Mudita Journal

United 93: The Original ‘Pack Not a Herd’

April 9, 2006 · Filed under: Reviews
Share

Blogger Glenn Reynolds has made a theme out of cataloging the instances since 9-11 when ordinary Americans have taken their safety into their own hands — acting, in effect, as “a pack not a herd.”

I am not certain that the downing of United flight 93 was the original event that inspired this phrase, but it probably was. It certainly deserved to be.

In any case, Time magazine is offering up an early peek at the upcoming United 93 movie, and it further reinforces my impression that the movie will be both good and important.

A few excerpts:

Perhaps those who saw the trailer didn’t realize that this was the one flight, of the four hijacked that day, with an inspiring ending. This was the one on which the good guys, following passenger Todd Beamer’s John Wayne-like invocation, “Let’s roll,” foiled the bad guys. The saga of this flight makes for, in 9/11 terms, a feel-good movie. Just as important, United 93, at which Time was given an exclusive first look, is a good movie—taut and implacable—that honors the deeds of the passengers while being fair, if anyone cares, to the hijackers’ jihad bravado. [...] If this is a horror movie, it is an edifying one, a history lesson with the pulse of a world-on-the-line suspense film. [...]

“Subsequent to 9/11,” says Greengrass, an Englishman who directed the superb docudrama Bloody Sunday, set in Northern Ireland in 1972, and the gritty espionage film The Bourne Supremacy, “we all had to make decisions about the world we live in, about the courses of action that we take. This film is saying that, before we got to that, there was this event: this extraordinary work of fate, mired in confusion, with the passengers gaining knowledge of 9/11 as they went. What that did was create a debate on the plane: What are we going to do? Are we going to do nothing and hope for the best, or are we going to do something? What can we do? What will be the consequences of both courses of action? That is our post-9/11 debate.” Which the doomed, defiant passengers had just a few minutes to comprehend and resolve—on the fly.

United 93 is a meticulous reconstruction of that morning. Greengrass worked closely with the victims’ families, who had already heard the black-box recordings, and the actors, who were improvising. Few events, either on the plane or in the air-traffic control centers, are underlined for effect. As Bingham’s mother Alice Hoagland notes, “What happened on board Flight 93 has so much drama and pace, it needs no embellishment.” [...]

[W]herever possible, Greengrass cast people close to their roles. J.J. Johnson, who plays the captain of Flight 93, is a real United pilot. Trish Gates, who plays head flight attendant Sandy Bradshaw, was a real United flight attendant. Ben Sliney, who as national operations manager for the faa kept track of the mounting atrocities, appears as himself. Lewis Alsamari, who plays one of the hijackers, spent a year in the Iraqi army. The actors playing the terrorists were kept segregated from those playing the passengers; they stayed in different hotels and did not meet until the hijack sequence was shot. Those actors had to deal with the violence on a more personal level.

See the full article in Time for more.

Posted by Joshua Zader · Trackback URL · Link
  • John Patrick Bowles

    The Neuman/Winters Time article is infuriating in its contention that because Alsamari spent a year in the Iraqi army, he was “close to his role.” Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and this sort of willful and/or ignorant misrepresentation of the facts is reprehensible.

  • http://www.zader.com Joshua Zader

    John,

    Yeah you’ve got a point.

    For that role, they should have cast someone with an intimate understanding of what it’s like to hate the United States and support its enemies. Like maybe Alec Baldwin or George Clooney.

    Serving in the Iraqi army just doesn’t cut it, by comparison.

    Joshua

  • http://n/a John Patrick Bowles

    Interesting. Childish and stupid, but interesting. I notice you haven’t bothered to address my comment’s point, however. Predictible, though. Perhaps you agree with Dick Cheney and believe that Iraq was behind 9/11?

  • http://www.zader.com Joshua Zader

    Neither childish nor stupid. But handily illustrating the absurdity of your claims.

    I am aware of no evidence that Iraq was behind 9/11. Nor does one need such evidence to claim — as the movie’s producers did — that a man who served in the Iraqi army can relate, more than your average Joe, to the perspectives of anti-American terrorists.

    If it helps you understand my perspective, I agree with Steven den Beste’s Strategic Overview of the War on Terror.

    But you don’t seem all that interested in understanding my perspective — instead, if I’m not mistaken, you’ve got a liberal, anti-Bush axe to grind.

  • http://n/a John Patrick Bowles

    I thought I’d kept my objection pretty narrowly defined: The only claim I made was that Iraq had nothing to with 9/11. Hardly absurd, as you yourself agreed. And I’m not going after the producers of the film; I take issue with the sloppy logic of the Time piece. It is this exact kind of misrepresentation that allowed the administration to conflate Iraq and 9/11 in the mind of your “average Joe” in the first place.

    Sure, I’m anti-Bush. Nothing wrong with that; in fact, 60+% of Americans join me in that sentiment.

    As far as NOT being childish or stupid, I’d love to hear you back up your contention that Baldwin and Clooney “hate the United States and support its enemies” with something resembling an intelligent argument. Disagreeing with the Bush administration’s policies doesn’t really cut the mustard, I’m afraid. If that were the case, you’d have to include a large chunk of the Republican party at this point.

    Cheers,
    JPB

  • http://www.zader.com Joshua Zader

    John, you made an additional claim, that there was a “willful and/or ignorant misrepresentation of the facts.”

    Nowhere did the article say that Iraq was behind 9/11. It said that “[W]herever possible, Greengrass cast people close to their roles” and “Lewis Alsamari, who plays one of the hijackers, spent a year in the Iraqi army.”

    Taken literally, this means that spending a year in the Iraqi army is close to being a terrorist. It neither means nor implies that Iraq was behind 9/11.

    So my point is that you’re directing your own opposition towards an argument that was never there in the first place.

    For the record, I myself disagree with many of Bush’s policies. But I still find it amusing that he has the rare honor of inspiring his own bona-fide mental disorder in so many of his political opponents.

    I’m going to bow out of the discussion at this point. I think you’ve made your point, and I’ve made mine. Let’s get on with doing more productive stuff.

  • RB

    I believe it has more to do with a reference that the man has been trained in a military style fashion, akin to what one of the terrorists would have gone through. It is well known many Al-Queda operatives undergo a very militaristic training with could be well represented by someone who has had served in the military. It is merely mentioned that the actor has served in the Iraqi Army, which in and of itself does not imply he is a terrorist. Just that he is combat trained. Discuss the film and events, not political drivel… I get enough of that.

  • http://www.zader.com Joshua Zader

    Okay, apparently some people do think he’s a terrorist. Geez.

  • http://www.muditajournal.com/archives/000307.php United 93 – Another Favorable Review :: Mudita Journal

    [...] here and here. Posted by Joshua Zader  ·  Trackback URL  ·  Link   [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus