Compelling, tough to watch at times, though Greengrass takes license

Rating: 8/10 (30 April 2006)

"United 93" is not a film you can tell your friends you loved, or even liked. Sitting through it is a tough proposition. Nevertheless, given the circumstances, writer-director Paul Greengrass made the best film possible out of this story.
Is it too early? Has our psyche healed? Are we ready for films about 9/11? Well, that's what we're going to find out this year, not only with this film, but also with Oliver Stone's "The World Trade Center." And someone's adapting the book, "102 Minutes," into a movie, too.
Just as Greengrass did in "Bloody Sunday" (2002), he gives "United 93" a quasi-documentary feel with hand-held camera. It's about as close to cinema verite in fiction as we're going to get. Greengrass is awfully good at shooting hand-held films - I thoroughly enjoyed "The Bourne Supremacy" (2004). And, truly, there is no other way he could have shot "United 93."
Unlike "Flight 93" - the made-for-TV film that first aired on A&E in January - "United 93" doesn't simply concentrate on what happened aboard the plane that crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pa. Greengrass fits the hijacking of the airliner in the context of that entire, crazy day. He runs two parallel stories - the panic on the plane and the utter confusion on the ground. And unlike "Flight 93," Greengrass doesn't immerse his film in any sort of sentimentality. Yes, we see passengers calling their loved ones, but the conversations are all one-sided and Greengrass really doesn't stay on them for any length of time. What we get our snippets and they're more than adequate to convey the passengers' emotions.
It was a smart move on Greengrass' part not to cast well-known actors in these roles. There are a few recognizable faces, but the names don't spring to mind and that unrecognizable quality lends more credence to the actors. Greengrass also doesn't bother with trivialities such as back stories and this also helps immensely. He doesn't want to spend time on typical hijacking-movie clichés - passengers spending time with their families, the odd coincidences, the chance meetings, all that nonsense. He gets right to the point - this day was chaotic on the ground and in the air and that's what he wanted to capture.
The film also does well to grasp the chaos on the ground as military personnel and air traffic controllers tried to figure out what was happening and how they could mitigate the situation. It is obviously clear that this nation was not prepared for this and, although Greengrass doesn't go out of his way to make this point, it's abundantly clear this administration had no idea how to react. Our leaders' incompetence continues to this day and anyone who actually believes that our illustrious leader has made this world safer is positively delusional.
Greengrass takes license with the story. Much has been made about how this film was made with the cooperation of the families and from thorough research of countless documents, including the official 9/11 Commission report.
But clearly Greengrass' film is based on supposition. And, frankly, some of it was tough to swallow. I have no doubt everyone on board was petrified, but this film makes it seem as if the flight attendants were of no use, completely incapable of doing anything because they were so distraught and frightened, and that the passengers did pretty much everything. Also - and I have no idea who this passenger is supposed to be - but Greengrass takes a huge leap when he clearly implies one passenger not only does not approve of what the others are planning, but tries to impede them.
There are also other bits - dealing with the hijackers' target, some of the goings on in the cockpit etc. - that are based purely on conjecture.
The final sequences are tough to watch. However, I wish Greengrass had a bit more faith in his storytelling ability and the story to avoid relying on a pounding musical score to accompany the chaos and drive the emotion.
Considering "United 93" to be the definitive story of Flight 93 would be a mistake. It tells the story of what might have happened. And kudos to Greengrass for avoiding any sort of rah-rah jingoism in favor of a gritty, unrelentingly disturbing and uncomfortable telling of the story.
I am glad I saw "United 93," though I honestly don't know whether it is exploitative or not. It certainly is not without its flaws. I would like to see filmmakers tackle more 9/11 films. However, it would be encouraging to see them not only handle the events of that day and how it impacted people, but also how this nation and our government has dealt with it, the changes that have taken place in our lives, the stripping away of some rights, the callousness with which this administration operates, the nationalistic rhetoric that only isolates us even more.
ADDENDUM: I changed my rating for this movie after seeing Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" only because that one made me appreciate Greengrass' film more. I still believe Greengrass took a few too many liberties, but his lean, efficient storytelling is deeply under-appreciated.