I hate to return so hastily to a topic I only just covered not more than a few days ago, but after the initial acclaim lavished upon United 93, a backlash has begun to accumulate against the film within (to adopt the most overused neologism of the past year) the blogosphere. One blog I encountered even had the nerve to position United 93 as this years’ Passion of the Christ.

Personally, I find it confounding that this film is being likened to Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ both in style and tone since all they fundamentally share is the controversy engendered by their releases. Critics of the film have systematically disregarded its merit simply because such maligned right-wing pundits as Rush Limbaugh have pledged their support in favor of the film’s message, thus pigeonholing the film as this year’s emblem of fundamentalist doctrine. But what exactly is the message United 93 wants to convey? Is it Greengrass’s intention to have made a flag-waving, patriot-rallying call to arms or is his film subject to misinterpretation?

I suppose all this raises one of the key concerns present in the film’s style. Since Greengrass decided to shoot his subject matter in so vacuous a manner, I suppose it results in the viewer (whatever their political agenda) relegating their own system of beliefs upon its unfiltered ambiguity, even if such beliefs undermine the film’s meticulous, unflinching and impartial presentation. I pulled this quote allegedly said by Rush Limbaugh from one of the sites lashing out against the film:

“The overwhelming emotion I had was sheer anger at the terrorists, bordering on hatred. This movie is going to refocus, for those who see it, the exact reason we are in the war on terror.”

Looking past the inherent stupidity, as always, of Limbaugh’s remarks, I still cannot understand at what point the film ever pauses to justify this position. Of the few possible instances in which the film finds opportunity to take a stand any which way, it chooses to lean away from the conservative viewpoint on such matters. The two instances I’m referring to concern the absence of the President’s leadership during the initial attack and its aftermath, and the portrayal of the hijackers themselves.

In the former, Greengrass inserts a scene in which amidst the general confusion generated from the initial attack, no word is heard from the President as they await orders necessary to organize a sound counter defensive strategy. In the latter, Greengrass portrays his hijackers as human beings and not the inhuman fiends people like Limbaugh or O’Reilly would have you believe. He shows hesitation in their leader, who appears almost unwilling to go through with the plan. He makes their fear apparent, painting them as individuals who, while certain of their allegiance to their religious beliefs, remain nonetheless pensive about following such beliefs to their bitter end. In the end, doesn’t that represent another side of the courage embodied by the hostages on board the flight? The same blind courage used by the passengers to undermine the terrorists’ efforts is no different than the emotions used by those terrorists to orchestrate and carryout such an attack. In this way we can reflect to what extent heroism can be skewed to serve far more malicious ends.

Had the film determined to mythologize these events that, as I mentioned in an earlier post, it decidedly did not do, then perhaps we could argue that the film had a platform for its topics and had perhaps endeavored to create a heightened reaction in the public as a way of bolstering support in favor of the war in Iraq. But that would require far more manipulative film making techniques in order to accomplish such a scheme; techniques, I might add, that Greengrass does not utilize.

My point here is that just because right-wing crackpots support the film and use it for their own manipulative means, doesn’t mean that we have to shed our own appreciation for it; which isn’t to say that I’m disregarding anyone who dislikes the film? there’s always two sides to that argument; but at least speak out against it for reasons that make sense. The argument should not be that if the Christian Right supports it, us liberals must oppose it. If you don’t like it on technical grounds? say, if you felt Greengrass’s direction was in some way sub par? or on ethical grounds, had you felt that it simply was a situation that should never be recreated in any capacity, then at least your opposition to it would result in a debate reasonable enough to reach some levelheaded conclusion. But to refuse to acknowledge it, as many of my friends have, on such absurd grounds doesn’t prove the film’s lack of necessity, but your own inability to truly confront the situation.