and second, it could be inspired and give people wisdom. All of his statements isn't so great at all, really. He's not doing a good job on defending himself, really.

I agree with you Kay on about the movie not actually based on true events. The point that is true is the plane got hijacked and crashed into WTC and was a big tragedy. I mean, adding all these storylines just doesn't make the movie any good. If everything was true, meaning a documentary, as what Kay said, it would've been better, at least.

[Andrew]

When the critic says "It's the best-made film I never want to see again," he means it's a good movie, but is so powerfully reminiscent of the day that it would be too depressing to "watch again."

And the movie is based on true events while certain details were umm... "included."

For example, one of the opening shots of the movie shows the terrorists praying or something in their hotel room. One can argue over whether or not that really happened. But then it eventually transitions into a shot of them bypassing security. That was based off the surveillance tapes.

Also, the events that occurred on the airplane prior to the crash was based off phonecalls from the passengers. Obviously, some details leading up to the ambush were "included."

However, the whole "let's roll" thing followed by them storming the cockpit was based off again, from the phonecalls.

And United 93 didn't crash into the WTC towers (neither the real one nor the one in the movie). The plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania (again, both the real one and the one in the movie).

[OCallyFaN80]

Oh, sorry, I didn't read that Pennsylvania part in that article. Sorry.

[nadia101]

While I'm not naive enough to say the movie was made without an ounce of "a lucrative thought," I highly doubt it was the central intent. And I wouldn't exactly call this docudrama "entertainment," but the very fact that you equate it as such is baffling.



Really? There are LOADS of movies where a group of terrorists hijack a plane with the intention of flying it into a building only to have their plans foiled by the rebellion of all the passengers and airline employees, even if it meant losing their lives as well? Please name 5.



Yes, there are bad things happening in the world today. And this movie is about a group of people that prevented one.

It's called keeping within the focal point; just because it isn't addressing the whole "list of bad things going on today" doesn't mean the filmmakers are placing the subject on a higher pedestal than other modern day issues.

It would be like saying a person who donates to AIDS research is vehemently snubbing cancer research.



Uh huh... I'm sure you also tell Holocaust victims/those affected by it "Gee guys, more than half a century has gone by: get over it."



Taking a look at your profile and subtracting the subsequent years, you would've been 10, maybe 9 years old at the time. So maybe you were a little too young to understand the extremity of the situation:

19 hijackers used airplanes as missiles, which resulted in the death of innocent people, damage to the Pentagon, and the destruction of the two 110-story WTC buildings, along with its surrounding buildings.

It's deplorable how you can't see the connection between "tragedy" and "empathy from others."

Actually, I was 11 but I don't see how my age has anything to do with this. Or how your stating that I don't seem to understand the extremity of the situation is false. Ofcourse it was a tragedy that shouldn't have happened and a lot of innocent people died. But since when has a million dollar big production movie had the intention of educating or helping people. I honestly believe that money wants to be made and since this was such a big event that people are really fascinated by, they will listen and money will be made.

But look at it how you like, that's simply my opinion. It doesn't really affect me and the horrendous way Bush delt with it so nauseating, I don't even want to think about it anymore.

[Kari]

Okay, okay...they probably wouldn't have made the movie if it wasn't for some financial motivation.

But since when does that totally exclude information, education of confrontation. Maybe it is important for the USA to start dealing with this before it leads to repression and maybe it is too early yet.
But I just don't understand your arguments...

Of course, they want to make money. Schindler's List was also at the cinemas and made money, so was Life is Beautiful...I could go on forever...
Do you seriously think none of this movies eduacted or helped?

[luvoco2]

I'm not going to see this.

I'm just not ready.

I can't say whether it's too soon or not, because that's all relative, but for me it is.

I'm glad that this was more of a human-interest type thing as the first one, rather than that World Trade Center rubbish that's being made. Although I have interest in seeing it eventually, it's just not time.

My dad worked on the 105th floor of the trade center. No, he's not dead. He didn't go to work that day, actually, just as you hear so many stories of the type. I remember coming home that day from school all of ten years old and seeing him on the couch, sobbing. He wasn't the same for almost a year after that. Nobody was, really.

That's why I can't see it. It's too close to home. I'm looking at what most of you are saying and then looking at where you're from, and it all makes sense. I'm not saying you can't understand, I'm just saying it's hard to.

[*gwen*~*grover*]

i agree with luvoco2... i mean, i have personal stories connected to 9/11... a family friend was one of the stewardesses on this flight... my brother's friend's mom died in the towers. honestly the commercial almost made me cry. whether im over it or not... who knows. ive accepted what happened, but in 50 years will i still cry if i see a movie like this? yes.
i personally dont see the point in this. disregarding whether its too soon or not (yes, i agree with whomever said its all relative), i just dont see what benefit it has. what is it educating us on? i dont exactly know what happened on this flight, but i do find it insensitive to just throw it out there in a movie. im not saying that the directors dont have good intentions, but they are capitalizing on this event, and i dont really see the necessary/moral side.

random thought: anyone think that it may reinvigorate racial tensions?

[Noah]

we live in the 21st century, so we should all just expect that if there is an event that is easily exploitable, someone is going to take the opportunity. honestly, I think it's just idiotic as hell. I dunno. maybe it would be semi-understandable if the production company who made the movie planned on donating every cent of the profit made from the movie to some sort of charity or 9/11 fund or something.

all this glorifying/rehashing of 9/11 just isn't my bag. I have absolutely no plans to see this movie.

[OTH man]

NO its not "too soon" 4 1/2 years is not too soon now you might make the argument "at least Pearl Harbor, ect. waited a long while" yes but, lets keep in mind 4 1/2 years after Pearl Harbor movies on real events werent near as popular as they are now i mean lets just look at all the 'Based on a true Story' movies there are

so, no i do not think it's too soon for most of us now maybe people more involved don't want to see it yet, then don't.

[Heather]

Ok...I did a lot of research on this film, and no, I havent seen it yet, but I will as soon as I can.

First....the families of the victims worked as consultants on this film to make it as accurate as possible.

Second...a percentage of the proceeds are going to the memorial in PA.

Third...it isnt too soon. The attacks occured in 9/2001...it is now 2006. It is not too soon. IMO, too many people have forgotten what happened that day, the effects it had on our nation, and the innocent lives that were taken.

Fourth...those people are heroes, and deserve to be honored. They saved countless lives by their actions. And it needs to be remembered.

To Hell and Back was a WW2 movie made in the 1950s...as an example. It wasnt made decades after the fact. It was a movie about a man, and that man was not only the lead in the movie, but had a say in what was filmed. Since there were no survivors, we have their families, and what we know about that day as a guideline. And the director of the film is a Brit, who gets how that day effected the entire Western world, and wanted to tell the story of Flight 93 as accurately as possible.

And the families of the victims are pleased with the result.

[Ashlyn]

I agree with Heather, actually.

If the families didn't want the movie made, I wouldn't. But -- since they were okay with it, I think it's allright. Now, seeing the movie or not seeing the movie up is up to us individually.

[OTH man]

yea i agree with hather for sure


i would conside 1-2 years "too soon" 3 would be somewhere like "A little early" and 4 is fine....

[Webeh]

Honestly, I think what matters more here is how the movie is made than how soon it is made. It would bother me more if this film was created to just function as cheap entertainment, than if it were made very soon after the event itself. If this film is to be made now, I'd want it to be a film of quality with fully fleshed out characters, a well structured storyline, and a hint of reflection.

From what I read/heard about this film, the writers/directors/etc were extremely sensitive/careful with the subject matter here. They even went as far as to consult the families of the victims, which does suggest that this is meant to be more than just entertainment. (I will argue to the grave any claims that films are meant to be just that. They aren't. Well, the good ones aren't anyways...) In fact, I think it may be a bit of a stretch to classify this film as entertainment because it is anything but that. Apparently it's a very difficult film to watch.

If I were to fuss over a 9/11 film, it'd probably be the Nicolas Cage one. I don't know why, but this one is just rubbing me the wrong way for some reason.

[Isley]

Maybe it was too soon.

But I don't think it was disrespectful towards the people left behind, or family members. Because this movie would never been made without their consent. They did give their approval. But if its too soon or not, i think that is very up to every person. Some people take long time dealing with those kids of losses, while others may not have been affected in the same way. But maybe a little bit of time would be good. But they have to face it one day. though i guess they face it every single day.

[Shirphie]

Being a New Yorker I feel that I never want to relive that day. I'm not against the movie, I just won't see it. At least the production worked with families.

[torypops]

First....the families of the victims worked as consultants on this film to make it as accurate as possible.

Second...a percentage of the proceeds are going to the memorial in PA.

Third...it isnt too soon. The attacks occured in 9/2001...it is now 2006. It is not too soon. IMO, too many people have forgotten what happened that day, the effects it had on our nation, and the innocent lives that were taken.

Fourth...those people are heroes, and deserve to be honored. They saved countless lives by their actions. And it needs to be remembered.

To Hell and Back was a WW2 movie made in the 1950s...as an example. It wasnt made decades after the fact. It was a movie about a man, and that man was not only the lead in the movie, but had a say in what was filmed. Since there were no survivors, we have their families, and what we know about that day as a guideline. And the director of the film is a Brit, who gets how that day effected the entire Western world, and wanted to tell the story of Flight 93 as accurately as possible.

And the families of the victims are pleased with the result.
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

I was trying to think how to put in to words why I think it's not too soon but Heather just wrote it all for me.

[Voldemort]

i dont know if its too soon...my question is how will they be able to depict what happened inside the planes? yea, the victims called their families, but no one but the victims knew what exactly happened inside the planes...i just dont want to be mislead by this movie because even if it is based on a true story, its hollywood. i dont know, i will see it, but im kinds scared to see it as well.

[BellaBlack]

I kinda thought it was too soon but then again, this kind of tragedy..anytime would be too soon. I think it's time we start facing that day.

[nadia101]

Ok...I did a lot of research on this film, and no, I havent seen it yet, but I will as soon as I can.

First....the families of the victims worked as consultants on this film to make it as accurate as possible.

Second...a percentage of the proceeds are going to the memorial in PA.

Third...it isnt too soon. The attacks occured in 9/2001...it is now 2006. It is not too soon. IMO, too many people have forgotten what happened that day, the effects it had on our nation, and the innocent lives that were taken.

Fourth...those people are heroes, and deserve to be honored. They saved countless lives by their actions. And it needs to be remembered.

To Hell and Back was a WW2 movie made in the 1950s...as an example. It wasnt made decades after the fact. It was a movie about a man, and that man was not only the lead in the movie, but had a say in what was filmed. Since there were no survivors, we have their families, and what we know about that day as a guideline. And the director of the film is a Brit, who gets how that day effected the entire Western world, and wanted to tell the story of Flight 93 as accurately as possible.

And the families of the victims are pleased with the result.

Exactly! You make an awesome case and I completely agree with you! :)

[Webeh]

i dont know if its too soon...my question is how will they be able to depict what happened inside the planes? yea, the victims called their families, but no one but the victims knew what exactly happened inside the planes...i just dont want to be mislead by this movie because even if it is based on a true story, its hollywood. i dont know, i will see it, but im kinds scared to see it as well.

This definitely won't be a 100% accurate retelling, but there are definitely sources available to help with this. For one thing, the black box.

Even if you are mislead by the film, it'll most likely be misleading in a good way. Upping the heroics of the passengers/crew is perfectly okay by me. The people in that plane were definitely heroic in my opinion and very deserving of credit. Sacrificing their own lives most likely saved the lives of thousands. You can't find an act more selfless than that.