Is United 93 an Exploitation Film?
written by Chris Blunk ( )

Just under five years ago, immediately after 9/11 when not a single day went by unaffected by the attack, natural speculation in film circles began. How would the events would play out on film? When would we see the first inevitable “9/11 Movie”? Sitting in the theatre last night watching a preview for the Vince Vaughn comedy The Break-Up, I could hardly believe the day had arrived already. For some reason I had figured I would be much older by now.

United 93 is everything (most of) the critics say it is: an excellent movie, made just the way it should have been made, the material handled just the way it should have been handled. The film contains no name actors (we all damn well know Nicholas Cage was not involved in 9/11), and the people in the film look and act pitch perfect in their roles. Having spent some time on a military base recently during a documentary, I was especially struck by the smart casting of a young female military officer who could have easily been overplayed by a Brand X bronzed Hollywood honey, but instead looked like she might have walked off the base just prior to the cameras rolling. Which may not be far from the truth; according to the credits she, like many other persons in the film, was portraying herself. Doesn’t get much more authentic than that.

United 93 works because of this drive to stay in reality. The film contains meaningful cinematic cues (two stand out: a radar board at the FAA littered with hundreds of planes that may or may not be hijacked, parallel action between praying terrorists and their praying victims), but it tells the story without ever artificially “building” the plot. It’s Apollo 13 without the entertainment value and Elephant without the artistic ambition. The script contains not a single quotable line ("Let's roll" is barely audible among the other passenger vocals), and the film deftly maneuvers through the events of the day, eventually narrowing the focus to the passengers aboard United flight 93 and their revolt. If there’s one complaint I have in regard to the film, it would be the score, the only remnant of the Michael Bay-ism many feared watching the preview. The music is used sparingly though; most of the film plays out over natural ambience and chatter.

The film succeeds because it strives for truth over the convenience of a dramatically structured movie. This is not to say that everything in the movie lines up with reality (we now know that the passengers never actually reached the cockpit), and nobody will ever really know exactly what happened on that plane. But the film uses its dramatic license with care. If the word “docudrama” actually means anything, it applies to United 93. No person or event is shoehorned into a dramatic arc. The film, in fact, never gets close to anybody. We’re watching through glass, and this is the way it has to be. To truly dramatize the story, the film would have had to lie.

So now we’ve done the movie buff thing. We’ve given our thumbs up or thumbs down, we’ve drawn comparisons to other films. None of these things addresses the question in the title of this piece, however. How good or bad the film is and how accurate or not the film is to actual events does not address the core of the question: Is this film exploitation? Certainly, a well-made movie indicates better intentions than, say, a cheap thriller using the guise of actual events. But the fact remains that whatever the intentions, money will be made by this film and careers and reputations will benefit from the project. Should this happen via a recent tragedy?

(Side note - not that it changes anything, but ten percent of the opening weekend gross goes to United 93 memorial fund)

I search my heart and find that it says no, not a single person should profit at the expense of others. Then my brain steps in and says “yes, and we should all join hands around the campfire and sing songs about our perfect little world - who wants s’mores?!” Then my heart calls my brain an asshole, my brain shrugs, and they both continue to somehow cohabit.

Part of me is a little confused over the semi-controversy. Of course it’s terrible for anybody to profit from a tragedy, but at the end of the day, the profits here are being made off of a movie. I don’t remember anybody clucking their tongue at Don Cheadle getting a paycheck and acclaim for Hotel Rwanda. Not many people have United 93-level reservations about war films, even though they maybe should.

And what of all the people profiting directly from 9/11? Even without getting political, there are construction companies required for rebuilding, funeral homes to take care of the deceased, and reporters on overtime pay - people who simply have work thanks to one of the worst days our country has ever suffered. I am certainly not saying these people do not deserve their wages or that they are profiteers. And on the other side, anyone (scam artists and filmmakers alike) that egregiously uses a tragic event for its own shallow purposes is still repugnant on its own terms. Ultimately, we will have to relate on a personal level to these films.

My wife will never see United 93. She nearly always goes to narrative films to be entertained. If she wants to see more about Flight 93 or anything else to do with 9/11, she will watch a documentary. That’s the way many (probably most) people relate to movies, and that’s great.

So why did I go to the movie? I wondered that myself a few times once the Universal logo had silently slid by and the first few lines were spoken in the dark and my gut twisted as it had that day five years ago. I’d read the details of the attack and the whole ordeal is the stuff nightmares are made from. I seriously considered walking out at one point, something I’ve never done at a movie and something I’ve never even considered doing just from fear.

You’ve seen my final review of the film, and my thoughts on whether or not it should have been made in the first place. I defend United 93 for these reasons stated above. It is a great movie, but do not feel that you must see it. I don’t always go to the movies to be entertained. Sometimes I go to learn. Sometimes I go to be challenged. Sometimes I go to face my own nightmares.

Bonus reading: My experience and questions seems to have been similar to that of reviewer Stephanie Zacharek at Salon.com - with slightly different conclusions. The Village Voice also has a great review. Make sure and read the update at the bottom, as the review was made from a slightly earlier version of the film.

Back to essays