UNITED 93

Director: Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Supremecy, Bloody Sunday)
Starring: There are no starring roles in this film. It’s an ensemble, with no character creation.

United 93 is a difficult film to review, and that is in itself something noteworthy. Right off the bat I can say that this film works quite differently from the standard story, and I will be the first to admit that stretching into new territory is notable. The thing is, however, that just being “new” does not make it “good”. I have more to say on this subject, though. If you didn’t know, United 93 is a retelling of the events of 9/11, especially those on the flight that crashed outside of Pittsburgh.

I know director Paul Greengrass from two prior (major) works, The Bourne Supremacy and Bloody Sunday. Supremacy was a tight, frenetic action movie that I rate as a solid success. Bloody Sunday was an engrossing film that has much in common with United 93. I had significant problems with that film, however. Sunday took a series of suppositional events and (more or less) portrayed them as fact. He used a gritty, wavering documentary style from beginning to end. Perhaps he could claim that he was attempting to show how the terrible events in Northern Ireland could have happened, but all I saw throughout was a statement of what did happen. And unfortunately the proof of what he was showing (which was quite polarizing) does not exist. That is a dangerous place to go.

My concerns with United 93 are somewhat different. Greengrass uses the exact same documentary style throughout this film (choppy editing, choppy camera work, choppy acting), but there is little supposition in this story. The evidence for what happened on 9/11 is massive. There is no meaningful doubt to the major events. We have voice recordings and telephone calls showing that the passengers on United 93 attempted to retake the plane from the terrorists. Just how they did this is, of course, supposition in the film. Luckily it’s also trivially unimportant. The act and the events far overwhelm the specifics of how. I can make one statement categorically about United 93, though: That this film is engrossing and emotionally powerful.

Normally, that statement would automatically equal “good film”, but United 93 might just be an exception. You see, I’m not yet sure if United 93 is art of any form. I think that the engrossing and emotional elements might just be a petty response to a significant event in all of our American lives. Let me explain a bit further. In fictional art the writer creates a world specifically to take the viewer to a place where they hopefully make a response in their own life. That response could be almost anything, I suppose, but the best art definitely involves life lessons and emotional learning. This film (I.e. Nonfiction) just doesn’t reach to that level.

It’s my personal opinion that nonfiction is usually inferior to fiction (just by its very nature). It cannot be precise enough to elicit a particular response because real world events are usually not so neat. No, I think the real value of nonfiction lies in its ability to take us deeper in knowledge. A great documentary might tell us more about Robert McNamara and the events of the Vietnam war, or the psychological demons that confront a family of pedophiles, or even tell us more about our founding fathers. This film does none of that. Put simply, I learned nothing, absolutely zilch, about 9/11 from United 93. I’m not necessarily referring to new facts, even. I’m referring to new ideas or emotions. This film felt to me like it was simply expecting an emotional response from the viewer by making real a horrible event we’ve already lived through.

Let me put it this way: If you’ve lost your parents, would it be a great film to realistically portray their funeral 5 years later? I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s good to relive the emotion that you felt before. I’m not so sure about that, however. Since this film is going for the easy human emotional response from 9/11, I think it might live on the level of propoganda. I’ve got a feeling it’s just trying to sell tickets. In the end I know three things. First that this film was quite compelling and emotional. Second, that I didn’t learn anything new. And third, that I’m still not sure how I feel about it. Like I said at the beginning, the fact that I am questioning this film is notable in itself. At least it’s not another cheap action flick. Given that, I say see the film for yourself. Make up your own mind, it’s powerful enough for me to recommend that.

Standouts: The events of 9/11, because that’s the only reason for this film’s success.
Blowouts: Possibly its nonfiction construction? Going for a cheap emotional response?

Grade: Between a C+ and an A-