Movie vs. Reality: United 93
By Felix Quinonez Jr.
October 9, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
In each entry of this column I’m going to be looking at a different movie “based on a true story” or whatever phrasing is attached to it and compare it to the actual story. Hopefully I’ll be able to separate fact from Hollywood. But I’m also going to be talking about what those changes mean and why they were made. Do the changes have some artistic merit or are they just attempts to make the story fit into a neat Hollywood package?
There are some events in life that are so profound that their impacts never really go away. These moments divide life into before and after categories. One of the most defining tragedies of our lifetimes was the attacks of September 11, 2001. These attacks not only took the lives of almost 3,000 people and caused millions of dollars worth of damage, but also changed us as a nation.
It’s hard to overstate the impact of these attacks on the United States. They influenced and altered almost all assets of our lives and over a decade later we are still living in its shadow. It was a terrible realization of how vulnerable we are as a country. These attacks blanketed the nation in shock, fear, grief, and solidarity. But it also gave way to anger, paranoia, and a startling and frightening level of xenophobia masked as national pride.
A dark cloud hung over the nation that forced us to reexamine what mattered. Suddenly, everything we looked at was cast in a different light. Were we allowed to laugh and seek entertainment at a time of such tragedy? Was every flight a possible death sentence? Were there more attacks being planned? Were there possible terrorists living among us? Unfortunately, many people found themselves asking these questions and as grief gave way to anger, they sought someone to blame. Suddenly anyone who “looked like” a terrorist was a potential outlet for their frustrations.
The attacks affected everything, including the world of entertainment. Box office receipts showed that people weren’t ready to go to the movies yet. Bill Maher actually found himself without a job for making controversial statements about 9/11. It would be a long while before people were ready to see these events dramatized on the big screen.
United 93, directed by Paul Greengrass, was the first Hollywood production to be directly based on the tragedy. It recounts the harrowing events - with as much accuracy as possible - of the United 93 flight. The movie is shot in real time from the flight’s takeoff. When the movie was released on April of 2006 - less than five years after the attacks - it garnered near universal acclaim. Even though it was generally accepted that the movie was both respectful to the memory of those who died and a very good movie, it did not exactly set the box office on fire. It grossed just over $31 million domestically. For many people - like me - it was just too soon. The fact that it was shot in real time and in a documentary style made it that much harder to watch. I actually saw it for the first time before writing this column and it was still gut wrenching.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to completely decide what is or isn’t true in this case because no one on the flight survived. To prepare for their roles, the actors participated in face-to-face interviews with the families of those they would portray. The filmmakers also used the phone calls made by passengers to loved ones as a way to recreate the events of the flight. But no matter how thoroughly they researched - and they were very thorough - some liberties had to be taken.
What the Movie Got Right
On September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 was scheduled for a domestic flight from Newark International Airport in New Jersey, to San Francisco. But there were four hijackers on board the plane. Before takeoff, passengers were told that the flight would be delayed because of heavy flight traffic. About 46 minutes after takeoff, the hijackers made their move. One of them pulled out a fake bomb and the four of them took control of the flight. Holding sharp objects, they drove the passengers to the back of the plane to take over the cockpit.
One of the hijackers, Ziad Jarrah, a trained pilot, took over the aircraft and turned it around towards Washington DC. Amidst the chaos, several passengers began to suspect that the bomb was a fake. They were also able to make phone calls and found out that other planes had been hijacked. Having learned of the fate of the other hijacked planes, they slowly realized that these men had no intention of landing safely.
The passengers decided that they had to take matters into their own hands if they were to have any chance of surviving. They attempted to regain control of the airplane. There was a passenger on board who was a pilot; their plan was to have him land since the original pilots were now dead.
Although the passengers were able to successfully stop the hijackers from reaching their target, the plane crashed in a nearby field in Pennsylvania. No one survived. It was later revealed - through the recovered flight recorders - that the action of the passengers was what prevented the hijackers from succeeding. United Flight 93 was the only plane that did not reach the hijackers’ target.
But United 93 was also accurate in showing some of what happened off the plane. As The Washington Post pointed out, the movie was at times more honest than the government’s own account of these events. According to the government’s story, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) began tracking United 93 at 9:16 am but as it was later revealed the hijacking didn’t occur until 9:28 am. Another inaccuracy reported was that fighter jets were dispatched to intercept the plane. But, as the movie states, military commanders had not been notified that United Flight 93 was hijacked until four minutes after it had gone down. And the nearest fighter jets were 100 miles away.
What the Movie Got Wrong or Speculated
As I’ve stated before, the only people who could have confirmed what really happened on board are all gone. It is impossible to know exactly what did or didn’t happen. The movie had to indulge in some dramatization.
At the outset of the movie, we see the hijackers praying in their hotel room. Although this is not outright false, there is no way the filmmakers could have known exactly what they did that morning. And although there was a lot of research done for United 93, the film was finished before a transcript of the cockpit voice recording was released. This means those scenes had to be at the very least somewhat fabricated. In fact, they were mostly improvised by the cast.
Another possible inconsistency of the film is that it shows that the pilots were killed immediately after the hijackers take over the plane. But the transcript of the cockpit voice recorder tape, as well as moans heard in the background inside the cockpit meant they might not have died as early as the movie depicts. There is also evidence that suggests the passengers didn’t make it as far into the cockpit as the movie suggests. The movie depicts various passengers physically struggling with the hijacker flying the plane and this led to the crash. But it’s been reported that the hijacker crashed the plane because he knew the passengers were seconds away from reaching the cockpit.
The biggest and most confounding concession to drama has to be in the way the movie portrays a German passenger named Christian Adams. Adams, aged 37, was the Deputy Director of the German Wine Institute and director of its export department. He had a wife and two children and was flying to San Francisco for a wine-tasting event to showcase the 2000 vintages.
By all accounts, Adams was just like every other passenger on that flight but the movie portrays him in a chilling light that seems to be a product or concession to the xenophobia tinged overzealous national pride that rose from the ashes of the 9/11 attacks. For a lot of people, rational and logical commentary took a backseat to the “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality. It was this way of thinking that got Bill Maher fired for making comments that, while insensitive, weren’t ridiculous or anti American like people took them.
The most important thing to take away from this horrible tragedy is not the action of the hijackers but the fact that the passengers were brave enough to fight back. Their actions prevented the hijackers from succeeding. Because the plane crashed in a field, it prevented the loss of more lives and damage to the nation’s capital and spirit. By all accounts, those passengers died heroes and there is no reason to believe or evidence that shows Adams was not among them. But United 93 not only portrays him as the only passenger who wanted to appease to the hijackers but if the movie is to be believed, the American passengers had to actually physically restrain them so they could step forward and act heroically.
For all of the movie’s attempts at objectivity, it can’t help but add a nationalistic pro war on terror undertone. It seems very calculated that the movie chose the only non American passenger to portray in a negative light. Greengrass has stated his intentions to make this movie a metaphor for the world's response to terrorism: do nothing and appease the terrorists, or attack them preemptively? And in that light his portrayal of Adams is even more chilling. Does Adams represent the “cowardly” European nations that refused to march into Iraq?
It might not have been as big of a deal if Greengrass had included a made up character to express this idea. But the fact is Adams is a real person, with a real family and loved ones that he left behind. Is their grieving not important enough to respect? I also found it kind of odd that the movie portrays the passengers violently killing two of the hijackers. The cause of death of the hijackers was listed as suicide. The choice to include the sight of one of the terrorists getting his neck snapped and being beaten to a bloody pulp seemed unnecessary. Was it intended to satisfy a primal need for revenge?
Verdict
United 93 is an extremely powerful and moving film that pays great respect to most of the passengers. It is extremely insightful and powerfully directed. And because of the way it’s shot - documentary style and in real time after take off - the movie is that much more poignant and powerful. Even after almost 11 years it is a hard movie to watch.
But the way it portrays Adams is just wrong, irresponsible and even disrespectful. The fact that it is shot in a documentary style just makes its fabrications all the more powerful and confusing. Former “60 Minutes II” producer, Michael Bronner, who did some of the research for the movie, explained in an interview to efilmcritic.com that he told Greengrass that historically-based movies can be “problematic.” But he stated that Greengrass’ response was, “our goal is just to tell what happened, to show what happened and not sentimentalize, not take any kind of liberties beyond that.”
Some of his concessions to drama - particularly the movie’s portrayal of Adams - seem to contradict that statement. And I found out that the original cut of the film ended with a caption that read, “America's war on terror had begun.” This seems to further support that argument that the movie - contrary to Greengrass’s statements - did have an agenda. Some reviewers argued that within the context, this could push the movie into propaganda territory. In the end, this caption was removed and the final cut ends on a caption that reads, “Dedicated to the memory of all of those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001.”
But in spite of its flaws, United 93 is a bold and moving film. It pays respect to most of the passengers, shines a light on the terrible events that happened, and reminds us that in the face of tragedy and fear, people can still rise up and be heroes. It is definitely worth seeing as long as you take Adams’ portrayal with a grain of salt.
Next Time: Hunger