Review of United 93 (2006) by Graham D — 05 Sep 2009

I have just finished watching United 93 for the first time. But not for the first time, I find myself at odds with the prevailing opinions with regard to the quality of a very well-reviewed film.

One might think that as an Englishman I would be proud of Paul Greengrass's major role (both 'writer' and director) in this film. In fact, I am rather angry about what he has done.

For sure, the film is skillfully made and fleshed out. There is great veracity in the depiction of 'the fog of war' (for want of a better term) that must have come down 'on the ground' during the 9th of September. There are good performances in the air traffic control centre and in the military base, and the film is generally cut well and rarely drags.

Unfortunately - and with no irony intended - it is on the plane where things go wrong.

It is the job of a film maker - in this film perhaps more so than in any other - to document things how they are, how they were, or at least how the evidence has indicated things to be...

In my opinion, once that film-maker starts to pursue a political agenda - however subtle - his credibility is not only compromised but smashed. There are two ways in which Greengrass smashes his own credibility in United 93.

Firstly, in an attempt to show the hijackers as - not monsters - but earnest young easily-led zealots, Greengrass gives us the most pathetic and weak-looking bunch of terrorists ever committed to celluloid. Seriously, if a couple of nerdy looking teenagers such as these tried to take over MY airplane I would be all over them like a rash in ten seconds flat.

Maybe I exaggerate for effect, and - OK - one of them had a fake bomb... but you see, Paul.... evil is as evil does. These terrorists WERE monsters, however much you might like us to believe that they were also victims themselves. The pointless destruction they enacted was hideous. I don't want you to paint a child's face on them, because you want to show their vulnerable side.

The portraits of the terrorists does not work well enough for me, with the notable exception of the hijacker-pilot, whose callous craziness is perfect, and who never needed the degree of thuggishness so notably absent in the other members of the gang.

The wimpy terrorists irritated me, but what I found unforgivable was the portrayal of a German passenger as an 'appeaser' to the terrorists who is eventually shown trying to physically prevent the rebel passengers overthrowing the hijackers.

Why is this unforgivable? Three reasons... One: There really was a German passenger on flight 93. Two: There was ONLY one German passenger on Flight 93. Three: There is NO evidence that he tried to prevent the passengers attacking the hijackers.

Paul Greengrass has, despicably in my opinion, painted a genuine passenger (the man in question being Herr Adams) as a weaselly, misguided pacifist....hmm... that wouldn't have anything to do with the United Nations opposing an invasion of Iraq would it? Of course not! Much more likely that the American funders of this film would not allow a US passenger to have the role of surrender monkey. If I was Herr Adams' widow, I would sue.

And just in case you're wondering, I don't have a German bone in my body. I don't even particularly like Germans. But I like manipulative, biassed documentary film-makers who drag dead peoples' names through the mud even less.

A good film ruined by weak-minded direction.