criterionforum.org

I'm not sure I understand, are you defending the film or the environment it is born from?

filmnoir1 wrote:Are not all works of art a type of exploitation in one way or another? Was Oscar Wilde's send-up of the British aristocracy (The Importance of Being Earnest) not in effect a political statement that has since become part of the English literary canon?

Bear with me-- what important political statement is United 93 making, a new and original critique of the Bush administration? More importantly, can you really see this film as having a message that supersedes its exploitive nature? To me this is like debating over Starship Troopers, it doesn't matter if you consider it entertainment or high art, it functions as the former. One of the most important questions United 93 raises, incidentally I imagine, is whether it is OK for a film to have control over an audience where half are willing to believe what they see, to invest emotion in fictional characters... in this case, hiding behind pieces of facts and the blessings of real families. Saving Private Ryan did this, but it was made by a different generation; it didn't throw salt on wounds which Greengrass' film does, intentional or not-- it's a move that is nothing but exploitive. Not only that but there's some perverse sorrow some people unconsciously indulge in when close tragic events are displayed in a dramatic fashion, which is anything but progressive.

filmnoir1 wrote:Is it possible that we believe that art must not be commercial in order for it to be viable as a means of subversive argument?

On the contrary, commercial art is the best means of creating a subversive argument-- which is another reason why this movie fails, for if it had a message, people would be talking about more than "how real it all was."

I admit that I can't wrap my head around all that you are saying, but whether that's my fault or yours isn't the issue. In today's post-modern world that you describe, where works of art can be made, destroyed, edited, appropriated all in the same day and then repeated the next-- I think there are still limits, that questions from one's conscience aren't simply restrictions in the search for greater truth. It's not even a question of morality as much as it is a question of is this good art-- good art is never wrong, it proves itself to be right-- Manet's work caused a stir back in the day, painting nude women just for the sake of it while pointing out the hypocrisy in the rest of society. Today we can see truth in his work, I don't believe we'll be able to say the same about this Greengrass film in a few years. Today it may be seen as right, but time will prove that it is wrong after the shock wears off.

If I come off as confrontational I don't mean to be, I think this film brings up very important questions that deserve more discussion than between the few of us here on this message board.

a.khan wrote: -- with a loose narrative outline and nonexistent character development --

I have no real desire to weigh in on this discussion, but I just had to signal that I thought these two quibbles are possibly the two most irrelevant complaints to make about United 93 (except for maybe its lack of extended musical numbers and hobbits), and seem to me to demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of what the film was all about. It's faux-verite. Now, you can argue all you like about the validity or not of that as a filmmaking model, but complaining that a verite account of an hour and a half in some people's lives lacks a satisfying narrative structure is plainly ridiculous, and just how much 'character development' do you normally undergo between breakfast and morning tea?

Barmy wrote:Bravo portnoy. The parts of United 93 that do not take place in the plane are crap. The dialogue of and performances by the non-actor air traffic controllers in particular are embarrassing. People actually laughed in my audience when the lead controller, for the 15th time, put his hands on his head and exclaimed "Jesus Christ!" And this was in NYC. At least when Matt Dillion saved that black chick in Crash it was intentionally funny (I assume).

NYC is full of disconnected, shallow ironic types. I'm not surprised.

Why is their dialogue so unrealistic? Air-traffic controllers aren't scriptwriters, so one would expect them to be less conscious of how repetitive they're being, especially when their world is going to hell in a handbasket. When a film is aiming for realism, I take that as a plus.

Crash, on the other hand, was simply ridiculous.

I've only skimmed through this thread but I'm surprised to see nobody has mentioned Michael Haneke yet. I think a comparison between his and Hollywood films concerning the same themes would be far more interesting. Here are some quotes of Haneke about the aesthetics of violence:

"My films are intended as polemical statements against the American 'barrel down' cinema and its dis-empowerment of the spectator. They are an appeal for a cinema of insistent questions instead of false (because too quick) answers, for clarifying distance in place of violating closeness, for provocation and dialogue instead of consumption and consensus." - Michael Haneke


"The question isn't 'how do I show violence?' but rather 'how do I show the spectator his position vis-à-vis violence and its representation?'" - Michael Haneke

I too would agree that Haneke's work is addressing the same issues about the nature of violence and its usage in film. This is one of the reasons why I believe he is readapting Funny Games for a more Western audience (meaning audiences who do not like subtitled films). Yet, I believe he is not the only filmmaker involved in this postmodern exploration of human nature.
One of the outcomes of the 'war-on-terror' is I believe that filmmakers of all types have taken Bush's doctrine as a wake-up call and may in fact believe that it is their responsibility as the guardians of film (which is the most wide spread form of information available) to educate people about their similarities and differences. The following names I would argue indicate how their is a worldwide film movement, what might be labled as a "Global New Wave": Kim Ki-duk, Haneke, Alfonoso Cuaron, Almodovar, Gasper Noe, Ozon, Spielberg, George Clooney, Jean-Luc Godard, David Lynch, Abbas Kirostami, Theo Angelopoulos, and Wong Kar Wai.

Gaspar Noe? Sorry, but I don't see him as interested in "educating" much. But perhaps you're referring to the "WE ALL FUCK ALONE" segment of Destricted.

If you're going to include him on this list you might as well include Breillat. Oh, and where the hell is Claire Denis? Is there anyone more interested in human similarity and difference?

Hmmm...Costa maybe?

It is my belief that following a year where the Academy gave the Best picture Oscar to a serious message film that they will this year seek to recognize something that is a bit different and safer. Therefore I believe The Queen will walk away with the big prize. I think that Jennifer Hudson will definitely win best supporting actress and I too agree that Helen Mirren is a lock.

Best director will go to Paul Greengrass for United 93 because they will want to recognize a serious message film that is anti-Bush and anti-war on terror. Thus giving him the award will be a safe way to recognize the film and still provide them with some distance. The dark horse in the Best actor category is Peter O'Toole whom they may just recognize not for Venus but for the body of his work and their inability to acknowledge it, despite him winning a lifetime achievement award.

The Oscars are not about art, they are about commerce and patting themselves on the back. This is why the older Academy members have such an influence over the results. Hollywood loves to appear serious and liberal minded but it is often more conservative.

filmnoir1 wrote: Best director will go to Paul Greengrass for United 93 because they will want to recognize a serious message film that is anti-Bush and anti-war on terror.

Anti-Bush? Anti-war on terror? How so?

filmnoir1 wrote: Best director will go to Paul Greengrass for United 93 because they will want to recognize a serious message film that is anti-Bush and anti-war on terror. Thus giving him the award will be a safe way to recognize the film and still provide them with some distance.

I will PayPal every member of this board $20 American dollars if this happens. Which is to say you are off your fucking rocker.

filmnoir1 wrote: The Oscars are not about art, they are about commerce and patting themselves on the back. This is why the older Academy members have such an influence over the results. Hollywood loves to appear serious and liberal minded but it is often more conservative.

there are almost 6000 voters, I really don't buy the whole consiracy theories about how "The Academy" has an agenda.

you don't have to prove you've seen the films to vote for them, the winner is usually the film people have been told is good by ads or word of mouth. like any awards show with such a huge draw, it's a crapshoot. why even bother complaining about it, might as well take the focus on opening weekend box office sales and trailers down a notch next, you trailblazer you

John Cope wrote:

filmnoir1 wrote: Best director will go to Paul Greengrass for United 93 because they will want to recognize a serious message film that is anti-Bush and anti-war on terror.

Anti-Bush? Anti-war on terror? How so?

I agree. I don't think United 93 is an anti-Bush or anti-war film at all. It's just a depiction of what happened on that flight on that fateful day. A lot of it is obviously speculation but I think they got as close as they feasibly could in telling what happened on that flight. I thought it was a terrific film and should have been nominated for Best Picture over the BBC made-for-TV film, The Queen.

There is no doubt the Oscar winners every year reflect the stale vote of a much older Academy member who actually bother to vote. Is voting compulsory for all Academy members? This is why Crash will always win over Brokeback Mountain, Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas, Ordinary People over Raging Bull.

domino harvey wrote:

filmnoir1 wrote: Best director will go to Paul Greengrass for United 93 because they will want to recognize a serious message film that is anti-Bush and anti-war on terror. Thus giving him the award will be a safe way to recognize the film and still provide them with some distance.

I will PayPal every member of this board $20 American dollars if this happens. Which is to say you are off your fucking rocker.

Not to mention that the Academy hasn't awarded Best Director to a film that wasn't also up for Best Picture since 1930! Traditionally, those sorts of Best Director nods are all the recognition such films receive.

John Cope wrote:

filmnoir1 wrote: Best director will go to Paul Greengrass for United 93 because they will want to recognize a serious message film that is anti-Bush and anti-war on terror.

Anti-Bush? Anti-war on terror? How so?

in fact, i'd argue the film is very pro war-on-terror, if nothing else for its use of overly dichotomous intercutting to formally juxtapose the film's discursive clash of civilizations. that final rush to the cockpit is edited just like the rescue sequence in birth of a nation.

(let's not make this into another thread about how much i despise this movie though)

Please, United 93 is ONLY there because it is anti-Bush.

I only have a hazy memory of this pathetic piece of garbage. But a few observations: (1) the film depicts the passengers as trying to save THEMSELVES, whereas the Bush interpretation was that they died trying to save D.C. from another disaster and (2) the film focuses heavily on our lack of preparedness--there is even a postcript at the end that basically says we didn't have our act together at the time Flight 93 crashed (although didn't Clinton completely ignore the 1993 WTC bombing?).

This film is even more TV movie-ish than The Queen. If it wins, I am moving to France.

how can someone with almost 600 posts on a film message board like this have so little comprehension of the way things actually are

Actually I think I have more than 600. My post count seems to freeze from time to time.

Barmy wrote:Please, United 93 is ONLY there because it is anti-Bush.

I only have a hazy memory of this pathetic piece of garbage. But a few observations: (1) the film depicts the passengers as trying to save THEMSELVES, whereas the Bush interpretation was that they died trying to save D.C. from another disaster and (2) the film focuses heavily on our lack of preparedness--there is even a postcript at the end that basically says we didn't have our act together at the time Flight 93 crashed (although didn't Clinton completely ignore the 1993 WTC bombing?).

This film is even more TV movie-ish than The Queen. If it wins, I am moving to France.

To be honest, isn't there a policy in this board for us not to get into politics? Frankly, that's why I left dvdtalk a long time ago. I may agree with you Barmy in the whole scope of things, but I just don't want to read it. Not here.

Barmy wrote:Please, United 93 is ONLY there because it is anti-Bush.

I only have a hazy memory of this pathetic piece of garbage. But a few observations: (1) the film depicts the passengers as trying to save THEMSELVES, whereas the Bush interpretation was that they died trying to save D.C. from another disaster and (2) the film focuses heavily on our lack of preparedness--there is even a postcript at the end that basically says we didn't have our act together at the time Flight 93 crashed (although didn't Clinton completely ignore the 1993 WTC bombing?).

Let me preface this post by saying that I hate Bush with the heat of a thousand suns. That said, United 93 is not anti-Bush at all. I think the film shows that 9/11 was going to happen. Every hijacking in our country's history involved wackos who put the plane down on a runway and proceeded to make crazy demands. In one case they killed a Marine, but they never tried to use the plane as a missile. So in the film, when the air-traffic-control folks find out about the first hijacking, one of them says something to the effect of "we'll wait until they land and see what their demands are." It never occurred to them that the hijackers would actually do what they did, and who can blame them?

Later in the film, when the military is trying to get the order to fire on the planes, there's no communication with either Bush or Cheney, which is what actually happened. Is this something you could blame on Bush or Cheney? No. I believe it was the Secret Service's job to keep the lines of communication open, and they didn't. Nobody could get ahold of either man.

Now, did we have *any* indication at all that terrorists might use a plane as a missile? I haven't personally read the report that Condi Rice received called "Bin Laden Determined to Launch Attack Inside United States", but I recall hearing that the report suggested that al Qaeda operatives would use a plane as a missile. If that's the case, then it's pretty damning evidence against this administration, but regardless, it's not mentioned in the film, primarily because none of the characters featured in the film knew about it at the time.

Finally, one might actually make the claim that the film is (accidentally) pro-Bush. Our fearless leader, you'll recall, emphasized the necessity of going into Iraq as part of the war on terror, and continued to play up completely fabricated connections between al Qaeda and Iraq despite volumes of evidence to the contrary. Imdb says it all: "The hijackers in the film speak with very notable North African and Iraqi accents which are quite different from Saudi and Lebanese accents."

The most refreshing thing about United 93 is that it didn't portray the Muslim terrorists as conflicted individuals who kill innocents for a worthy cause as some Hollywood films tend to do. The terrorists were evil psychotic murderers with no regard for human life. There was no sympathetic portrayal of them unlike many Hollywood films. For a change, Hollywood actually pays respects to the actual victims.

I'm just curious as to what other major Hollywood films since 9/11 have portrayed Muslim terrorists as conflicted individuals?

God forbid anyone approaches 9/11 as an event that is complex emotionally and politically for people on all sides of the fence.

Antoine Doinel wrote:God forbid anyone approaches 9/11 as an event that is complex emotionally and politically for people on all sides of the fence.

I agree. There should be more films that convey the complexities of extremists who want to annihilate Israel, kill all Jews and anyone else who comes in their way.

marty wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:God forbid anyone approaches 9/11 as an event that is complex emotionally and politically for people on all sides of the fence.

I agree. There should be more films that convey the complexities of extremists who want to annihilate Israel, kill all Jews and anyone else who comes in their way.

And while we're at it, there should be more films that convey the complexities of a willfully ignorant populace who supports the policies of Israel without question, unthinkingly derides any criticisms of the racist and oppressive policies of Israel as 'anti-Semitic', and supports the killing of anybody who, without recourse to any legal bodies that will fairly judge their legal/political/humanitarian claims against the claims of those who deny their legal/political/human rights, tries nevertheless to do something about their situation, however misguided that action may be.

Clearly, antoine's sarcastic comments about willfully ignorant people refusing to do anything other than stereotype an entire region of the world fell on deaf ears. Congratulations, marty, you just proved antoine's point.

jbeall wrote:Clearly, antoine's sarcastic comments about willfully ignorant people refusing to do anything other than stereotype an entire region of the world fell on deaf ears. Congratulations, marty, you just proved antoine's point.

You miss my point. See how I used the word "extremists" rather than just "Muslim". Therefore, neither the film nor I are condemning the whole Muslim race. That is completely unfair. What is also unfair is that any Jewish death as a result of attacks into Israel is merely brushed off by the western media and any Muslin death however unintentional is glorifed on the front of every newspaper, notwithstanding that Hezbollah's missiles (funded and supplied by Syria) are launched from very populated areas in full knowledge that any retaliatory attacks from Israel will condemn their own very people they are so-called defending. But, hey, what's a few women and children deaths in the name of a higher cause and for international condemnation of Israel. Hezbollah terms these death as "necessary sacrifices."

Also, I haven't seen any Rabbis hijacking planes flying them into buildings, blowing themselves up on crowded trains and in Bali nightclubs. These extremists do not deserves anyone's sympathy no matter how trendy it may be to support their cause.

For your own knowledge about Middle East history please read Bernard Lewis' objective and excellent account in "From Babel to Dragoman" and you will see that Israel has every right to its existence and Lewis does this without condemning the Palestinians right either and acknowledges it is a very complex issue.

jbeall wrote:And while we're at it, there should be more films that convey the complexities of a willfully ignorant populace who supports the policies of Israel without question, unthinkingly derides any criticisms of the racist and oppressive policies of Israel as 'anti-Semitic', and supports the killing of anybody who, without recourse to any legal bodies that will fairly judge their legal/political/humanitarian claims against the claims of those who deny their legal/political/human rights, tries nevertheless to do something about their situation, however misguided that action may be.

Clearly, antoine's sarcastic comments about willfully ignorant people refusing to do anything other than stereotype an entire region of the world fell on deaf ears. Congratulations, marty, you just proved antoine's point.

Excuse me, willfully ignorant populace? THAT IS GARBAGE. It is the media that mutes most of the people, and silences a lot of the information that is out there, but a lot of it now is changing with the internet. The same is true for the State of the Union's speech. How pitiful that only one group gets to officially respond. It is the media that carries this out. How about the two that were CONVICTED today of rigging Ohio in 2004? It comes a day after Kerry announces he won't run again, despite losing the state by only 100k+ votes. Where is the MAINSTREAM MEDIA? Where is the microphone being shoved at Bush for some kind of comment. Again, thank the internet for sites like Digg and Reddit that have a user-based platform for article selection. Is it perfect? No. But in 20 years, who knows how good the net will be at spreading information. So take that shit elsewhere...