There has been only one question surrounding Universal Pictures’ decision to make a film about the events transpiring on September 11, 2001: Why? Depending on which portion of the public you listened to, the prevailing thinking on this matter was that it was either too soon, too commercial, too politically motivated and/or the threat of a liberal bias was too great to properly tackle this weighty subject. Surprisingly, I found myself asking the same question as the masses: why? The difference is that I began asking this immediately upon finishing screening United 93, a movie that I can only describe as a truly quizzical bit of filmmaking.
It seems as though the plot summary of United 93would be a drop in the bucket. It seems like it would be very easy to write about how this is Greengrass’ documentary style investigation of what went on onboard United Airlines flight 93, the only one of the four hijacked airplanes that didn’t reach its intended destination on 9/11, thanks in part to the (heroic?) actions of the people on board. Appearances can be quite deceiving though because the above isn’t a very accurate description of what goes on in the film. Instead of exclusively focusing on Flight 93, Greengrass tells the story of the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 from the perspective of the FAA, NORAD as well as the civilians on board flight 93.
If it weren’t for teenagers’ co-opting of the word ‘pointless’ into a pejorative statement, I’d instantly use the word in regards to United 93because the movie has, quite literally, no point. There is no kind of new insight into 9/11 that is presented here or any events that unfold that one would not be able to glean from the headlines of America’s papers on September 12, 2001. In order to ward off the controversy that Oliver Stone has been receiving for his 9/11 project, World Trade Center, Greengrass purposely chose to investigate the actions that took place on this infamous day with as little exterior context or history as possible; the events of United 93are simply what happened on that day or a very plausible interpretation thereof. As such there isn’t a scant mention of Osama bin-Laden, al-Qaeda or August 6,, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefings.
In telling the rather unanimously held story of what transpired on September 11, Greengrass did allow himself one rather unorthodox practice: he turned off the stabilizer on his cameras and shot United 93in a sometimes nausea inducing style of handheld bumpiness. Channeling the voice of my inner film student, I’m sure the reason for this stylistic choice was to enable Greengrass to visually convey the extreme turmoil and chaos of the day, but even noble intentions cannot disguise the fact that I was forced to look away from the screen on numerous occasions because I was physically getting ill, something even Joel Schumacher hasn’t been able to achieve to this point in my film watching career.
There are definitely things to be praised when talking about United 93—Greengrass’ decision to cast real life participants in the 9/11 experience and no-name actors brought a definitive sense of realism to the project—but in the end, it’s hard for me to get around the fact that I wasn’t any better off (and was actually sicker) after having seen United 93. I didn’t learn anything, I didn’t come to any fresh understandings about one of this country’s most monumental days and, to add insult to injury, I spent the rest of my day feeling like I was going to throw up. Is any more critical insight really needed after that summary?
yes, it's true: This film was called Flight 93 until about three weeks before its theatrical release.
