OT: United 93 -- WILL YOU BE SEEING IT?

[starboardlight]

I haven't tried to look up any reviews. All I've seen are a couple of tv ads. Maybe it's the failing of the marketing, but it's not telling me what I'd get from the film other than reliving what the people went through. I want it be more than just a dramatized version of what happened. I want it to give me a better understanding or something. I don't want to relive their terror for the sake of reliving their terror. Is there a catharsis that come from going through that terror? That's what I'm not getting from the marketing of the film. If it's going to touch on such a horrific event in our lives, it better be transcendent. Otherwise, I'd just feel like people are exploiting the tragedy for the not much more than money.

[luigival]

My personal opinion is that we're still too near in time to the real events, so this could deter a large number of viewers.
As far as I am concerned, though I am still shocked by those tragic events, I will try to see it as soon as it arrives here in Italy to honour those who lost their lives in that mournful day. 

[dmmb_Mandy]

BTW, did anyone watch CNN last night? Larry King had people on talking about the movie. Some of the actors from the films were there, as well as family members of some of the people who were on the flight. They called the program "United 93: Too Soon?" About half of the guests loved the film and didn't think it was too soon, and the others thought it was too soon.

[rtprod]

I JUST DON'T GET THIS "TOO SOON" THING.

Too soon for what?  It's a great film, guys, and a critical event in American history, and if it's "too soon" for a movie to be made about it, then isn't it also "too soon" for the scores of books that have been written about in the last five years?  Is it also "too soon" for The Falling Man, the short doc about the Windows on the World employee who was photographed, tragically and famously, falling from the WTC?  These are stories that have shaped us, and I'd rather look at them eyes open and see where I've been. 

rt

[rtprod]

If it's going to touch on such a horrific event in our lives, it better be transcendent. Otherwise, I'd just feel like people are exploiting the tragedy for the not much more than money.

It is a work of art and a valuable record without an ounce of sensationalism.  Anyone who knows Paul Greengrass' Bloody Sunday knows that he is as far away from a commercial profit-meister as a director could be in handling a real-life incident as in that film and this one. 

Money, no.  This is not a commercial film as we know them, it has not an ounce of manipulation and exists to document as well as enshrine those on that plane. 

rt

[delalluvia]

I JUST DON'T GET THIS "TOO SOON" THING.

Too soon for what?  It's a great film, guys, and a critical event in American history, and if it's "too soon" for a movie to be made about it, then isn't it also "too soon" for the scores of books that have been written about in the last five years?  Is it also "too soon" for The Falling Man, the short doc about the Windows on the World employee who was photographed, tragically and famously, falling from the WTC?  These are stories that have shaped us, and I'd rather look at them eyes open and see where I've been. 

rt

I think the 'too soon' thing is about being sensitive to people's emotions.  Some people are still grieving over their lost ones.  Calling up the memory and repeating over and over the deaths of their loved ones in bright 40 foot screens of Technicolor, large billboards, TV commercials may be too much to take.

People need time to work through their emotions, time is the healer.  Memories fade for a reason.  The expression I think is 'tearing open old wounds'.

[MaineWriter]

Many are talking about their personal sensitivity to the subject, but that really has nothing to do with what an expert film this is when it comes to craft, and speaks to scenarios we personally visit on movies, rather than looking objectively at a core statement:

What was the director trying to achieve?  And how well did he achieve it?  


rt

Perhaps, rt, it is "too soon" for many people in that it brings back memories, opens a wound, scratches across a scar that one thought was healed...and in that, a person is not able to get to the "core statement" and be objective.

Time is a great healer. I think for many, five years is not enough time. I am not of the "it is too soon to make this movie" mindset...I mean, they were making WWII movies during the war. However, for me, it may be too soon to see it. I haven't decided.

L
xo

[starboardlight]

If it's going to touch on such a horrific event in our lives, it better be transcendent. Otherwise, I'd just feel like people are exploiting the tragedy for the not much more than money.

It is a work of art and a valuable record without an ounce of sensationalism.  Anyone who knows Paul Greengrass' Bloody Sunday knows that he is as far away from a commercial profit-meister as a director could be in handling a real-life incident as in that film and this one. 

Money, no.  This is not a commercial film as we know them, it has not an ounce of manipulation and exists to document as well as enshrine those on that plane. 

rt

well that's good to hear. i honestly didn't look into who were involved in the film making or anything. i'll check it out when I get a chance.

[JCinNYC2006]

I JUST DON'T GET THIS "TOO SOON" THING.

As a New Yorker, part of the 'too soon' thing is that in some ways, it doesn't feel like it's totally over.  I still occasionally have conversations with people wondering whether New York could get hit again.  I can see the Empire State Building, and the thought of what it might be like for that to be attacked crosses my mind regularly.

I hope that doesn't sound paranoid, and of course I don't speak for all New Yorkers.  It's hard to describe, but maybe in a way, the movie is for the rest of the country.  From what I've read it doesn't include any visuals of the WTC attacks, they're mentioned in the context of the hijacking and apparently motivated the passengers to try and organize a response.

There is an interesting cover story on this week's NY Press (www.nypress.com.  It takes a more questioning, critical tone of the movie and this is one of the quotes that really stood out for me: "this film, which is dedicated to the memory of all who died, is ironically designed to make you erase everything but the 100 most emotionally intense minutes of 9/11." 

Because the movie is based partly on the limited amount of recordings and accounts available, it's hard to say how much of it is 'docu' and how much is 'drama'.  But probably many people will leave the movie with the impression that it's exactly what happened.  I'm not sure why that bothers me so much, but something about that does.  Eh, my thoughts aren't very organized right now.  Yeesh.

Juan

[rtprod]

Juan,

Got your point -- by the way, yes the destruction of the two towers figures prominently in the first half of the film, and incorporates actual video footage of the second tower being hit. 

Not sure why it bothers you so much about the exact accuracy of what went on in the cabin as the majority of it is culled from trascripts, phone calls, etc., and not much seems to have been "dramatized" really though the passengers do get into the cockpit in the final moments, which is a supposition many have made.  It's likely the best and closest depiction of reality we will see. 

rt