United 93.
Just some more quick thoughts on United 93...
During advisory lunch to-day, we talked about movies, and United 93 came up. Brian G. brought up the common sentiment (by "common," I mean the one I've heard the most): it's exploitive, that someone would do this for entertainment. I somewhat disagree. Yes, it's exploitive because the director and producers and etc. will be earning money from this. But I don't think that that is their ultimate goal. If so, shame on them. However, I'm convinced that that's not the case. If earning money were their ultimate goal, they'd have severely amped up everything. They'd have reworked things so that the film is much more dramatic than it needs to be - to heck with what really happened! On the contrary, director Paul Greengrass and his crew took extreme caution and were completely respectful in taking up this project. They have complete approval from every family that lost a loved one in the tragedy and have worked hard with those families so that the film is as accurate as can be.
If that's not convincing, take a page from James Berardinelli's book and compare United 93 to other movies that centred on terrible tragedies: Pearl Harbour was Hollywood exploitation at its best. United 93 - which, I've heard, tells the facts straight and doesn't do much to amp up the drama because the events are already dramatic enough - isn't like that, I think.
Obviously I haven't seen it. But I think that it's kinda like Schindler's List: it details a horrific tragedy, and people watch it to learn more about the tragedy, not to be entertained. Of course, Schindler's List came out fifty years after the Holocaust, whereas there's only a five-year difference between 9-11 and United 93. And I agree with what Berardinelli says, especially here:And there is an argument to be made for films being produced so soon after the tragedy. When viewers watch the movies 50 years from now, they will be seeing a record that was not made from a long distance, but from those who were still close enough to feel the heat.
So, even though my mum doesn't think I should see this film, I'm going to try to. This, I think, is culturally important. And as I've said before: while I don't really want to see this film, I feel that I should. I can't explain why.
At any rate... Yes, I can legally watch an R-rated movie in a theatre. If anyone would like to join me, please let me know.
During advisory lunch to-day, we talked about movies, and United 93 came up. Brian G. brought up the common sentiment (by "common," I mean the one I've heard the most): it's exploitive, that someone would do this for entertainment. I somewhat disagree. Yes, it's exploitive because the director and producers and etc. will be earning money from this. But I don't think that that is their ultimate goal. If so, shame on them. However, I'm convinced that that's not the case. If earning money were their ultimate goal, they'd have severely amped up everything. They'd have reworked things so that the film is much more dramatic than it needs to be - to heck with what really happened! On the contrary, director Paul Greengrass and his crew took extreme caution and were completely respectful in taking up this project. They have complete approval from every family that lost a loved one in the tragedy and have worked hard with those families so that the film is as accurate as can be.
If that's not convincing, take a page from James Berardinelli's book and compare United 93 to other movies that centred on terrible tragedies: Pearl Harbour was Hollywood exploitation at its best. United 93 - which, I've heard, tells the facts straight and doesn't do much to amp up the drama because the events are already dramatic enough - isn't like that, I think.
Obviously I haven't seen it. But I think that it's kinda like Schindler's List: it details a horrific tragedy, and people watch it to learn more about the tragedy, not to be entertained. Of course, Schindler's List came out fifty years after the Holocaust, whereas there's only a five-year difference between 9-11 and United 93. And I agree with what Berardinelli says, especially here:And there is an argument to be made for films being produced so soon after the tragedy. When viewers watch the movies 50 years from now, they will be seeing a record that was not made from a long distance, but from those who were still close enough to feel the heat.
So, even though my mum doesn't think I should see this film, I'm going to try to. This, I think, is culturally important. And as I've said before: while I don't really want to see this film, I feel that I should. I can't explain why.
At any rate... Yes, I can legally watch an R-rated movie in a theatre. If anyone would like to join me, please let me know.