Just got back from seeing "United 93"
Apr. 26th, 2006 10:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pegkerrI 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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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:
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 03:55 am (UTC)(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.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 04:08 am (UTC)Nobody seemed to be speaking as they left. I think they were all affected too deeply.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:37 am (UTC)K.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 08:23 am (UTC)one of the few times you're very with me
Date: 2006-04-27 10:35 pm (UTC)I'm quite certain I don't know you, and I do not understand what you mean.
K. [wondering if you are confusing me with
Re: one of the few times you're very with me
Date: 2006-04-27 10:41 pm (UTC)B
Re: one of the few times you're very with me
Date: 2006-05-01 04:37 am (UTC)You're in a bunch of journals I read (though mostly Peg's). And basically, when you react to things, it seems as if we have different worldviews. (I mean, B moreso than you, but it's still true of you, too.) I don't really /know/ if we do or not, not having interacted with you much in any venue, but from a surface scan, it does seem so.
(By the way, I will take the opportunity to note that, from an outsider's perspective, I really don't understand why you guys /don't/ have separate journals. (Particularly if you think LJ people you don't personally know /are/ prone to confusing you two.) I assume there's a story behind it, or at least a logic?)
Re: one of the few times you're very with me
Date: 2006-05-01 04:57 am (UTC)K.
Re: one of the few times you're very with me
Date: 2006-05-01 05:04 am (UTC)I only asked because journal sharing is somewhat out of the ordinary.
(Thanks.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 08:23 am (UTC)B
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 11:39 am (UTC)And if that's not the very definition of "exploitative", I don't know what is. Would this film be anywhere near as "powerful" if it were understood to be entirely fictional?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 02:14 pm (UTC)Also, I gather that it isn't entirely fictional--I don't know how close it comes to the true story (and doubt I will go see it), but it is connected to events that actually happened.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 04:29 pm (UTC)The pain of the people directly affected by 9/11 is being adopted by the entire country. Since that day there has been a propaganda machine at work, and this film is capitalizing on that. There have been lots of really horrible tragedies over the years, but none of them have stirred up so much victimhood across such a large population.
If you're watching this film because you feel it will purge you of your demons, please ask yourself where those demons are coming from, and who created them. Is this film purging them, or building its revenue off the fact that so many people believe that all the events of 9/11 were really about them?
Sorry Peg, obviously these issues stir up strong feelings for everyone.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:03 pm (UTC)There's documented evidence that incidences of ASD (Acute Stress Disorder) and PTSD increased after 9/11, nationwide.
You can (and I would) argue that this is becuase people were glued to their TV sets, but to say that they should not /have/ PTSD, because they should not be so attached to America as a notion, is dismissive and unkind to quite a large number of people.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:07 pm (UTC)I'm not trying to be unkind; I'm trying to say that it's apparent from the outside there there is a lot of high level posturing to encourage that level of victim-creation. This film seems to me to be capitalizing on that fact.
America as a notion! Is that in jeopardy? Why are so many people encouraged to think that it is?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:14 pm (UTC)On the other hand, I repeat that what happened did cause very real trauma. I think you can be angry about the manipulation of the media and the popular consciousness without dismissing the trauma that's all too apparent in many circles. That's all.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:50 pm (UTC)You can make different decisions than I do.
I can see that my decision to see the movie enrages you. I'm sorry, but as I said in my original post I couldn't and won't speak for anyone else but myself on whether they should see this movie, but for me seeing it was the right decision. I would appreciate receiving the same respect from you. You may not understand it, you may think it's wrong, but my going to see this movie was not a whim, not an impulse and not a lark, but a carefully considered decision. I would ask you, as a friend, to please respect my point of view and leave off trying to convince me I was wrong to do so.
I stand by my decision.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:53 pm (UTC)Sorry to have added to the foofaraw.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:57 pm (UTC)But no, not enraged, just trying to discuss. But I'll certainly stop. Here, at least.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 06:23 pm (UTC)Good.
I have strong feelings about this
Well, yes, I can see that. And of course, such a deeply felt topic naturally invites that doesn't it?
and I thought you were posting about this, and leaving the comments open, in order to stimulate discussion about it.
Well, yes, I was. I got a little more discussion than I bargained for, however, I will admit!
I respect your decision to see the film,
Thank you.
and I'm sorry if I'm coming across as harsh. Not to plead hormones, but I'm getting shot full of them right now and I'm pretty overwrought in all areas of my life, so I apologize if that tone is coming across here.
But no, not enraged, just trying to discuss.
Understood, and I appreciate the clarification; I think we understand each other better now. You know that I like discussions, too, and by all means I do welcome your input in my journal and hope you will continue to comment. Thanks.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 06:28 pm (UTC)(I went off my meds in august and just got back on 3 weeks ago, and my meds are the pill. And this is a new pill. Yay synthetic hormones! Argh.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:52 pm (UTC)I continue to be disturbed that you /do/ dismiss the trauma of others, however. Certainly, a good deal of it is supported by the rhetoric surrounding the event. It doesn't mean the trauma isn't any less real, though.
And what you're quite directly saying is that Peg, among others, is uncritically swallowing the messages provided to her whole, and I'm uncomfortable with that sort of insulting assertion.
(Oh-- As to your question of why this event and not others-- Well, for one thing, it did /kill/ quite a few people (more than the other WTC attack, to be sure), and the images were quite stark. And also, unlike Oklahoma City, there was a specific antagonist to lash out against.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 06:26 pm (UTC)I should note that I'm posting this from New York City. I know someone who is alive today only because we had a primary election and she voted before work, and thus hadn't arrived at the World Trade Center when the planes hit. And someone else who seriously considered getting a tattoo with the names of the 14 coworkers he lost that day. I'm lucky--nobody I know died there, and I was uptown that day, not stuck in the subway with vague announcements about "police activity at Chambers Street" and eventually coming up to the street level to see the smoke.
Everyone I know here spent time, those days, checking in and assuring people all over the world that we were still alive. I have never been so glad I don't own a television as in September 2001--I saw the horrible images, but not over and over.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 04:14 pm (UTC)Or consider Joshua Chamberlain -- not just at Little Round Top, but later rising from what his doctors said was his death bed . . .
And so forth.
A reason that this movie quite clearly scares some people is the fear that it might be imperative -- that it's not merely a bunch of folks doing a bunch of things, not simply matter in motion, but it's an object lesson that might inform future behavior; an infectious historical meme, like, say, Thermopylae or Masada or Roarke's Drift, or Lexington and Concord, or American history balanced on the shoulders of a middle-aged rhetoric teacher ordering an exhausted, horribly depleted regiment to fix bayonets . . .
I dunno. Maybe they've got something to worry about.
I'd like to think so, but what happens very irregularly corresponds to what I'd like to have happen.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:12 pm (UTC)B
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:04 am (UTC)Peg's account of reactions matches what I'd expect and I think it'd be the same all across the political spectrum.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 11:31 pm (UTC)Rush Limbaugh: "'The overwhelming emotion I had was sheer anger at the terrorists, bordering on hatred,' Limbaugh said."
The National Review: "Periodically, I want to remember, to be reminded of everything of that day, to know what this war we're fighting is all about, and what the world can be during its worst hours and what individuals can be at their finest hours. I wonder how many other folks feel like that."
Blogs for Bush: "How many of you are going? Does anyone really think it is too soon? Personally, I think it's nearly too late...too long we have forgotten That Day, and what it meant...to the point now where we are a hopelessly divided nation...though, perhaps this film will start a re-unifiction on the issue of fighting terrorism."
I'll stop at three. But honestly, just search any conservative blog and you'll find the same sorts of stuff. Not only will "some people have that sort of reaction," but very influential Republicans have already had that sort of reaction in public.
B
First it's for the money...
Date: 2006-04-27 11:44 pm (UTC)Except for the "not" part, you're almost certainly right. People often do things for many reasons, and I'm confident that at least some people involved in this movie had both of the reasons that you're suggesting, and many more. (I doubt that Todd Beamer's father is in it for the money, but his WSJ piece makes it clear that he's supporting the movie because of its implicit political agenda.)
Political agenda's aren't exactly unknown in didactic fiction, or didactic nonfiction. (This movie, from early reports, is pretty clearly a fair historical, taking very few liberties with known facts, and with fair if unknowable implications from the facts.)
My guess is that the political implications and potential popular political influence of it are the source of much of the objections to it, roughly for the same reasons that many people found that awful Mrs. Stowe's rabble-rousing novel so disturbing. (My own guess is that they've far less to worry about than they think that they do, but I'm a cynic, after all.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-28 01:41 am (UTC)Honestly, I haven't the slightest bit of problem with people being angered by the movie (and/or the events portrayed in it)-- that seems a logical thing to me. I didn't expect the terrorists to be portrayed in such a way that one would root for them (unless, you know, you're a terrorist or someone very much for their cause).
I also don't have a problem with any of those quotes. (Do you? Why? Perhaps that's a conversation better had in person. I'm really trying to understand this stuff, but few people will ever discuss these things with me). Note I haven't gone and read the entire pieces.
If
Hrm. Not sure I'm being clear, sorry.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-28 01:45 am (UTC)B
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 04:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 04:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:01 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 06:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 08:02 am (UTC)Why would someone pay money to be manipulated like that? I just don't understand it.
B
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 08:06 am (UTC)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
Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-27 08:17 am (UTC)Rob
Re: Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-27 08:21 am (UTC)It's bad enough that the news media amplifies terrorist acts and makes them much more effective. It's worse when Hollywood does it.
B
Re: Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-27 05:31 pm (UTC)Rob
Re: Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-27 10:14 pm (UTC)B
Re: Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-27 05:53 pm (UTC)Re: Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-27 10:17 pm (UTC)I personally didn't, and still don't, care if you saw the movie or not. It never occured to me that this conversation was about that.
B
Re: Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-27 10:58 pm (UTC)(Well, that's what it seemed that you were saying!)
I'd be interested in hearing (though perhaps
Re: Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-27 11:00 pm (UTC)I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you don't actually want an answer to this question.
"IMHO, a new and different version of a fantasy/myth-based fictional story, an admittedly fictionalized version of historical events, and a purportedly accurate (to the extent it can possibly be known) story of historical events are very different critters."
I think there are differences, but that they're all different instantiations of the same general issue.
B
Re: Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-28 01:52 am (UTC)I think people already are confused about facts because the supposed facts differ depending on which news outlet you pay attention to (as well as which radio shows you listen to or weblogs you read). There's the whole "Let's Roll" thing and all sorts of stories that seem to have been tweaked one way or another.
Of course there are actual transcripts of some stuff that happened on the plane and at air traffic control, etc. and one can hope that hasn't been messed with by anyone.
Anyway. Some critics and viewers will say they feel the movie is really accurate, others will say it isn't-- people will sometimes believe these assessments without knowing how these assessments were made (how much does the critic know about what really happened? have they read the transcriptss?). And so on.
Hmmm. I wonder if the History Channel will do a History vs. Hollywood episode about this movie. If you aren't familiar with the show, it's very much what it sounds like-- a bunch of historians point out differences between fact and the fictionalized version of it. I usually find the show fascinating.
Of course any time I see a movie or show based on or about some real life occurence, it just makes me incredibly curious about what actually happened and I usually end up doing research after the fact. But then I grew up in a household where my Dad would often point out inaccuracies in movies and applaud movies that fit history better, etc.
It's hard for me to imagine people would see a movie and have that replace their own personal recollections, I would think they'd be more critical of the movie if they lived through or felt they knew the story. I'm sure it does happen tho.
There were already TV movies about Flight 93, I didn't screen it though. I believe one was more documentary and one was more Tv movie.
Re: Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-28 02:00 am (UTC)Bet you anything that will happen, often. Of course the movie will replace their own personal recollections. The movie will be more vivid. The movie will be more exciting. The movie will be true-to-life, much more than life itself. No one's personal recollections include being on that airplane; they're just stories from here and there, glued together with suppositions and hypotheticals. Of course the movie will replace that. How could it not?
B
Re: Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-28 02:13 am (UTC)Interesting. I'm thinking "how could it, it's just a movie?"
I mean, no one survived that crash. No one is alive who knows what really happened. Yes, there is a recording of some of what happened, but the recording covers just a small part of what transpired. So it stands to reason that the movie doesn't tell all, it's just guesses. (I read an article somewhere-- maybe from the IMDB someplace-- that the actors playing the roles of passengers were given background info and whatever facts they did have about what happened, and then in some scenes they improvised how they thought the characters would react.)
And of course sometimes even with decent source material, movies based on fact veer off into fiction pretty regularly or just by nature of the casting. They cast this film with a lot of unknowns and lesser-known actors, and some people played themselves-- which I think was a good choice. I mean, they couldn't have had Bruce Willis as Todd Beamer or anything like that, that would be wildly distracting (if any of these actors make it big someday, that will happen with future viewings).
Of course I don't doubt there are some people who will let some parts of the movie stay with them or supersede their experiences or what they know of the facts. But someone would have to be pretty dumb to confuse this movie with a documentary or think that the segment on the plane is acurate. I'm just saying, is all.
Much as I love movies and TV, I also pay close attention to the difference between fact and fiction. Or at least I try my best. I hope I'm not alone!
Re: Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-28 02:18 am (UTC)Of course you're not alone, but you're in a far smaller minority than you think you are.
One random example: Courtrooms all over the country report that juries now expect CSI-life forensics and are suspicious when they don't get them, and don't believe it when judges tell them that it doesn't work that way in real life.
B
Re: Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-28 02:27 am (UTC)Couple that with my tendency to defend everyone and to always give the benefit of the doubt . . . sigh.
I have to believe the smart or at least well-intentioned people outnumber the rest. Or at least I really want to.
(The CSI thing doesn't surprise me).
Of course we can't blame filmmakers and tv showrunners for the fact that some people erroneously believe what they put out there is fact. (Can we? Is there a line somewhere?)
Re: Movie tickets
Date: 2006-04-28 09:31 am (UTC)"Of course we can't blame filmmakers and tv showrunners for the fact that some people erroneously believe what they put out there is fact. (Can we? Is there a line somewhere?)"
Blame is a complicated responsible. Certainly there are all sorts of causes, but I can't point to one proximate cause...or one person or group that deserves "blame." There's certainly a lot of blame to go around, but mostly I think it is a natural effect of the social systems we have in place.
B
Blaming film makers
Date: 2006-04-28 01:58 pm (UTC)K.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 11:35 am (UTC)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:
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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 11:38 am (UTC)And I have read a great deal about the flight, and I believe I know what parts were speculation and what parts were not. I realize that is not true of everyone.
re: "Emotional Intellegence"
Date: 2006-04-27 12:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 03:00 pm (UTC)Ring Around the Rosie
Date: 2006-04-27 10:47 pm (UTC)K.
Re: Ring Around the Rosie
Date: 2006-04-28 01:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:18 pm (UTC)B
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 12:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:10 pm (UTC)B
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-28 01:37 am (UTC)Ta.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 07:38 pm (UTC)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
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 12:22 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 12:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 12:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 01:02 pm (UTC)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...
Date: 2006-04-27 01:08 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 02:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:43 pm (UTC)I did see JFK, though, on an airplane I think.
B
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 01:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 02:19 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 01:22 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 01:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 02:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:10 pm (UTC)I do, however, respect Peg's desire to work through it in the ways that evidence shows work for her.
Putting on my 'student of PTSD' hat, modifying the outcome, for kids, is a way of working through the tragedy emotionally. It's not a lie, because they also, at the same time, know the actual facts surrounding their reality, but this is a way to move through the grief and to process it enough not to be overwhelmed by it.
Well, yeah
Date: 2006-04-27 02:10 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2006-04-27 03:00 pm (UTC)Re: Well, yeah
Date: 2006-04-27 03:51 pm (UTC)Historical narratives -- a narrow kind of historical fiction -- aren't exactly uncommon. Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels comes to mind. Shaara wasn't around to record the words (or, for that matter, the thoughts) of his (largely but not totally fictional) characters.
Consider, for a moment, the miniseries Band of Brothers. and the remarkable (nonfiction) book on which it was based. Most -- but not all -- of the characters shown in the series were intended to represent specific real people (all of the 506th PIR soldiers representing real, specific folks; a few of the American officers senior to them were; very few others).
Basically none of the dialogue was contemporaneously recorded, and many of the microincidents were fictional creations (that so-and-so ran into that particular foxhole and had a conversation with that specific other guy, say).
On the other hand, the broad -- and many of the fine -- outlines of what happened, and to whom and when, are supported by the historical record, even though probaby less than 1% if the dialogue is.
Which means that, sure, it's not a documentary or even a recreation -- even though some of the cinematography was done specifically to make it feel like a documentary (the color pallet, some of the camera usage, etc.).
A legitimate criticism, I think, would be -- for either -- that the dialogue or other parts of the movies are inconsistent with what's known about what went on, or misleading. The Band Of Brothers series was criticized -- legitimately -- for the simplistic treatment of Herbert Sobel, which perhaps exaggerated his flaws and pretty much certainly minimized not only his virtues, but what Easy saw as his virtues (the men generally credited him with having trained them well, and made them effective later on; that doesn't come through on the screen).
The onboard dialogue on Flight 93 could be legitimately criticized as being inconsistent with what's known about what went on, if that's the case.
But criticizing the writer of Flight 93 for things like putting invented dialogue in the mouths of the characters is sort of like criticizing a stage production of "Harvey" because the lighting makes the rabbit somewhat difficult to see.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 03:24 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:03 pm (UTC)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
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:57 pm (UTC)There may be some kind of dividing line implicit in that question, with you, me, and
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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 05:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:23 pm (UTC)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
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 11:00 pm (UTC)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]
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-28 01:58 am (UTC)I don't know which, if any, of the tapes they had access to. Would be good to know. (Time to hit the net . . . )
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 11:06 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-28 02:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-28 02:54 pm (UTC)And thanks!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-28 03:30 pm (UTC)