Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Melanie68
AFGNCAAP and OAV: The minute I heard about this movie, I myself had zero desire to see it. It does certainly sound like they were very faithful to the retelling of the events but honestly if I want to see that, I'll watch an actual documentary (of which there have been plenty even sooner after the event). Why do movies have to be a factual retelling of events? Like I said, that's what documentaries are for. Maybe a movie should transcend that.
|
I mostly share this opinion. This was my main gripe with
Good Night, and Good Luck, not to look far.
Still, I'd argue a feature film can take you to places documentary will never be able to. (For one, non-fiction shouldn't fill in blank spaces when there are no witnesses or scholars who may make an educated guess) And, sometimes, "just" recreating the facts in a very thoughtful, humane or artistic manner may be enough for a film to transcend to something else. I won't comment on
United 93 prior to seeing it, but
Elephant, another film dealing with a deeply tragic event (Columbine shooting), took similar approach, and I think what became of it was a really powerful piece of art.
Quote:
|
And for some people, it will always be too soon.
|
Believe me, I do sympathize. But to me the fact that to
some it will
always be too soon only strengthens the argument for making this movie now. Nobody ever consulted the families of millions of victims of WWII before assimilating it as a part of our mythology.
That said,
United 93 is a kind of movie nobody should be talked into watching if they don't want to. Those are sensitive matters, to be sure.
