Considering United 93 was never anywhere near New York City, the WTC, or the Statue of Liberty, forgive me if I find just the slightest bit manipulative.
While on some level I'm sure people will find it cathartic and meant to honor the passengers, I still find it somewhat exploitative. And you know the patriots will have an opinion about it being by a British director, even if he is good.
I've seen the trailer for United 93 and it is, as one would expect, a haunting reminder of that day. However, I think the April release date of is an indication that this film is not being given as much studio support as World Trade Center, with its 5-year-mark release date. Don't get me wrong - I do think there will be an audience for 93. The majority of the general public probably doesn't know Paul Greengrass from Adam, so his birthplace shouldn't matter much. I don't think anticipations are high when comparing to Stone's pic.
The edge that WTC has, in my opinion, is that there haven't been any features wholly based on the Towers. And we haven't really seen much from Ground Zero aside from the news coverage or documentary footage. I think Flight 93 has been a little more socialized with the news magazine coverage, books, TV movies, etc.
As far as the NY references, I think it was an easy way out for the designers to "generalize" the visual. The Towers and the Statue are pretty indisputable symbols. I'm sure that they were trying to relate Flight 93/United 93 visually, since not everyone knows what Flight 93 is.
No matter. The films are bound to abound. All historical events worth telling make their way to the silver screen. We only hope, as with any film that we spend our hard earned money on, that it is a story that is well told, well performed and well executed.
5 comments:
Considering United 93 was never anywhere near New York City, the WTC, or the Statue of Liberty, forgive me if I find just the slightest bit manipulative.
While on some level I'm sure people will find it cathartic and meant to honor the passengers, I still find it somewhat exploitative. And you know the patriots will have an opinion about it being by a British director, even if he is good.
I especially agree with Chris, this flight had nothing to do with NYC, so it is lame that they went that route.
Will our children and grandchildren eventually be inundated with 9-11 films the way we once were with WW2 films? I'm thinking 'yes'.
I've seen the trailer for United 93 and it is, as one would expect, a haunting reminder of that day. However, I think the April release date of is an indication that this film is not being given as much studio support as World Trade Center, with its 5-year-mark release date. Don't get me wrong - I do think there will be an audience for 93. The majority of the general public probably doesn't know Paul Greengrass from Adam, so his birthplace shouldn't matter much. I don't think anticipations are high when comparing to Stone's pic.
The edge that WTC has, in my opinion, is that there haven't been any features wholly based on the Towers. And we haven't really seen much from Ground Zero aside from the news coverage or documentary footage. I think Flight 93 has been a little more socialized with the news magazine coverage, books, TV movies, etc.
As far as the NY references, I think it was an easy way out for the designers to "generalize" the visual. The Towers and the Statue are pretty indisputable symbols. I'm sure that they were trying to relate Flight 93/United 93 visually, since not everyone knows what Flight 93 is.
No matter. The films are bound to abound. All historical events worth telling make their way to the silver screen. We only hope, as with any film that we spend our hard earned money on, that it is a story that is well told, well performed and well executed.
Right?
Post a Comment