Friday, April 28, 2006
story on the movie United 93, feeling it necessary - in the second paragraph - to start disparaging the movie for not adhering exactly to what has been proven true beyond any reasonable doubt.
And what are the 'unprovens' the Post feels it is so important to call to our attention, and not in the Style section where movies are usually discussed, but on PAGE A1?
Let's see, they argue that we don't know that the target was the Capitol, that it might have been the White House. They also think it important to tell us that we don't know absolutely, positively, without a doubt for sure that the hijackers killed the pilot and copilot and that we don't absolutely, positively, without a doubt for sure whether the passengers got to the cockpit or whether the hijackers crashed the plane fearing the passengers were about to reach the cockpit.
But why does any of this matter? Does it diminish what the passengers did, in charging the hijackers in what turned out to be a successful attempt to keep them from reaching their target? Does it matter whether the passengers saved the Capitol or the White House... or, for that matter, my house... from being attacked?
The answer is NO. Nothing in the movie distorts the story of what happened on that plane (unlike Oliver Stone, who certainly went off the deep end with the movie JFK, in which he portrayed as but proven that the CIA was behind the Kennedy assassination).
To support their assertion that things ain't right with the movie, the Post writers interviewed "Carie Lemack, whose mother was killed on American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to hit the World Trade Center, who claims that she would have preferred that "history tell itself, rather than have Hollywood tell it". But this movie isn't titled Flight 11, is it? The movie is not really about the planes on which the passengers were unaware of their fate, is it? In fact, one criticism of the movie was that the movie didn't show what was happening in the other three planes that day; whether this is a valid criticism or not I am not going to say, but it makes clear that this movie isn't about what happened aboard the other three planes. So why not interview any of the family members of those who were aboard the plane that carried the flight designation of Flight 93, all of whom are supposedly supportive of the movie? It's not as if they're hiding out... Todd Beamer's father just wrote a WSJ op-ed on the movie. Oh, that's right, they're supportive of the director... and the Post can't support its implicit claim that the director done wrong if they talk to people who agree with the director, can they?
As I opened, I am sure the Post has its reasons for doing what it did. While I don't know what those reasons are... I am sure I wouldn't agree with them.