I hate this nation of our people creating such a film like this, it serves no justice or no respect for any human on earth. What advantage does it make to our society? Its all about our fuckin' capatilistic mind set (not me) in this country. You don't see any other countries making movies of thier own disasters do you?
i would really like to get a definitive answer to the following question...
is any money made from 'united 93' going to anyone not directly involved in 9/11?[/b]
if so [and for some reason i imagine it is so], that is absolutely despicable and frustrates me beyond words.
nevertheless, too early...try [at least] 2 generations too early. estimating about how long it takes to produce a full-length film, this probably was in production around 2004, and the idea being thrown around 2002-2003.
i saw the preview and it just blew my mind. i've gotten accustomed to things i don't approve of these last few years since 9/11, but this is just beyond belief.
that wasn't exactly exploting the tragedy, but rather brought awareness to a genocide most of the world didn't even know happened. speaking of which, you'd think there would currently be more involvement by our government in darfur...
Movie looks corny but I can see why. I dont think an audience would accept the portrayal of any of those passengers as anything less than the archetypal hero. Hence this movie will be complete cheese.
Here's a piece from slate.com by Ron Rosenbaum, who is as sharp a cultural critic as I've ever read. Interesting take on why all these initial films focus on United 93...
As for what I think (which means dick in the world and in this thread, but hey, that's never stopped anyone on here before).
9/11 was a tragedy that just about everyone holds personally. People in New York say that it is their's because they choked on the ashes and lost friends. People I babysit for in Boston say it is their's because they lost their husband and father on one of the planes. People in Ohio where I'm from say it is their's because they saw it on the television and put a bumper sticker on their car and had a son enlist in the army to go fight Osama. The point is this was something that everyone in the world and especially this country experienced and lived through in some degree or another, and it is impossible to tell people how they should be allowed to react. So, while we may all say its too soon for this movie, someone else might think it is just the right time. In the end, just as we experienced the events of 9/11 personally, we experience the grieving to come personally. Hence, if you think it is too soon to see the movie, don't go- donate the cost of a ticket to a 9/11 related charity, and express yourself that way. But, if for other people in this country (and judging by the box office reciepts, there are a few of them) this is the appropriate time for this movie, then that is their right too. If that is how they want to relive that day it is no more my place to tell them they cannot or should not see that movie than it is their place to tell me that I should put a "9/11 Never Forget" sticker on my car.
The events of that day have entered into the realm of shared, common experience; it is something we all own, and we all must care for. We should all hope that those events are remebered respectfully and solemnly. But, for artists, the way to remember that day is to make art; Neil Young writes songs, Billy Collins writes poems, and filmmakers make films. We should all accept that this, and rather than telling them when it is OK to do this, just try to make sure they do it right.
I hate this nation of our people creating such a film like this, it serves no justice or no respect for any human on earth. What advantage does it make to our society? Its all about our fuckin' capatilistic mind set (not me) in this country. You don't see any other countries making movies of thier own disasters do you?
This is the most pious, sanctimonious crap I have read all day (day's still young tho).
No one is being held at gunpoint and forced to see this movie. The 'nation' did not create this film, a bunch of people did, and I doubt that they were ALL wringing their hands dreaming of windfall profits. Yes, there backers hopefully set up everything to maximize profits, but that's their job.
I have no interest in seeing it, but I understand how some people would, even some people in NYC and even some directly affected by the events that day. I have no interest in seeing 'Failure to Launch' either, and actuall would prefer 'Flight 93' if being forced to choose at the afformentioned gunpoint.
Ehh... I read that, too, and nothing in it convinced me that there was any value to the exercise.
I'm being kneejerk about this, but it's an emotional issue, particularly for those of us that were in New York.
Hey, if you can admit this is a kneejerk reaction, I have no problem with it. But, this is emotional for everyone, and people need to recognize that.
Making a film is a massive, financially complicated, considered, and time consuming endeavor--not an emotional one.
And when I say "kneejerk," I mean only that I am willing to say "fuck this film" without actually seeing it, not that I can't rationally justify my position.
Ehh... I read that, too, and nothing in it convinced me that there was any value to the exercise.
I'm being kneejerk about this, but it's an emotional issue, particularly for those of us that were in New York.
Hey, if you can admit this is a kneejerk reaction, I have no problem with it. But, this is emotional for everyone, and people need to recognize that.
Making a film is a massive, financially complicated, considered, and time consuming endeavor--not an emotional one.
And when I say "kneejerk," I mean only that I am willing to say "fuck this film" without actually seeing it, not that I can't rationally justify my position.
I'm granting the second point. I do it all the time on other things.
The first point is bullshit. Making a film is all of those things you listed. It is also an emotional endeavor. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE MAKE FILMS. Because they feel an emotional attachment to the material. Sure, that isn't always the case (Duece Bigelow comes to mind...) but for a movie like this, there is obviously emotion behind it.
Further, there is definitely emotion in seeing it. And that doesn't go away for the filmmakers and audience just because you say so, or because you are from New York, or because you are judging it without seeing it.
Ehh... I read that, too, and nothing in it convinced me that there was any value to the exercise.
I'm being kneejerk about this, but it's an emotional issue, particularly for those of us that were in New York.
Hey, if you can admit this is a kneejerk reaction, I have no problem with it. But, this is emotional for everyone, and people need to recognize that.
Making a film is a massive, financially complicated, considered, and time consuming endeavor--not an emotional one.
And when I say "kneejerk," I mean only that I am willing to say "fuck this film" without actually seeing it, not that I can't rationally justify my position.
I'm granting the second point. I do it all the time on other things.
The first point is bullshit. Making a film is all of those things you listed. It is also an emotional endeavor. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE MAKE FILMS. Because they feel an emotional attachment to the material. Sure, that isn't always the case (Duece Bigelow comes to mind...) but for a movie like this, there is obviously emotion behind it.
No, this is bullshit, and one reason why film has simply never been that interesting to me.
Ehh... I read that, too, and nothing in it convinced me that there was any value to the exercise.
I'm being kneejerk about this, but it's an emotional issue, particularly for those of us that were in New York.
Hey, if you can admit this is a kneejerk reaction, I have no problem with it. But, this is emotional for everyone, and people need to recognize that.
Making a film is a massive, financially complicated, considered, and time consuming endeavor--not an emotional one.
And when I say "kneejerk," I mean only that I am willing to say "fuck this film" without actually seeing it, not that I can't rationally justify my position.
I'm granting the second point. I do it all the time on other things.
The first point is bullshit. Making a film is all of those things you listed. It is also an emotional endeavor. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE MAKE FILMS. Because they feel an emotional attachment to the material. Sure, that isn't always the case (Duece Bigelow comes to mind...) but for a movie like this, there is obviously emotion behind it.
No, this is bullshit, and one reason why film has simply never been that interesting to me.
Why is that bullshit? And, of all artistic media, I much prefer literature/art/music to film, so we seem to have that in common.
But, I'm reminded of the essay Louis Menand wrote on documentaries after "Fahrenheit 9/11," where he wrote that of course documentaries are biased; by their very nature, a director has to care enough about the material to want to spend years and millions to make said film. Just because you (or I) might not feel the emotional pull of a film doesn't mean others don't. And quite often, it is the motivating factor not just behind drawing an audience, but behind making the film in the first place.
McCluhan also wrote about film vs other mediums, saying that it had a "colder" effect because of its multisensory presentation. The audience is less likely to draw there own personal, and emotional conclusions. documentary film making is somewhat like journalism, but will never be as objective as something presented in a monosensory environment.
McCluhan also wrote about film vs other mediums, saying that it had a "colder" effect because of its multisensory presentation. The audience is less likely to draw there own personal, and emotional conclusions. documentary film making is somewhat like journalism, but will never be as objective as something presented in a monosensory environment.
This film is not a documentary.[/b]
I'm not saying it is a documentary. I'm just saying that in order to undertake something as major as making a film, emotion must be involved on the part of the filmmaker.
And yes, film can be very emotionally manipulative (not to get into that, but read the Crash thread for some thoughts on that...). But, saying that the audience is not drawing their own emotional conclusions is not the same as saying that it is not emotional. And, that is when you as the viewer are taking the most risk and assuming the most responsibility- basically, that you trust your own judgement and the filmmaker's skill and that between those two things, you can reach some sort of emotional conclusion.
i'm under the impression that these movies are only coming out in an attempt to gain support for "the war" that has been going on ever since 9/11. our ignorant nation which seems to believe everything we see on the news on tv or read on some online news site has grown tired of supporting a war that never should have started in the first place. and since the bush administration is nowhere near done tearing this country a new asshole and making us look even worse on a global level, they need something like this to "remind" people that we have a "war to fight". it's fucking pathetic... and the whole controversy is just an attempt at free publicity. the news showed the actual footage nonstop for months on end... believe me, it's not even shocking to watch anymore. now they just need to spice the story up and add in all the fictional parts where we actually have someone to blame and therefore can go to war... movies like this make us look pathetic as a nation on a worldwide level.
i will not watch this piece of shit... and fuck oliver stone too.
Im pretty sure NEITHER film is really designed (or at least, intended) to do that. You're conflating.
i'm under the impression that these movies are only coming out in an attempt to gain support for "the war" that has been going on ever since 9/11. our ignorant nation which seems to believe everything we see on the news on tv or read on some online news site has grown tired of supporting a war that never should have started in the first place. and since the bush administration is nowhere near done tearing this country a new asshole and making us look even worse on a global level, they need something like this to "remind" people that we have a "war to fight". it's fucking pathetic... and the whole controversy is just an attempt at free publicity. the news showed the actual footage nonstop for months on end... believe me, it's not even shocking to watch anymore. now they just need to spice the story up and add in all the fictional parts where we actually have someone to blame and therefore can go to war... movies like this make us look pathetic as a nation on a worldwide level.
i will not watch this piece of shit... and fuck oliver stone too.
Im pretty sure NEITHER film is really designed (or at least, intended) to do that. You're conflating.
Yeah, whatever else one might say about Oliver Stone, I seriously doubt he supports the war in Iraq. His film is far more likely intended to be a critique of the justifications that the administration advanced for the war.
Im pretty sure NEITHER film is really designed (or at least, intended) to do that. You're conflating.
Yeah, whatever else one might say about Oliver Stone, I seriously doubt he supports the war in Iraq. His film is far more likely intended to be a critique of the justifications that the administration advanced for the war.
And just to be clear, since few people (I'm not talking to you Faux) seem incapable of leaving Strut for a moment long enough to google shit, Stone's film is based on a trio of firemen who were the last people to get out of one of the Towers before it fell. Like "United 93" - it's on some human story/heroism tip but not necessarily uber-jingoist.
BTW, I'm not defending either film given I haven't seen them and I agree - the timing feels way too soon but shit, welcome to the Media Age of the 21st Century.
The reviews that I've seen of it say that it is excellent. They've also pointed out that is not your typical Hollywood depiction with glamorization, etc. The reviews say it has a very realistic tone and filming. Some of the people really involved in the events were used such as some Air Force officers and air traffic controllers. I do plan on seeing this film.
i was totally against this movie when i heard about it, but it sounds like it's supposed to be really tastefully done. the filmmakers got approval from all of the family memebers, and i think the fact that there are no big name actors in it shows that it's not about making money, but really about letting everyone feel what those passengers felt and to celebrate their act of heroism. i'm going to go see it.
Comments
is any money made from 'united 93' going to anyone not directly involved in 9/11?[/b]
if so [and for some reason i imagine it is so], that is absolutely despicable and frustrates me beyond words.
nevertheless, too early...try [at least] 2 generations too early. estimating about how long it takes to produce a full-length film, this probably was in production around 2004, and the idea being thrown around 2002-2003.
i saw the preview and it just blew my mind. i've gotten accustomed to things i don't approve of these last few years since 9/11, but this is just beyond belief.
http://www.slate.com/id/2140676/
As for what I think (which means dick in the world and in this thread, but hey, that's never stopped anyone on here before).
9/11 was a tragedy that just about everyone holds personally. People in New York say that it is their's because they choked on the ashes and lost friends. People I babysit for in Boston say it is their's because they lost their husband and father on one of the planes. People in Ohio where I'm from say it is their's because they saw it on the television and put a bumper sticker on their car and had a son enlist in the army to go fight Osama. The point is this was something that everyone in the world and especially this country experienced and lived through in some degree or another, and it is impossible to tell people how they should be allowed to react. So, while we may all say its too soon for this movie, someone else might think it is just the right time. In the end, just as we experienced the events of 9/11 personally, we experience the grieving to come personally. Hence, if you think it is too soon to see the movie, don't go- donate the cost of a ticket to a 9/11 related charity, and express yourself that way. But, if for other people in this country (and judging by the box office reciepts, there are a few of them) this is the appropriate time for this movie, then that is their right too. If that is how they want to relive that day it is no more my place to tell them they cannot or should not see that movie than it is their place to tell me that I should put a "9/11 Never Forget" sticker on my car.
The events of that day have entered into the realm of shared, common experience; it is something we all own, and we all must care for. We should all hope that those events are remebered respectfully and solemnly. But, for artists, the way to remember that day is to make art; Neil Young writes songs, Billy Collins writes poems, and filmmakers make films. We should all accept that this, and rather than telling them when it is OK to do this, just try to make sure they do it right.
two pennies in the freedom fountain.
(edit:grammar)
This is the most pious, sanctimonious crap I have read all day (day's still young tho).
No one is being held at gunpoint and forced to see this movie. The 'nation' did not create this film, a bunch of people did, and I doubt that they were ALL wringing their hands dreaming of windfall profits. Yes, there backers hopefully set up everything to maximize profits, but that's their job.
I have no interest in seeing it, but I understand how some people would, even some people in NYC and even some directly affected by the events that day. I have no interest in seeing 'Failure to Launch' either, and actuall would prefer 'Flight 93' if being forced to choose at the afformentioned gunpoint.
Vote with your tickets people.
Always your loudest voice.
I can't believe they're even gonna show this schitt in New York.
I felt ill when I saw the preview a few weeks ago.
Disgusting.
Well, here's one New Yorker who saw it, seemed to appreciate it, and whose opinion I trust. David Denby's New Yorker review:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema/articles/060501crci_cinema
Ehh... I read that, too, and nothing in it convinced me that there was any value to the exercise.
I'm being kneejerk about this, but it's an emotional issue, particularly for those of us that were in New York.
Hey, if you can admit this is a kneejerk reaction, I have no problem with it. But, this is emotional for everyone, and people need to recognize that.
Making a film is a massive, financially complicated, considered, and time consuming endeavor--not an emotional one.
And when I say "kneejerk," I mean only that I am willing to say "fuck this film" without actually seeing it, not that I can't rationally justify my position.
I'm granting the second point. I do it all the time on other things.
The first point is bullshit. Making a film is all of those things you listed. It is also an emotional endeavor. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE MAKE FILMS. Because they feel an emotional attachment to the material. Sure, that isn't always the case (Duece Bigelow comes to mind...) but for a movie like this, there is obviously emotion behind it.
Further, there is definitely emotion in seeing it. And that doesn't go away for the filmmakers and audience just because you say so, or because you are from New York, or because you are judging it without seeing it.
No, this is bullshit, and one reason why film has simply never been that interesting to me.
Paul Greengrass has a background in political docs, he also made the Bourne Supremacy.
I think the people who made this film were concerned with (banking on) other people's emotional attachment to 9/11 more than their own.
Why is that bullshit? And, of all artistic media, I much prefer literature/art/music to film, so we seem to have that in common.
But, I'm reminded of the essay Louis Menand wrote on documentaries after "Fahrenheit 9/11," where he wrote that of course documentaries are biased; by their very nature, a director has to care enough about the material to want to spend years and millions to make said film. Just because you (or I) might not feel the emotional pull of a film doesn't mean others don't. And quite often, it is the motivating factor not just behind drawing an audience, but behind making the film in the first place.
This film is not a documentary.[/b]
I'm not saying it is a documentary. I'm just saying that in order to undertake something as major as making a film, emotion must be involved on the part of the filmmaker.
And yes, film can be very emotionally manipulative (not to get into that, but read the Crash thread for some thoughts on that...). But, saying that the audience is not drawing their own emotional conclusions is not the same as saying that it is not emotional. And, that is when you as the viewer are taking the most risk and assuming the most responsibility- basically, that you trust your own judgement and the filmmaker's skill and that between those two things, you can reach some sort of emotional conclusion.
i will not watch this piece of shit... and fuck oliver stone too.
just my 2 cents.
But what about the families that support this movie? That wanted it to get made.
Im pretty sure NEITHER film is really designed (or at least, intended) to do that. You're conflating.
Yeah, whatever else one might say about Oliver Stone, I seriously doubt he supports the war in Iraq. His film is far more likely intended to be a critique of the justifications that the administration advanced for the war.
And just to be clear, since few people (I'm not talking to you Faux) seem incapable of leaving Strut for a moment long enough to google shit, Stone's film is based on a trio of firemen who were the last people to get out of one of the Towers before it fell. Like "United 93" - it's on some human story/heroism tip but not necessarily uber-jingoist.
BTW, I'm not defending either film given I haven't seen them and I agree - the timing feels way too soon but shit, welcome to the Media Age of the 21st Century.
i was totally against this movie when i heard about it, but it sounds like it's supposed to be really tastefully done. the filmmakers got approval from all of the family memebers, and i think the fact that there are no big name actors in it shows that it's not about making money, but really about letting everyone feel what those passengers felt and to celebrate their act of heroism. i'm going to go see it.