 |
|
United 93 Feedback
Eli from Chicago wrote in Wednesday wondering why we didn't
read/discuss any "United 93" feedback on Filmspotting #101. With all
the 100th episode hoopla, my vacation last week, Sam's vacation this
week... we've just had too much to fit in recently and not enough
time to do it.
So I thought I'd use this edition of The Dope Sheet to share some of your thoughts... starting with Eli:
United 93 suffers from a serious identity crisis. It's almost as if Greengrass wanted to make a documentary, but realized that he didn't have the necessary footage. This film is not a documentary, but it behaves as if it were one. And herein lies the problem. Instead of giving us an insightful emotional interpretation of the events of 9-11, Greengrass tries to put us there. And in so doing, he misunderstands the purpose of narrative filmmaking. The central point of narrative filmmaking is not to fool the audience into thinking that they are experiencing the events depicted. Rather, it is to engage an audience emotionally and intellectually in ways that a documentary cannot. When I watched United 93, I was certainly emotionally engaged, but not in a way that was significantly different from when I read the 9-11 commission report, or heard the real recordings of the passengers calling their loved ones ... I guess we're going to have to wait for Oliver Stone's film to really do the events of 9-11 narrative justice.
Adam: Really interesting thoughts, Eli... and well
articulated. We could quibble over how much of an "interpretation"
Greengrass gives us, but as far as being emotionally and
intellectually engaged -- I absolutely was, and in a way that I can't
imagine reading the 9/11 Commission Report could provide. Frankly,
I'm dreading Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" even more than I was
"United 93," and not just because I actually trust Greengrass more as
a filmmaker these days than Stone. Using a more traditional narrative
style, Stone is going to "interpret" events that on some level
probably can't be and don't need to be interpreted in order to be
challenging and engaging. When I hear the swelling string music and
see all the heroic shots in the
WTC trailer
... THAT feels somehow shameful to me. You're taking a truly
horrific, unfathomable event and essentially turning it into
"Armageddon." Hopefully the film will prove my fears to be wrong.
For a nice counter to Eli's argument, here's an email from Dan:
I had to write in with my own experience after hearing your
coverage of UNITED 93. It affected me deeply both as a New Yorker who
lived through the tragedies at home, and as a documentary filmmaker
who's not easily shaken by what I see. I went in with some
hesitation, knowing full well the weight of the story and wondering
if it was too soon to watch this. To not get distracted, I went
alone. The theater was full, and as the film started, I honestly
didn't know what to expect. Deep into it I became aware of how fast
my heart was beating. Transfixed by the documentary style and the
lack of well-known actors, I lost myself in the story and was
surprised at my reaction as the second plane hit the tower. It tapped
into something I felt that tragic day; something I'd hidden away in
my memories. Suddenly I felt myself gasping, my eyes watering. People
were leaving; I could hear sobbing. When the credits started, I kept
staring ahead, everyone in the room in the same type of solemn
silence you encounter when standing in front of a memorial. Walking
out of the screening room I noticed sawdust on the floor, covering
what someone couldn't hold inside. It was intense. Walking over to
the vendor stand, I grabbed my cellphone with the urgent need to
speak with my girlfriend. Just wanted to hear her voice. I noticed
how shaken up I was as I dialed her number. Believe me I'm not trying
to sound dramatic; but this film physically affected me and most
people I know. Chances are I'll see it again. I tell my students to
go out and see it, in New York if possible, in a big screen, not only
to share in a deeply affecting communal experience, but also as
future filmmakers witnessing on several levels the impact of cinema.
|
|
|
| |
|
Scott Ferguson's Top 5 Performances
 Filmspotting would once again like to thank "Brokeback Mountain"
co-producer
Scott Ferguson for
generously contributing his Top 5 Male and Female Performances of the
Post-Studio Era to our
special 100th episode.
Scott also included three other lists that we wanted to share --
and agree with virtually across the board -- but just didn't have
time for on the show. There are so many great choices here,
especially Jean-Louis Trintignant in "The Conformist," which I single
out because in addition to the greatness of the film and
Trintignant's performance, you've also got standout performances by
two of the most striking actresses EVER -- Dominique Sanda and
Stefania Sandrelli (pictured). Sandrelli is even better in my
Overlooked DVD Pick of the Week -- the great social satire
"Divorce Italian Style"
(1962, Criterion Collection), starring another Scott Ferguson
selection... Marcello Mastroianni.
Top 5 Female Performances - Studio Era
1. Ingrid Bergman, Notorious
2. Marlene Dietrich, Shanghai Express
3. Rita Hayworth, Gilda
4. Bette Davis, All About Eve
5. Katharine Hepburn, The Philadelphia Story/Bringing Up Baby
Top 5 Male Performances - Studio Era
1. James Stewart (as John 'Scottie' Ferguson!), Vertigo
2. Humphrey Bogart, Casablanca/Treasure... Sierra Madre
3. Cary Grant, Notorious
4. John Wayne, The Searchers
5. Burt Lancaster, The Sweet Smell of Success
Top 5 Foreign-Language Performances
1. Marcello Mastroianni, La Dolce Vita
2. Emmanuelle Riva, Hiroshima Mon Amour
3. Jean-Louis Trintignant, The Conformist
4. Jeanne Moreau, Jules and Jim
5. Annie Girardot, Rocco and His Brothers
All-Time Favorite Performance(s)
Marlon Brando, Last Tango In Paris/On the Waterfront
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
