I thought Greengrass pulled off United 93 well; it could have been a garish exploitation of the dead. I don't think I could sit through this movie if I wanted to, though.
I thought so too, and enjoyed Captain Phillips as well. Whether or not you could sit through this one will probably depend on how interested in the subject matter you are: I feel like I've been haunted by that attack since it was first in the news, and read the book One of Us (which I'd recommend) before I watched the adaptation. I don't regret seeing it, but, yes, I don't think it works at all
You're comprehensively correct. Also (1) does a realist film honour or deepen or even add to the actual or (2) can it elude exploitation or (3) does it dilute or flatten or insult trauma?
These are definitely big questions. As far as I know--(1) and (3)--most people who saw Greengrass's film United 93 ultimately didn't feel that it dishonoured the dead, and I'm not sure that I think this film does, exactly: I wouldn't say that it insults the trauma, though perhaps 'flattening' might be closer to the truth. The book One of Us, on which this film is based, spends many pages on the backstories of some of the murdered children, and even more pages on the mad isolated world of the murderer--both of which add details that make the events of 22 July seem even more awful, since the reader has a clearer sense of what was lost, and the sheer senselessness of the murderer's 'motivations'. The film doesn't do much of that, and so seems 'flat' by comparison.
Question (2) is even harder to answer. I wonder if any film based on real events, traumatic or otherwise, can ever really elude exploitation - maybe it will always be a question of degree.
Urk. Sorry. Didn't intend to sound cross-examiney. Musings, and me-prompts, not demands for answers. But I really appreciate your as-always astute thinking-through. Concur re book-vs-film depths/backstories and flattening as almost inescapable. I think each narrative encrypts its own metrics for these questions.
No, it wasn't cross-examiney! Genuinely provocative questions. And (re book vs film) I'm now thinking that it can't just be a question of duration, since there are true crime series which go on for ages and ages and which are also both flattening and exploitative. And for that matter, books that you could describe in that way. I think I'm going round in circles...
I thought Greengrass pulled off United 93 well; it could have been a garish exploitation of the dead. I don't think I could sit through this movie if I wanted to, though.
I thought so too, and enjoyed Captain Phillips as well. Whether or not you could sit through this one will probably depend on how interested in the subject matter you are: I feel like I've been haunted by that attack since it was first in the news, and read the book One of Us (which I'd recommend) before I watched the adaptation. I don't regret seeing it, but, yes, I don't think it works at all
You're comprehensively correct. Also (1) does a realist film honour or deepen or even add to the actual or (2) can it elude exploitation or (3) does it dilute or flatten or insult trauma?
Thank you!
These are definitely big questions. As far as I know--(1) and (3)--most people who saw Greengrass's film United 93 ultimately didn't feel that it dishonoured the dead, and I'm not sure that I think this film does, exactly: I wouldn't say that it insults the trauma, though perhaps 'flattening' might be closer to the truth. The book One of Us, on which this film is based, spends many pages on the backstories of some of the murdered children, and even more pages on the mad isolated world of the murderer--both of which add details that make the events of 22 July seem even more awful, since the reader has a clearer sense of what was lost, and the sheer senselessness of the murderer's 'motivations'. The film doesn't do much of that, and so seems 'flat' by comparison.
Question (2) is even harder to answer. I wonder if any film based on real events, traumatic or otherwise, can ever really elude exploitation - maybe it will always be a question of degree.
Urk. Sorry. Didn't intend to sound cross-examiney. Musings, and me-prompts, not demands for answers. But I really appreciate your as-always astute thinking-through. Concur re book-vs-film depths/backstories and flattening as almost inescapable. I think each narrative encrypts its own metrics for these questions.
No, it wasn't cross-examiney! Genuinely provocative questions. And (re book vs film) I'm now thinking that it can't just be a question of duration, since there are true crime series which go on for ages and ages and which are also both flattening and exploitative. And for that matter, books that you could describe in that way. I think I'm going round in circles...
Not circles. Logical extensions. Not length but depth: you're right.