Flight 93

Robert Hughes · May 20, 2006

Last night my wife & I had a night out - Lebanese dinner and a film. ( actually two films, it turned out ). Flight 93 was in the multiplex and I'd heard good things about its style, shooting and storytelling. But I couldn't watch it for long; the real events were too recent for me. Maybe in 10 years or so. But I appreciated the filmmakers' objectivity; they didn't turn it into yet another xenophobic propaganda rant. And the real-time unfoldment of the action ideally suited the story. But last night I needed a happy ending, so after 1/2 hour I skipped over to watch Akeelah and the Bee (bravo, David & all!).

Cinematographically speaking, could someone fill us in on the production details? It looked like Super 16, almost all handheld, run-and-gun documentary style footage. Comments?

Brad Grimmett · May 22, 2006

I believe it was 35mm. By the way, it's United 93, not Flight 93.

I thought it was a fantastic movie. And it wasn't as much of a tearjerker as I had expected. There was very little emotional manipulation going on. You really felt like you knew the characters, without even knowing their names. I liked the documentary feel, although it was occasionally a little distracting.

Bob Hayes · May 22, 2006

Paul Greengrass has a great eye for documentary drama. Another of his films I would highly recommend is ?Bloody Sunday?.

timHealy · May 22, 2006

I haven't seen United 93 yet (not sure if I want to. I live about two miles away from the Trade Center) but I just re watched Bourne Supremacy and that also has a terrific documentary feel that I could see how that may contribute to the look and feel of United 93. In addition that feeling included tons of coverage to keep editing moving at a fast pace and some crossing the line (that doesn't really matter, to me anyway) and an occasional zoom.

Best

Tim

Tasha Back · June 14, 2006

It was 35mm using fuji stock. Majority handheld using Arricam LT with 400ft loads - 2 cameras staggered so one was shooting while other reloaded. 45 minute takes at times! Model planes on hydrolics in a studio so the plane is actually moving - with camera teams and cast being thrown around for real. I think the end result is gripping but also tastefully and respectfully done - lack of melodrama and recognisable cast helps.

K Borowski · June 14, 2006

One advantage of being the only moviegoer who actually watches the film to the very end of the credits, I saw that a good chunk of the people in this film were actually there when this all happened i.e. they played themselves, particularly the flight controllers and military personel (obviously not the hijackers or the crew of U. 93). A very well-done film. I agree that it was probably released too early for a lot of people because September 11th is still fresh in our minds. My usual objections to digital intermediates for entire movies. There were what, two shots that needed the World Trade Center digitally painted in and they still got a DI? That just seems silly.

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

Max Jacoby · June 14, 2006

There is an article in this months AC. LTs as Natasha pointed out, there is also a pic of the Dop with a 235. They shot mostly with 2 cameras on Cooke S4s, Zeiss Variable Primes and the long Optimo zoom.

It looked were grainy, which I liked, which is why I was surprised to see that Tim put up a news piece that it wa sshot on the Eterna 500T. In the AC article they say that it was shot on Fuji 8571, but that must be a mistake, that film isn't available anymore. So it might have been 8572 (the version prior to Eterna, which is 8573)

Not sure about the DI either, it kind of flattened the look.

I liked the way the film was handled, it felt very honest, a depiction of the events as they might have occured. In a way it is interesting to make a film about such a well-known event, because everyone knows what is happening, which means that this whole tension and anticipation is build into the material and doesn't ahve to be put in by the filmmakers. I thought the actors were fantastic, they felt very real. It is a film that I do recommend, but I am not sure about it's cinematic value, as opposed to it's reality value which is very high.

Kyle Polensky · July 10, 2006

i just liked how real it was. no big, fake, hollywood actors trying to portray heroism, just real emotions shown on screen. i know for some it's still to soon, but i really appreciated the reverence throughout the film. i'd encourage everyone to see it.

What's the name of Oliver stone's Sept.11 film? think its like World trade center or somethin . . . anyways, have you guys seen the trailer for that? it's idiotic. nicolas cage is in the starring role and it kills me. the trailer has a clip where he and some other firemen are standing outside the burning trade center, and he gives this hollywood-stereotypical "who's gonna risk their lives with me" phrase, that makes you want to puke. the real heroes of 9/11 deserve better.