A Response to the Critics of United 93
Let me start by saying that I have great respect for Matt Zoller-Seitz and Dana Stevens as critics. And let me also add a word of sympathy on Seitz's recent loss, as well as a word of congratulation (hell, I'm excited) about Stevens' new spot as Slate's film critic.
But both writers—the two most prominently outspoken critics of Paul Greengrass' United 93—are sorely wrong in their assessment of the film. Knocking it for its neutrality and its unwillingness to dip into partisan squabbling, they both question why the film was made. Today at NRO, I respond:
United 93 doesn’t follow the rules of the politically correct playbook: The heroes are ordinary Americans, mostly white, who say prayers and love their families. They are lead by strong, quick-thinking males who understand that it is their duty as men to take violent, physical action against foreign attackers. The villains are religiously motivated Islamic terrorists who unabashedly celebrate news of the World Trade Center’s destruction and cry “In the name of God!” while slitting a flight attendant’s throat. A European-accented passenger who insists on negotiating is tackled when he tries to warn the terrorists of the other passengers’ plan to storm the cabin.
But for once, there can be no complaints about diversity, about male dominance, about “unbalanced” portrayals of foreign terrorists or any of the left’s other pet causes, because what the film shows is exactly what happened.
posted by Peter @ 5/02/2006 08:24:00 AM
7 Comments:
How much context should one show, indeed? The writers of Slate might like to show a "fuller picture" and "greater complexity and context" by inserting images of American dignitaries propping up the shah and the Saudis, and American bombs blowing up Arab targets (perhaps in the first Gulf War, the left is vague when they talk of violence blowback).
I'd say, let's include images of public stonings, chopping off hands, mutilations, and religiously-sanctioned rapes, all symptoms of the Arab world's turn to fundamentalism the last thirty years. Too much context for you, Slate?
I dont' think the critics are looking for leftist agitprop - just some kind of explanation "why" this happened.
I dont' think they need to be told who the bad guys are.
Funny no one in the Mainstream media wondered if it was too soon after 9-11 when Farenheit 9-11 was released...
Saying the bad guys are bad is NOT a sufficient answer to the question "why?".
What Stevens and Seitz (and the others, to a lesser extent) are saying, essentially, is "Why make a movie that doesn't take a stand on post 9/11 war on terror politics?" But their idea of a stand seems limited to explicit comment on the salient post 9/11 political issues, mainly the war in Iraq. The movie does take a stand, in its plainly convervative values, its memorialization of the dead, in its unblinking look at the absolute horror of 9/11. Maybe they weren't looking for leftist agitprop (although, with Stevens especially, I'm not certain), but they were clearly looking for something more politically contentious, hence the jabs at neutrality. But you don't go to the Vietnam memorial looking for an anti-Nixon screed, and neither should you expect crass politicalization in a film about 9/11.
The "neutrality" is exactly what makes this movie so powerful .. rather than tack on some extra overt political message, Greengrass just told a very important story very, very well .. that in itself delivers the powerful message about why we are now in a constant state of war
I actually think "neutrality" is completely the wrong word. I get what the critics who use this word mean when they say it, but I think they're mistaking Greengass's faux-documentary, hands-off style for a lack of a political p.o.v.
I'm interested to find out if these critics wrote anything about Bloody Sunday, which is made in almost exactly the same style, but is not exactly "neutral" politically.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home