Just got back from seeing "United 93"

[pegkerr]

I expect I will have trouble sleeping tonight. The reviews are right. It is gripping and absolutely excruciating. I think it was absolutely respectful, and it did not strike me as exploitive. In fact, it was all the more powerful because it wasn't exploitive but, on the contrary, underplayed, which made the events depicted carry an even greater wallop. But that is my deeply personal reaction.

I cannot tell you whether or not to see it. I think that everyone must decide that for themselves. I believe that there are those who will never be able to see this movie.

I can only tell you that for myself, as painful as it is to sit through, especially the furious and desperate final twenty minutes, I am very very glad that I did.

Edited to add: here is my response to a comment made below by minnehaha B, who asked me, extremely reasonably, why on earth I would want to take my knowledge and memories of the event and replace them with a fictional dramatization designed to push all my buttons? I replied:

Another specific reason that I went to see the film is that I just finished reading Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. The book included a discussion of a study of some children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California "playing the Purdy game." This was a case where a perpetrator named Patrick Purdy stood at a playground's edge and sprayed hundreds of bullets at the children playing there. Five died and twenty-nine were wounded.

In the ensuing months, the "Purdy game" appeared spontaneously in the play of boys and girls at the school, where the children reenacted the tragedy. Sometimes they played it so that the children killed Purdy.

The psychologists figured out that story is part of the way that children heal from PTSD, by emotional re-learning:

One way this emotional healing seems to occur spontaneously--at least in children--is through games such as Purdy. These games, played over and over again, let children relive a trauma safely, as play. This allows two avenues for healing: on the one hand, a memory repeats in a context of low anxiety, desensitizing it and allowing a nontraumatized set of responses to become associated with it. Another route to healing is that, in their minds, children can magically give the tragedy another, better outcome: sometimes in playing Purdy, the children kill him, boosting their sense of mastery over that traumatic moment of helplessness."

You can argue that I am not a child, and that I didn't actually 'live' through the events of United 93 personally. Very true. But this rang really true to me, and reading this chapter was part of the reason that I went to see the movie. I have always had enormous respect for the healing effects of story and have personally used it for emotional purposes previously myself--witness how I continually return to the same books when I am distressed about something.

I think this movie is partly our nation "playing Purdy" from the trauma of 9/11.

Anyway, the chapter is titled "Trauma and Emotional Relearning," if you'd like to look at it.

Understand: processing by re-telling (and even re-shaping) story is a way I process things. For me, seeing it was the right decision. But I also understand and freely accept that Your Mileage May Vary.

Edited to add again: And do me the courtesy of at least believing that I understand that the movie includes fiction mixed with fact, dammit.

Edited to add again: All right, people. No more comments on this post, if you please. Because, you know, I've just about had enough. Yes, I am being dictatorial, but hey, it's my journal and I get to do that. The ushers are sweeping up the popcorn and the projectionist has left the building. If you would like to discuss this further, please take it to your own journals. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Management

Comments

[fmsv.livejournal.com]

I've got to admit that I've got doubts about seeing it in a theater. Not so much for the movie itself, but more for the reactions of the other audience members. (My major worry is that I'd encounter people that confuse patriotism with adulation of the current administration, and get pumped up in that mindset from seeing the film, and I don't think I'm ready to deal with that.)
(I don't think the filmmakers are going that route (none of the ads for the film that I've seen suggest that), but the subject itself carries a pretty strong emotional charge.)

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Well, from my experience, the movie grips you so tightly that you are not aware of the rest of the audience; you even lose sight of it being a movie. You are there. People were very quiet; I never heard a "yeah, go get him!" cheer or anything like that. When the lights came up, I heard people crying mostly very quietly. Some left immediately, some (like me) sat, stunned, through the credits.

Nobody seemed to be speaking as they left. I think they were all affected too deeply.

[laurel]

I really can't see that happening and it makes me sad that you think some people would have that sort of reaction (okay, maybe some would, but I think it'd be very rare).

Peg's account of reactions matches what I'd expect and I think it'd be the same all across the political spectrum.

[ame-chan.livejournal.com]

I can't go see it. But I'm really glad that you did and that you shared your feelings about it here. IT is good to hear your perspective.

[sternel.livejournal.com]

The day I'm on the LIRR commuting into Manhattan for work, and my eyes don't automatically move to the empty place in the skyline, is the day I will go see that movie. Until that day comes, it will be too soon for me.

[laurel]

I was glad to read so many positive reviews for this film, because I feared the worse given the writer/director (who did such awful direction for The Bourne Supremacy and whose style there made me motion sick).

I'm not sure if I'm going to go see it or not, but I'm interested in hearing other people's reactions and find yours a useful data point to add to the ones I have so far.

[kiwiria.livejournal.com]

I'm still wondering if I want to see it in the theaters or not. I know I want to see it, but like "Der Untergang" I may want to wait until I can do it in the security of my home.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

This all strikes me as odd. Why would you want to take your knowledge and memories of the facts and replace them with a fictional dramatization designed to push all of your emotional buttons? I mean, I know we live in a crass commercial world, but it feels way to blatent.

Why would someone pay money to be manipulated like that? I just don't understand it.

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Just reading the comments here creep me out. It's like people actually believe that they're going to see what happened on the plane, not what Hollywood believes will people will pay the most money to see...not what screenwriters and directors and actors are pretending happened on the plane.

And it's not just this movie. I wonder how many people believe that Oliver Stone's movie about JFK's assassination is the truth?

B

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Another specific reason that I went to see the film is that I just finished reading Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. The book included a discussion of a study of some children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California "playing the Purdy game." This was a case where a perpetrator named Patrick Purdy stood at a playground's edge and sprayed hundreds of bullets at the children playing there. Five died and twenty-nine were wounded.

In the ensuing months, the "Purdy game" appeared spontaneously in the play of boys and girls at the school, where the children reenacted the tragedy. Sometimes they played it so that the children killed Purdy.

The psychologists figured out that story is part of the way that children heal from PTSD, by emotional re-learning:

One way this emotional healing seems to occur spontaneously--at least in children--is through games such as Purdy. These games, played over and over again, let children relive a trauma safely, as play. This allows two avenues for healing: on the one hand, a memory repeats in a context of low anxiety, desensitizing it and allowing a nontraumatized set of responses to beome associated with it. Another route to healing is that, in their minds, children can magically give the tragedy another, better outcome: sometimes in playing Purdy, the children kill him, boosting their sense of mastery over that traumatic moment of helplessness."

You can argue that I am not a child, and that I didn't actually 'live' through the events of United 93 personally. But this rang really true to me, and reading this chapter was part of the reason that I went to see the movie. I have always had enormous respect for the healing effects of story.

I think this movie is partly our nation "playing Purdy" from the trauma of 9/11.

Anyway, the chapter is titled "Trauma and Emotional Relearning," if you'd like to look at it.

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

Why would my uncle --who was involved in D-Day-- go see Saving Private Ryan?

[aome.livejournal.com]

Given that I hate flying, I can't bring myself to see any airplane movies (except "Airplane"), much less any airplane movies that have tension on them. I don't want to be there for real, much less imagine that I'm there through the wonder of TV or movies. To watch something really scary on an airplane, no matter how well done or what purpose it serves, is beyond me. I'll pass. It feels a bit soon to me for such a movie to have been made, but I'm glad you felt it was done well.

[eal.livejournal.com]

I'm that way :)

I'm also that way about movies with drowning in them. A good friend of mine drowned when we were 14, and I just can't stand watching what she might have gone through as she was dying. Just can't do it.

I applaud Peg's courage, though! It seemed like Peg needed to see it and it's important to honor her conviction, her choices, and her decision.

M

[pooka50.livejournal.com]

I loved Emotional Intelligence, though I'm not sure if I got to that chapter. But the neuro physiology chapters had a profound impact on my mental self-care.

I'm kind of new to some of these connectivity features to livejournal. I was reading Xnera's. I do want to see United 93.

[francli.livejournal.com]

Sorry to Add on, but did the film have much Arabic in it? If I'm going to get my husband to go it would help to know.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Yes, it had some. The highjackers did not talk very much. Some was translated, some was not.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I don't watch movies of real events that happened in my lifetime.

I don't watch airplane-disaster movies.

I don't watch movies, fictional or otherwise, that I suspect will cause me--a very visual person--to envision even more vividly things that I can hardly bare to envision as it is.

I won't be seeing this movie, ever.

This Is Waaaaay Off Topic, But...

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

...Chris told me about the time he went to see Wild At Heart (back when in was living in NYC) and there was a chase scene in the movie that passed the very theatre he was watching it in....

Also I thought it was a little weird the first time I saw Apollo 13 bumpty-bump years after seeing the real thing blast off.

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

There's a part of me that sits back and looks at how "we're" handling the whole September 11th thing. I'm guessing that this is my way of handling it... I think it's interesting that it seems (IMHO) that the Twin Towers (which was a phrase I didn't hear until The-Day-The-Motherfuckers-Flew-The-Planes-Into-The-Buildings) seems to be the defacto symbol of "TDTMFTPITB".

[redbird]

They do seem to be the symbol--which makes sense in terms of visual thinking, because the damage to the Pentagon was repairable, and planes have crashed in fields before. The other visual effect is a lot harder to reproduce on a poster in a way that will make the connection--the empty skies, for a few days during the "total ground standdown," a weird thing to see in a major city with as many airports as we have.

Those weren't especially loved buildings, as architecture or for long history, but they were familiar to a lot of people, from movies and television even when not from real life. Coming into the city from Queens in the couple of years afterwards, I would find myself glancing at the skyline, to make sure the rest of it--and in particular the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings--was still intact.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

a memory repeats in a context of low anxiety, desensitizing it and allowing a nontraumatized set of responses to beome associated with it.

For some people, perhaps, and for situations the people were actually part of (as in the Purdy case). Not for me. If I wasn't involved in the situation, a movie like this causes me more anxiety, fear, horror, whatever, than just hearing about it or reading about it ever does. If I was involved in the situation, even peripherally, repeating the memory, no matter what the context, never takes away its power. Nor do I necessarily want it to.

Another route to healing is that, in their minds, children can magically give the tragedy another, better outcome:

Except that in a movie based on real events, either it has the same outcome or it's a lie. No healing there.

If it works for you, great. But for me, seeing on the screen things that it gives me pain just to think about is in no way helpful.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Understood, and that's just fine. [I was going to say that you shouldn't let anyone talk you into going then, but then I realized saying this is unnecessary. I can't imagine anyone talking you into doing something that you don't want to do.]

Well, yeah

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

Distinguishing between fact and fiction is what people are supposed to do.

And, perhaps, to understand when fiction points to truth. Uncle Tom's Cabin wasn't a documentary (not possible at the time, obviously) or a history (entirely possible at the time), and every detail in it was, quite literally, untrue, as it was, well, fiction. And it left out much of what was happening at the time, choosing to portray the worst of slavery that the public would tolerate the representation of.

It did, of course, leave out a lot of routine bad stuff.

But it was, all in all, and with some lacunae, a fair picture of some of what was wrong with the toleration of chattel slavery.

I can imagine some people arguing something to the effect of, "Why would you want to read Mrs. Stowe's latest work. Why get yourself all worked up over something that is fictional -- you'll act as those things really happened, rather than having been made up by some wild-eyed abolitionist fanatic."

Re: Well, yeah

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

There is a difference, is there not, between a fictional story about the kinds of things that happen in certain situations and a story that purports to tell what happened in one particular real-life instance? Isn't Uncle Tom's Cabin the former and this movie the latter?

[heavenscalyx.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Peg. I'm interested in reactions to this movie, but I won't go see it. There's part of me that cringes from the commercialization of tragedy, and part of me that cringes from dramatic depictions of real people.

I know that if they'd made a movie of Flight 11, I would really, really not want to see how they depicted my former coworker. I wonder how the families and friends of the Flight 93 people are coping.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

Fascinating discussion. I haven't seen it, but my immediate reaction to the IDEA of the movie is similar to minnehaha. Why would you want to replace your actual memories of an important event with fictionalized ones? Especially on a topic that is such a political hot button already? What, do you people just LIKE being emotionally manipulated for political ends?

On the other hand, your point about using story to process traumatic events and perhaps make them easier to live with is well taken. There was another crashing airplane movie maybe 15 or 20 years ago (?) that ended up demonstrating this phenomenon, albeit accidentally. Maybe somebody here remembers it.

The airplane disaster was trivial by comparison to Flight 93. Actually, it was only a NEAR-disaster. A commercial jet flight suddenly dropped several hundred feet so abruptly that it not only scared the passengers half to death, it permanently injured some of them due to the multi-G forces on neck and spine. The pilots managed to pull the plane out of free fall, but there was a class-action lawsuit by the traumatized passengers. Ultimately it got made into a tv-movie (probably a pretty boring one, since it was mostly about the lawsuit).

Here's the interesting part. The guys that made the movie were so obsessed with portraying the passengers' experience realistically that they brought a bunch of them onto the set as consultants. They built a big vibrating-about-to-shake-apart airplane simulator and had their consultants test it out. Over and over again, while they tuned the effects. They weren't doing this as therapy for the passengers, they were just trying to get the special effects right. The passenger/consultants reported that it was really scary the first time they sat in that crashing-airplane simulator, but each time they went back it got less scary (although more realistic, presumably). By the time they were done with the gig, they noticed that their lingering PSTD symptoms were much relieved.

SO... I think you and minnehaha both have perfectly valid viewpoints. Like B, I don't respond to distant disaster with a powerful first-person emotional reaction. But clearly, many people do. I think you've done a good job speaking for the folks that process the news that way (although, frankly, I only dimly understand it). B has done a good job of articulating the reaction of those of us at the other extreme. I'm glad to hear that the movie was made with artistic restraint and integrity. Maybe I'll watch it someday, maybe not. If I do, it will just be as a movie, not as therapy or as history.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Why would you want to replace your actual memories of an important event with fictionalized ones?

There may be some kind of dividing line implicit in that question, with you, me, and minnehaha B. (or maybe both of them) on one side, and some folks on the other.

I don't want my memories changed, or ameliorated, or in any way made easier to live with. Nor do I want to substitute other people's memories for mine--or in this case to substitute some filmmaker's idea of what those people's memories would be if they had lived to have memories. As I have mentioned before, the best summary of my viewpoint is what Kirk said: "They're the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don't want my pain taken away! I need my pain!"

What I don't need is other people's pain. My imagination--or empathy, or something--provides me with plenty of it; just caring about those around me provides plenty of it. I'm not going to seek it out. And I'm certainly not going to trade in my own memories of seeing, hearing, feeling what I did on that day for someone else's pseudo-memories of an event that neither of us actually participated in.

[kijjohnson.livejournal.com]

You know, I sometimes think that the best way to post is with no comments allowed, ever. It changes the nature of the communication from a highly specific form of conversation back to monologue (which is what writing is). That's either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the day and the topic.:g:.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

See my comment to ivyblossom here.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"And do me the courtesy of at least believing that I understand that the movie includes fiction mixed with fact, dammit."

I would hope that no one accused you of not understanding that.

But your comment sparks an interesting question. Given that we don't know much of the facts about what happened -- only a paragraph-long plot summary -- how are we supposed to know which parts of the movie are fact and which are fiction?

At least Neal Stephenson included a glossary at the end of his books that stated which of his characters were real and which were fictional.

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

The flight recorder and the cockpit voice recorder, as well as some telephone conversations made via cell from the plane were taped. Anyone know if the filmmakers had access to these records, or if they had to rely on quizzing the family members and (possibly the) NTSB for whom the cockpit voice recording was played?

K. [and now the jury and courtroom filled with people at the Moussaoui trial have heard the cockpit recording, too. I wouldn't be surprised if a) it's not on the net, and b) if future similar recordings from plane crashes become public]

[coyotegoth.livejournal.com]

I've been anticipating- and trying to imagine- such a film for the last five years. Francis Ford Coppola has been saying for ages now that Hollywood needs to examine 9/11, and I thnk that that's ultimately correct- that movies are such a fundamental part of our lives and our cultural heritage that for this subject not to be touched on (and granted, it would be the easiest subject in the world for someone to treat simplistically/exploitatively/xenophobically), encourages us to avoid so much as thinking about it. Ultimately, at least for myself (I speak as a New Yorker who couldn't attend an action movie for months, albeit one who is ultimately far less traumatized by 9/11 than many people I know personally), I think examining this subject is an important thing for Hollywood to attempt.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I thnk that that's ultimately correct- that movies are such a fundamental part of our lives and our cultural heritage that for this subject not to be touched on ... encourages us to avoid so much as thinking about it.

Do you really mean what you seem to say here: that we are unlikely to so much as think about anything that doesn't have a movie made about it?

It's the very fact that even without a movie people can't stop thinking about it, haven't been able to for 5 years, that's causing many of the objections to this movie.

[sternel.livejournal.com]

Not expressing any opinions in this, just a question: I was just wondering, as newyorkers is discussing this film for today's Freestyle Friday, if I could quote your description of the Purdy game? As I haven't read the book you cite your description is the only source I have at the moment and I don't want to go quoting you without getting your permission first, especially on this issue. Thanks, Peg. (And happy birthday!)

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

You are welcome to do so. The blockquote paragraph is a direct quotation from the book.

And thanks!