[Mb-civic] When Hollywood Makes History - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

When Hollywood Makes History
Invented Details in 'United 93' Raise Real Questions

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 28, 2006; A01

"United 93," Hollywood's first big-budget film about the events of Sept. 
11, 2001, is faithful to the major aspects of the tragic morning it 
depicts. The movie tracks the key events detailed in the 9/11 Commission 
Report, the most definitive source on the subject: the commandeering of 
the United jet by four terrorists, the panic of the passengers and the 
heroic rebellion that ended with the plane crashing in a field near 
Shanksville, Pa.

But the movie, which opens nationwide today, is a dramatic re-creation 
that includes scenes and images that go far beyond what is known about 
the attacks.

Those scenes raise questions: How far can a dramatic movie go in 
imposing its own reality before it distorts the public's understanding 
of the event? And with memories of 9/11 still vivid and raw, is it too 
soon for such films to be made?

The questions have special relevance as film producers prepare other 
9/11-related projects. Oliver Stone, who portrayed the assassination of 
John F. Kennedy as the result of a conspiracy in "JFK," is the director 
of this summer's "World Trade Center." Sony Pictures, meanwhile, is 
developing the film "102 Minutes," based on the bestseller about the 
time span between the first tower's crash and its collapse. A TV 
miniseries based on the 9/11 Commission Report is also in the works.

"United 93's" director, Paul Greengrass, has said he sought to create 
the "plausible truth" of what happened, given that many details are unknown.

The film asserts that the hijackers' intended target was the Capitol. In 
one scene, Ziad Jarrah, the Lebanese terrorist who piloted the plane, 
props a picture of the building on the cockpit's console, imposing a 
cinematic answer to a question that the 9/11 Commission could not 
resolve: whether the terrorists were trying to hit the Capitol or the 
White House. Investigators said that point was a source of contention 
among the 9/11 plotters, with Osama bin Laden favoring a strike on the 
White House and others, including Mohamed Atta, favoring the Capitol.

"United 93" also suggests that the terrorists killed the pilot and 
co-pilot, for example, but what occurred is unclear. A United 93 flight 
recorder picked up the terrorists ordering someone repeatedly to "sit 
down" and discussing whether to "bring the pilot back" late in the 
hijacking.

"United 93" also shows the passengers breaching the cockpit with a 
beverage cart and wrestling the terrorists for control as the plane 
plummets. Although the 9/11 report states that the passengers fought 
back in the flight's final moments, the commission had no indication 
that the passengers entered the cockpit. The report suggests the 
opposite: "The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged 
that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them."

Universal Pictures, the film's distributor, says researchers consulted 
numerous sources, including the 9/11 Commission Report, military and 
civilian aviation authorities, and more than 100 family members and 
friends of the victims. The movie's advisers included Ben Sliney, who 
headed the Federal Aviation Administration's Command Center in Herndon 
on Sept. 11; Sliney portrays himself in the film.

Lloyd Levin, a "United 93" co-producer, acknowledges that the film went 
beyond known facts about the flight, but he justifies the movie's 
approach as artistically necessary. "Our mandate was not the same as the 
9/11 Commission Report," Levin said. "Our mandate was to what Paul 
wanted to say with this movie. We're not journalists. Paul is an artist."

He called some of the questionable depictions "choices we had to make." 
Whether the passengers actually breached the cockpit is "a moot point, 
because at that point you're in the area of metaphor," he said.

Those choices might satisfy moviegoers but they rankle those interested 
in a more literal portrait of the events of Sept. 11.

"I would prefer history tell itself, rather than have Hollywood tell 
it," said Carie Lemack, whose mother, Judy Larocque, was killed on 
American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to hit the World Trade 
Center. "There's so much we just don't know. Unfortunately, they're 
taking artistic license with history and people will believe it's 
accurate. Speculation is okay for drama, but it's less okay when it's 
purporting to tell history. If they didn't know, why didn't they just 
leave it out?"

Lemack, co-founder of the organization Families of September 11, has not 
seen the movie, but she says she was surprised and upset by its trailer 
and promotional poster, which shows smoke pouring from the World Trade 
Center towers. She also says the filmmakers missed an opportunity to 
spur moviegoers to find out more about terrorism and call them to 
action. (Universal will donate 10 percent of the movie's first weekend 
ticket sales to a memorial fund.)

The decision to counterattack the terrorists was made after passengers 
learned that other hijacked planes had crashed, according to the 9/11 
report and the film. In addition to the cockpit recordings, eyewitness 
accounts came from crew members and passengers, who used cellphones and 
air phones to contact people on the ground. But those accounts were 
sometimes contradictory and fragmentary, and the 9/11 Commission 
acknowledged that many details never will be known.

Levin acknowledges that in dramatizing the course of the flight, "United 
93" makes creative leaps to fill in the blanks. For example, it's not 
clear who among the passengers spearheaded the response to the 
terrorists. One passenger, in a phone call from the plane, left it 
vague: "Everyone's running up to first class. I've got to go. Bye." The 
9/11 Commission could not identify whose voices are heard as the 
passengers storm the cockpit door. "United 93" tackles this uncertainty 
with a reasonable assumption: that the charge was led by the strongest, 
most athletic men, including a judo champion.

Other scenes appear to be wholly invented. In one, a passenger who 
argued for cooperating with the hijackers is restrained by others as the 
counterattack begins. In another, the passengers are shown overwhelming 
two hijackers and apparently killing them. Both depictions might be 
dramatically satisfying, but there's no evidence that either of those 
events occurred.

Many of the victims' immediate relatives have endorsed the movie, saying 
it fairly represents their final hours. David Beamer, whose son Todd 
Beamer was killed, told the Associated Press this week: "Our personal 
reaction was one of relief, because they got it right. When it comes to 
September 11 and United Flight 93, we don't need another movie. This one 
got it."

But others question whether it was necessary to make even one movie 
about an event that many have lived through.

Bruce Hoffman, a Washington-based counterterrorism expert with the Rand 
Corp., notes that the news media have long avoided replaying some of the 
more disturbing images of Sept. 11. But, he says: "These equally 
horrible events are now being depicted as entertainment. I don't know 
why that's more acceptable.

"Producers and directors can have the purest and best intentions to 
re-create the horror and tragedy and bravery of the passengers. But the 
bottom line is, it's still entertainment. You have to question whether 
making it into entertainment cheapens and demeans it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/27/AR2006042702509.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060428/81f63073/attachment.htm