![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Just got back from seeing "United 93"
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![[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.
no subject
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
no subject
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
Sorry to have added to the foofaraw.
no subject
But no, not enraged, just trying to discuss. But I'll certainly stop. Here, at least.
no subject
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
(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
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.)