In the days immediately after the tragedy of September 11, the question was often broached as to how long Hollywood would wait before disgracing the memory of the event with a big-budget action movie full of explosions and larger-than-life American heroes battling shifty-eyed Arabs in the skies above New York City. Five years? Ten? Twenty? The American public is understandably wary of any film treatment of that fateful day, as it's all too easy to picture a Michael Bay project starring Harrison Ford and Will Smith, sort of Air Force One (1997) meets Independence Day (1996).
When that film does come (and rest assured, in due time it will), hopefully it'll receive the same scrutiny United 93 currently faces, although I suspect very little of it has to do with the actual content of the film and is more a reaction to the fact that this is the first of the 9/11 movies[1]. It'll be interesting to see how the discussion of the film evolves as more and more people realize just what sort of film it actually is.
The main question seems to hinge around an assumption that not enough time has passed since September 11, that the country is not yet ready for this film, regardless of content. But the beautiful thing about this, the digital age, is that the popularity of DVD allows people to view films such as this when they themselves are ready, whereas in days past such flexibility did not exist. This allows for many more options for filmmakers looking for ways to tell the stories that need to be told.
Because if art, to a degree, functions as a society's soul, then films such as United 93 are vital to the grieving process of a country coming to terms with a horrific tragedy. They serve as a means of therapy, allowing us to move beyond it and begin the process of getting on with our lives. At the same time they also serve as a constant reminder of what has transpired, a celluloid memorial, if you will.
Little of the above has much to do with the quality of the film itself, but is an important factor when considering the climate in which the film exists. For it is nigh unto impossible to view the film objectively apart from real-life events, so there's no point in discussing it without mentioning its larger role in society. At the same time, none of that larger context can turn a bad film into a good one, regardless of how "important" it may be.
Article comments
1 - Casey Lunkley
Anyone who reads the 9/11 Commission's Report and compares it to United 93 can come to the conclusion pretty quickly that this was a money-making machine, and not some "brave" crusade from a director.
And I have a hard time believing you gave it the title of "best film in a decade" without a heavy bias on the subject matter.
2 - Lucas McNelly
if you read the review, you see that i didn't do that at all.
the title was not mine, it was added by the powers that be. i said it "makes a case for being the best American film of the decade".
3 - Michael J. West
Casey, did you see United 93?
4 - Casey Lunkley
Lucas, I did read the review. Three quarters of your review revolves around emotion, and what happened on 9/11.
And yes, Michael, I saw the movie. Though, I didn't pay for it. (Shh!)
5 - RogerMDillon
You wrote it was too soon for you to see the movie, Casey. Guess your aticle was just a lot of hot air.
6 - Casey
I saw the movie after I wrote the article, genius.