Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (19491)	4/28/2006 8:54:25 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

HEROES, EVERY ONE NEW YORK POST Editorial April 28, 2006 'United 93," British filmmaker Paul Greengrass' semi-documentary account of the 9/11 flight whose passengers stood up and fought back, opens in theaters across the nation today. From the project's inception, there have been fears that audiences would be repelled by such a stark portrayal so soon after that dark day. But many who have seen the film - which featured no big-name stars and premiered at this week's Tribeca Film Festival - have come away moved to tears. The Post's Lou Lumenick called it "gut-wrenching" and "a deeply, cathartic experience" - a brutal look at what arguably was the most horrific moment in the American experience, but one that is "respectful [and] inspiring." Most important, as Lumenick and other reviewers have noted, the film carries no politically skewed message: It's a simple, straightforward account that tells what happened, with no attempt at emotional manipulation. What a welcome relief from just about everything else that Hollywood has shoved down our throats when it comes to the War on Terror. Whether it's Michael Moore, with his "Fahrenheit 9/11," or George Clooney's "Syriana," or documentaries like "The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror," Hollywood's message on 9/11 essentially has been: It was awful, but America provoked it. America deserved what it got. Now, at last, comes a film that - by simply telling the story of what happened - pays tribute to ordinary people who, presented with extraordinary challenge, responded magnificently. "United 93," by all accounts, is a fitting and timely tribute to their heroism and their memories - neither of which must ever be forgotten. nypost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19491)	5/9/2006 8:39:24 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

The Post didn't cavil about historical details in "Fahrenheit 9/11" on its front page. That film was a tissue of lies and distortions from start to finish. The paper didn't protest the tendentious misrepresentations in "Munich." Why now? United 93 isn't controversial, the reaction to it is by Mona Charen Townhall.com May 8, 2006 "United 93" surprised me. I was expecting a large dose of sentimentality, of sugary vignettes from the passengers' lives, along with a musically enhanced final battle scene. The actual film is so much better than that. It is strikingly realistic. In fact, it contains not a trace of cheap sentiment, but rather transfixes viewers with its sharp realism. Ordinary people are seen doing quotidian things -- airline pilots chat about training schedules, businessmen call their offices, flight attendants delight in a lightly loaded plane. It is so true to life it feels almost like a documentary. Part of that realism, and the most brilliantly executed scene in the film, is the depiction of the second plane slamming into the World Trade Center. This image is so much a part of our national psyche now that one might think a cinematic portrayal would seem somehow cliched. But to the contrary, Paul Greengrass has managed to convey the shock and horror of that moment and remind us again of what a savage enormity was committed against us that day. The film also captures the confusion and chaos that gripped air traffic controllers, the military and other officials forced to respond to an unprecedented emergency. We are reminded of the rumors that flew, of the inevitable misinformation and of the difficulty in establishing lines of communication. Above all, like a basso continuo beneath the action on screen, is the pulsing reality of fear. What, then, are the critics talking about when they describe this film as "controversial"? The Washington Post ran a front-page story called "When Hollywood Makes History: Invented Details in 'United 93' Raise Real Questions." What were these "invented details"? In the film, the terrorist piloting United 93 places a photo of the Capitol on the plane's console. This is incorrect, the Post intones, since the 9/11 Commission said investigators could not determine whether the White House or the Capitol was the actual target. Is that it? No, the film also shows the terrorists killing the pilot and co-pilot, whereas we don't know if they really did that. Finally, the passengers are depicted as breaching the cockpit, whereas the tapes leave that issue unresolved. Big deal. These are trivial details in the scheme of things. We do know that the ordinary Americans on that flight who found themselves in the midst of a nightmare were able to gather their wits about them, assess the situation and act -- all within a very few minutes. They were tragically unable to save their own lives, but they saved the lives of many others, as well as one of (and it doesn't really matter which one) the key symbols of our nation. President Bush should consider awarding each one a posthumous Medal of Freedom. The Post didn't cavil about historical details in "Fahrenheit 9/11" on its front page. That film was a tissue of lies and distortions from start to finish. The paper didn't protest the tendentious misrepresentations in "Munich." Why now? It seems that some people are worried about "United 93" not because they think it isn't true but because they know it is and don't want Americans reminded of the merciless enemy we face. Philip Martin, writing in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, explained that he does not intend to see "United 93" because "I might experience some of the same feelings I felt on September 11 all over again. And I don't want to be angry like I was then -- I don't want to hate the terrorists who committed these crimes." I wonder, did that sentiment also infect the people who rate movies? "United 93" is rated R. In theory, no one under 17 can be admitted without a parent (though these rules are widely flouted). Yet the same people gave "Scary Movie 4" a PG-13 rating. According to Kids-In-Mind.com, an Internet movie guide for parents, "Scary Movie 4" contains crude depictions of homosexual sex, oral sex between a man and a woman, a woman using the bathroom in full view of a room full of people, etc, etc. I took my 12- and 10-year-old boys to see "United 93" after consulting Kids-In-Mind. There is obviously some violence, but it is far from the kind that is offered for voyeuristic thrills in many Hollywood productions. It is mind-boggling that the Motion Picture Association of America thinks 13-year-olds should see the trashy "Scary Movie" and be barred from "United 93." Take your kids. They need to see the face of the enemy. Mona Charen is the author of Do-Gooders and Useful Idiots. Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com townhall.com