United 93

[JewelSong]

I don't think anyone seriously disputes that the calls were real and that much of what is in the film is therefore probably correct. I'm just not sure the last 30 minutes of the movie will be close to the truth.

Oh, one of the going conspiracy stories says that the phone calls were never made and that there is no reception where the plane supposedly was. The entire thing was supposedly a cover-up for some other nefarious plot, or something. This conspriacy involves actors, disappearing passengers and the complicity of hundreds of people.

And there are those who believe it and go to great lengths to explain why the plane was never really there in the first place. Or something.

If the last 30 minutes is not the "truth" - well, we'll never know. The fact is, the passengers DID try to do something and in all probabilty, DID cause the hijackers to divert their course and change their plan. Whether the plane was actually shot down during those last 30 minutes, or whether it crashed due to the passenger's actions...who knows. The point is, for me, that there was some damn brave people on that flight.

[vison]

Well said, Jewelsong!!

Alatar, it wasn't "lack of respect" for you and I'm sorry you thought it was. My remarks were made out of amazement that anyone might think an Oliver Stone movie could be more historically accurate than "Flight 93". I have no quarrel with Mr. Stone for making his movie, but I won't see it. Not because I think he's being disrespectful, but because I think he makes crummy movies.

What voices might be stifled, Lidless? Why? Are you implying that this movie is some kind of Ministry of Truth production and that anyone attempting to tell a different story will be stopped? Should the movie not have been made? What about Stone's movie? Who on earth could say, "Don't make these movies, people!" This leaves me scratching my head.

As for the money: what is inherently disrespectful about making money from these movies or any other?

[Faramond]

Jn, you write persuasively, and yet what you are claiming seems so absurd and over-the-top to me ... I am at a loss to respond, nearly.

I would say that for a movie to be propoganda it must be in service to an agenda. What agenda is served by this movie?

But upon reading your post several more times I realize I can't even begin to understand your perspective on this. I don't understand the distaste for a movie that by nearly all accounts is sober and restrained, that merely attempts to tell a small part of the story of flight 93.

*****************

As for this idea that the flight was really shot down ... I'm rather surprised at the number of people here who believe this conspiracy theory. I understand why many believe the US government is consistently lying to us ... but the US government can't lie about things that are impossible to lie about.

[Whistler]

Societies can and will mythologize important events. They have done so since the beginning of time, and they are not about to stop it now. To do so is probably an essential component of society itself. Even if a mythology is wrong, it is probably less dangerous to allow it to thrive than to attempt (not that anyone is suggesting this) to suppress it.

Those who question any mythology are free to create their own, and society will embrace whichever mythology it needs.

[Sunsilver]

I, personally, don't think that United 93 was shot down. If you listen to the cockpit transcript, which was made public a few months ago, the hijackers are heard to say repeatedly 'down, down, down'. I think they were flying at a very low altitude to avoid radar, and avoid this very thing (it would have been much more dangerous to civilians on the ground for the Air Force to have shot the plane down at low altitude, rather than trying to hit it in midair.)

We will never know for sure, but there have been other instances of Islamic hijackers deliberately crashing planes. I think Occam's Razor makes sense here. The hijackers were afraid of being overwhelmed. They crashed the plane themselves when they realized they probably weren't going to maintain control of it long enough to reach Washington.

As for the film, I have truly mixed feelings about it. I probably won't see it for the same reason I didn't see Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. I know what happened, have my own thoughts on it, and don't need to see someone else's interpretation, especially when that interpretation is going to leave me very upset emotionally.

[Estel]

One of my problems with the movie is that the trailer for it wasn't sober and restrained. When I saw it in the theater it took me, and quite a bit of the rest of the audience, a few moments to realize what it was about because the trailer so strongly resembled that of a typical action movie trailer. Camera work and editing like you would see in one of the Bourne movies, or an MTV produced flick. If they had had the same images but no sound, or simply a black screen with a voice or text describing what the movie was, my reaction against it might not have been so violent. As it was, when I finally figured out what the movie was about from the trailer, I gasped it disbelief, as did much of the audience in the theater.

As I said in a PM to Whistler, though, some people grieve quietly, and seem to think that those who do so loudly are doing so for dramatic affect. Those that grieve loudly seem to think that those who do so quietly aren't grieving at all. Some people think the people who made the movies are honoring the victims. Others think they are trivializing them. Our personal perspective sometimes ruins communication between us all.

I won't see this movie. Nor will I see Stones movie. I don't hold it against those that see it. I just think it was too soon for the movies to have been made.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sunny, I'm inclined to agree with you that that is probably the most likely scenerio. But I just don't trust what the government says. I don't even trust that the cockpit transcript is necessarily real (though I'm not saying that I believe that it isn't either. I do know that the U.S. military and government is capable of going to elaborate lengths to create false heros. Case in point is the "daring" Jessica Lynch rescue, which was videotaped and then edited by army public relations to create a completely false impression (as Pfc. Lynch herself later confirmed). There are so many examples of exxagerations and outright falsehoods by the U.S. military and government that have been documented over the past five years that I am not willing to accept anything that they say or show at face value.

Sorry for the rant.

[Whistler]

Five years?

Well, at least we can be glad that the Clinton administration told us the honest-to-gosh truth about everything.

(insert vomiting smiley)

[Sunsilver]

Well, I guess I'm just a naive Canuck.

[nerdanel]

Whistler,

I didn't take Voronwë's post to be extolling the truth-telling capacity of previous administrations. However, since we are dealing with the truthfulness of the present administration, and they have been around for five years and some change, it is principally their "exaggerations and outright falsehoods" - or lack thereof - that are relevant to whether the government is being truthful in this case. The truths and lies of the Clinton administration tell us little about United 93, AFAIK.

Also, FTR...I don't have an opinion one way or the other on what happened on board Flight 93. I said I was skeptical of the "official" story simply because I don't know (and, like Voronwë, have been unimpressed with this administration's lack of truthfulness. But I was unimpressed with the Clinton administration as well, so I am equal opportunity in that sense.) Since I do not know of a way to be certain regarding United 93, and I dislike being told to accept things on faith, I choose to draw no conclusions at this point, conspiracy-related or otherwise.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

What she said.

[Whistler]

Ah, nel! You know I was just teasing Voronwë. You are getting too serious.

Therefore...

I shall offer a small osgiliation to soften the tone of this discussion. Having defended the film, I'll inject a bit of gentle criticism.

As you know, the chief air traffic controller in the movie is portrayed by the actual man, not by an actor. For obvious reasons, the director decided that realism would best be served by simply placing the man before a camera and letting him do his thing unscripted. Things were going well until the director decided that there ought to be some cursing.

The man explained that he wasn't in the habit of cursing. He further explained that air traffic controllers are taught never to curse, because in doing so they magnify the tension of already-tense situations. In short, it's considered highly unprofessional.

No matter: For the director, Hollywood reality was reality indeed, and Hollywood reality dictates that everybody curses with every other breath, and certainly in times of stress.

So the man had to curse. I think it says a lot about Hollywood arrogance (and detachment from reality) that a man in the process of portraying himself could be told he isn't doing it right, because it wasn't the Hollywood way.

[nerdanel]

What on earth are you talking about, Whistler. Do you mean to tell me that the entertainment industry doesn't portray professionals realistically? Nonsense! I only went to law school because I felt that I could rely on the completely accurate depictions of attorneys in the movies to know what life as a lawyer is like. If it doesn't work out, though, I'm going to medical school based on what I've learned from TV shows. ER and House have convinced me that I've got what it takes.

[Primula Baggins]

...

[Whistler]

I love it when they say, We don't influence reality...we only reflect reality!

[Jnyusa]

We should all be a little bit more like Hollywood. The everyday world would be so much more exciting.

[Whistler]

Yes. I've always wanted to be in one of those cool car chases.

[Lidless]

No need. Just place a cart loaded with fruit and veg in your driveway and accelerate out of your garage.

[nerdanel]

I prefer Hollywood reality to real reality because the former comes with cool soundtracks. The important moments in real reality are shamefully devoid of the appropriate sound effects and sweeping music.

[Whistler]

Sometimes the special effects in real life are pretty good, though.

We had a great special effect down in New Orleans last year. Should have won an award.