United 93: Yea or Nay?

In Defense of Paul Greengrass

I have not seen United 93 yet, but I will be first in line. And it has nothing to do with 9/11.

Now, the tragic events of that day moved me as much as it moved every other American that day. I'm not going to tell my story because everyone has a story. Just know that the day, the events before and after, are always on my mind even if I don't know it.

So why am I first in line to see a movie that is going to destroy me emotionally all over again? It has to do with Paul Greengrass and Bloody Sunday, one of the best movies of the last ten years. If you've seen the movie, you know what I mean and don't need to read any further. If you haven't, please keep reading.

The point of this article is to prove that Paul Greengrass is not just some hack off the block directing an exploitive movie about a tragic event in our very recent history.

Bloody Sunday chronicles the twenty-four hours surrounding the massacre of peaceful Irish protesters in Derry at the hands of the British Army in 1972. The movie is told from constantly shifting perspectives between the marchers, the soldiers, and the officers calling out the orders from an undisclosed location. At the center of the maelstrom is Ivan Cooper, the MP inspired by Martin Luther King who organized the march. Cooper is played by James Nesbitt (the father in Millions) and looks like an Irish Michael Keaton but without the constantly pursed lips.

Now I know what you're thinking. "I've seen all the Jim Sheridan movies already. I don't need to see another goddamn movie about the Irish in the 1970s. I get it. Everyone gets it. Jim Sheridan doesn't even make these movies anymore. Terry George turned his sights towards Africans. Stop wasting my time, Wambold."

Hear me out. Let me first say that I do not have any personal attachment to the story. I am not Irish. I can be considered Scotch-Irish, which means when they drew the line they deemed my ancestors Irish even though they were Scottish, hence Scotch-Irish. I don't even like U2. I do however like how Irish people refer to their fathers as "Da". I am not particularly religious either. The Catholics versus the Protestants means nothing to me. I am not devaluing the struggle, I just have very little information on the matter. So I do not laud this movie out of some self-sustaining disposition to the subject, place, or people. (NOTE: I do have this disposition when it comes to Shyamalan movies and constantly forgive them because they all take place around my hometown. It's getting harder with the new "bedtime story", but I digress.)

What makes this movie great, no outstanding, is the pace and the directing style. The movie unfolds in a series of thirty second to minute and half scenes that fade in and then fade out; audio as well. Each time this happens, we have changed perspectives or time has passed. It takes five minutes or so to get used to this style, which stays consistent for the entire movie. These small disparate scenes serve to introduce every character fairly quickly and give the small plot some needed urgency. If you look up 'slow burn' in the dictionary, there should be a Quicktime file with this movie attached. By the end of the film, you are so used to the fade in and fade outs that you don't realize you are holding your breath.

Greengrass also uses a handheld camera and manages to create his own visual style from this overused device. The camera is always moving and not in an annoying NYPD Blue way, i.e. the hateful swish pans (a whole other article should be written about the elimination of the swish pan, but again, I digress). In one of the first scenes, two teenagers make out on a couch and the camera at first glance remains steady. But on second viewing, we see that the camera is slowly shifting and it’s barely noticeable. Altman does the same thing, except he prefers either the slow track or the slow zoom.

Again, I know that this doesn't sound original, but the handheld, the fade ins and fade outs, the type of film stock, and the wide angle lens all create a visual style that makes you feel like you've entered a time machine and are watching history unfold. When the protestors are shot, it feels like you're witnessing members of your town die. You are there. No sentimental speech or artful action scenes. If you blink you might miss someone getting shot. And if you did blink you wonder aloud why that person is lying there, motionless. You are there and yet detached. Just like in real life. The term 'docudrama' was created for this kind of movie.

One other thing. Paul Greengrass is English, not Irish. In some circles in Ireland, he is the enemy just for being English. And he directed the most convincing statement for Ireland’s cause as an Englishman. Worth noting.

Bloody Sunday premiered in America at Sundance in 2002 and was released the same year in the Fall. It grossed around $700,000 in America, which is nothing. Elvis Mitchell of the N.Y. Times and Kenneth Turan of the L.A. Times both had it as their number one movie for the year. And yet it only grossed a pittance in movie terms. It speaks to the mastery of Greengrass that Universal put him in charge of Bourne Supremacy, the first sequel in a burgeoning new franchise. Let me repeat that. Universal had just had a miserable experience on Bourne Identity with Doug Liman and found themselves with an unexpected franchise and no director. They could have brought in someone who had directed a studio film before, but they didn't. They risked millions of dollars, both in the sequel and the prospect of more sequels, by putting the franchise in the hands of a virtually unknown British director whose last movie grossed Matt Damon's trailer's heating bill. I’m not saying you should form your opinion based on a studio’s decision. I’m saying that the guy’s work is impressive and worth taking a risk on.

Now, I was disappointed by Supremacy. The story was fairly benign and repetitive and didn’t capture the feel of the original. I kept thinking to myself that Greengrass should do more movies like Bloody Sunday. He could become the British version of Costa-Gavras, I screamed to the parking lot attendant on the way out of the mall.

I got my wish with United 93. I haven’t seen it, mind you, but the follow-up to Bloody Sunday is finally here. When I first heard of the project, I was mid-rant about Hollywood and its use of 9/11. I had read the Oliver Stone project and predicted career suicide for any actor appearing in that movie (Nicolas Cage, it was nice knowing you). I thought it was exploitive and sad that a major corporation was about to profit off of our loss. And I wondered what idiot would play these characters. Remember, Nic Cage is playing a real Port Authority cop who gets stuck under the buildings as they fall. It feels a tad like we’re living through a scene from Altman’s The Player with this Ollie hacky Stone movie.

So I was happy to hear that, just like with Sunday, people who had actually been involved with the event are in the movie and, at times, playing themselves. Obviously, no one knows what happened on that plane, but this is the closest we’ll ever come. The victims’ families have given approval. I fully acknowledge my hypocrisy, but I ask you to keep an open mind. Greengrass did not make this one for money, just like he didn’t make Bloody Sunday for money either.

Regardless of whether you see it or not, don’t let United 93 keep you from experiencing Greengrass’ earlier, brilliant, and quiet masterpiece. Rent it or Netflix it. You’ll thank me later.

And maybe it will convince you to see United 93.

— Robert Wambold

{mos_sb_discuss:6}

Pages: 1 2