It’s been in theaters for a few weeks, but I thought the first dramatic film to take on the daunting task of grappling with what happened on September 11th, 2001, United 93, warranted a critique because I believe it is a film everyone should see and not forget.  For those few of you who may be unfamiliar with what happened that day, the film focuses on the doomed airliner scheduled to fly to San Francisco from Newark that was highjacked by al-Qaeda operatives who intended to run it into the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.  If not for the heroic interference by the passengers aboard, who took it upon themselves to try to take back control of the plane, the highjackers probably would have achieved their objective.

The film is superbly written and directed by Paul Greengrass (Bloody Sunday & The Bourne Supremacy), who skillfully employs both unknown actors and the actual people involved playing themselves.  Even with the film taking a dramatic turn, as opposed to the docu-drama that appeared on cable a few months back, United 93 doesn’t glorify or over-dramatize any of the events that day, unlike a typical action movie such as Air Force One, to use a film with a somewhat similar plot.  For the viewer, the knowledge that what appears on screen actually happened is enough drama for one sitting. Greengrass uses a simple visual style and pacing to follow the events of that day without tricks or creative storytelling techniques.  He begins with the highjackers preparing for their day and other passengers arriving at the airport and going through security. Watching the security check now gives one chills as we witness the ease with which the Muslim operatives get the necessary equipment to overtake the airplane without a hitch.

Greengrass is also quite adept at introducing all of the characters, from the highjackers to the passengers to the air traffic controllers, with efficiency and is able to highlight a few players with just enough small bits of human interest to make them three-dimensional figures, such as the co-pilot’s description of his family.  The best-drawn character happens to be one played by himself, Ben Sliney, the National Operations Manager who fatefully experienced his first day on the job in a rather dismal baptism.  Many others also played themselves, such as several Air Force personnel, and each were more than adequate.  Sliney comes across as the only human on Earth who took the responsibility upon himself to try to keep the country safe and secure and cursed the military for not being more proactive.  He was also the first to figure out that the first plane to hit the first World Trade Center tower was not a small plane as initially reported by CNN but one the size of an airliner.  His order to shut down the air transportation system over the U.S. was both gutsy and heroic.  

I have to admit that I got pretty emotional watching the film, especially as the passengers on board call their loved ones to wish them goodbye.  I was living in Manhattan that day, and I was as stunned as anyone watching the second plane hit the second tower and even more horrified when the towers collapsed.  The strongest memories for me were in the weeks that followed when the posters and signs with pictures of the missing hung on practically every light pole in the city and by memorials set up in gathering places like Union Square or the streets adjacent to Ground Zero with more candles and flowers than I’ve ever seen anywhere before or since.

United 93 only depicts the particulars of one of the four planes to wreak havoc that day.  Of course, we’ll never really know what actually occurred or the thoughts that went through the minds of passengers, crew, and highjackers, but as a piece of visual history, this film is so craftily made that it should be considered one of the pieces of entertainment regarding the events of 9/11 that acts as an official remembrance.  I’m not sure how much Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center or any of the others now being prepared for release will be a cathartic experience, but I know the experience of sitting in a dark theater watching United 93 will stay with you forever.  In the end, the film will wind up doing two things: help release the pent-up anger, fear, and despair that still lingers even after almost five years and act as a vivid reminder of what happened that day for those who may soon forget.  In order to keep the same violent acts from happening again on our soil, we must all be aware that those who died on September 11th, 2001 are not only heroes but also bookmarks to remind us to turn back the pages of history and reread a grievous and sobering chapter in the history of our great country.

United 93 is still being shown in select theaters.  Running time: 111 minutes. Released through Universal Pictures.  Rated R and may not be appropriate for kids under thirteen, but if they can stand the troubling nature of the film, it may do them a lot of good in the long run (if accompanied by an appropriate adult).  For everyone else, it’s a must-see.

Rich Burlingham

We’re trying to help get this nation to connect the dots — you turn the country over to fags and now those soldiers are coming home in body bags.

— Shirley Phelps-Roper, one of the approximately 75 members of the Topeka, Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church. Shirley Phelps-Roper is the daughter of the church leader, Reverend Fred Phelps — 76, former lawyer, and father of 13 — who leads a congregation that essentially consists of extended family members in a church that is totally unaffiliated with any other church. The Westboro Baptist Church has recently been demonstrating at military funerals to spread the church’s message that God is punishing the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality by killing soldiers.

The church’s demonstrations challenge both the limits of free speech and common decency, and as such, both houses of Congress have passed the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act.  The act would prohibit protests in the areas immediately surrounding national cemeteries and the roads leading to cemeteries during, immediately prior to, and following a funeral. President Bush must now sign the act for it to be enacted. Additionally, nine states have passed laws restricting protests at funerals and burials, with a score of other states potentially following suit.

Veterans and grieving family members have enlisted a motorcycle group — which includes a large number of veterans — to drown out the protesters and contain their demonstrations at military funerals.

The church’s appallingly titled and stunningly offensive website spreads its gospel and includes messages that read: “We Dare You To Read This: ‘God Loves Everyone’ — The Greatest Lie Ever Told.”

Mimi Hanaoka

I worked for two presidents who were men of faith, and they did not make their religious views part of American policy…President Bush’s certitude about what he believes in, and the division between good and evil, is, I think, different… The absolute truth is what makes Bush so worrying to some of us… Some of his language is really quite over the top… When he says ‘God is on our side,’ it’s very different from (former U.S. President Abraham) Lincoln saying ‘We have to be on God’s side.’

— Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State, speaking about President Bush’s strident religious rhetoric. Albright worked in the Carter administration during the 1970s and then served as Secretary of State under President Clinton from 1997 to 2001.

Mimi Hanaoka

Recently, Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez, has taken serious steps to challenge American supremacy and has severed ties with a number of Latin American allies in the process.

Chávez has established socialist trading blocs with both Cuba and Bolivia. Chávez is well known for his definitive left wing anti-American stance. He openly supports Bolivia’s oil nationalization efforts. Through these actions he has won the favor of Venezuela’s lower class. He has simultaneously begun to ostracize himself from the U.S. and his Latin American neighbors, specifically Mexico, Nicaragua, Chile, and Peru. On May 15, Washington banned the sale of arms to Venezuela, accusing the country of an intelligence relationship with Cuba and Iran. Chávez’s public statements have also significantly affected Peru’s presidential campaigns.

Chávez has openly criticized both of Peru’s main presidential candidates, President Toledo and former president Alan García. He called President Toledo an “office boy” for President Bush and described García, whose past presidential term was marked by scandal and corruption, as “shameless, a thief.” While denouncing Latin American governments that support free trade, the Venezuelan president has also stirred up controversy among some of his South American allies.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil was humiliated after Chávez joined a cooperative meeting between leaders from Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina and proceeded to upstage them in a news conference following the event.
  
According to deepikaglobal.com, President Chávez plans to visit Russia in order to strengthen ties between the two countries. In May 2005, Russia signed an agreement with Venezuela to supply 100,000 AK-103 submachine guns worth 54 million dollars. A meeting between the two could potentially bring together two of the world’s top oil producers, both of whom have straining ties with Washington.

Venezuela’s government has recently approved higher royalties for oil companies like Exxon Mobile and Chevron that are shareholders in four heavy oil ventures. The law increases royalties to 33.3 percent from 16.67 percent on all oil companies operating in the country, according to the state’s oil company Petróleos de Venezuela’s website.

Collaborations between Venezuela and Libya are in the works to provide discounted oil to developing countries in Africa. Chávez has publicly extended this offer to developing European countries as well.

The divisive stance of President Chávez is drawing a thick line between capitalist countries and others who associate more closely with Socialism. While he has solidified allied relations with Bolivia, Cuba, and Russia, Chávez has also cut himself off from a substantial portion of Latin America. How will this affect the world as we know it? Guess we’ll have to keep reading to find out.

ahodgdon

We display statues so they can be studied and so people can get to know their heritage. This is Egypt’s national heritage. We don’t display them for worship.

—Mohsen Said, employee of Egypt’s Supreme Council for Antiquities, referring to the fatwa, or religious opinion, that Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa issued last month. Mufti Ali Gomaa declared that sculptures, including Egypt’s pharonic statues that pre-date Islam and form the backbone of the nation’s tourism industry, are un-Islamic and therefore forbidden.

Although the undeniable resurgence in Islamic attitudes should be taken seriously, it’s unlikely that Egypt will take too literal a reading of such a fatwa and start smashing statues in an iconoclastic smashing spree.  Such a precedent, does, however, exist elsewhere: in 2001 the Afghan Taliban destroyed the two massive statues of the Buddha carved into the cliffs in Bamiyan, which were then the tallest standing statues of the Buddha in the world.  The statues, which were at least 1,500 years old, were deemed “offensive to Islam” and subsequently demolished.  

Mimi Hanaoka

On Sunday NBC’s The West Wing ends its run after seven up and down years of both glorifying and criticizing politics and the individuals who take it upon themselves to run our government.  Created by Aaron Sorkin (An American President, A Few Good Men, Sports Night), The West Wing’s first three years were some of the best television you could find anywhere.  Its trademark was sharp, intelligent dialogue, complex subjects simplified, and characters who actually had things to say that were important and relevant to what was happening in society.  It became a hit and one of those water cooler shows that didn’t just mirror what was happening in the country at the time but created almost a utopian administration where many viewers actually wished President Bartlett (a.k.a. Martin Sheen) actually occupied the White House.

The best thing about The West Wing in its heyday was that it not only shed light on the inner workings of the White House and the day-to-day chaos that is the federal government, but it also helped viewers understand the complexities of running a super power.  But a television show can only show so much, and the reality is it’s even harder and far more stressful and difficult to be a staff member of the administration in power than an actor playing one on TV.  If Leo McGarry makes a mistake, perhaps viewers are cheated a bit, but if a “Scooter” Libby makes a mistake, the country suffers.

Like so many acclaimed ratings winners on television, they hit snags and riffs and the quality goes down, or they lose their way due to network interference, tired creative staff, or simple boredom by both producers and viewers.  In The West Wing’s case, the jump-the-shark moment involved the leaving of two key people which caused the show to shift focus and turn more into a soap opera than an intelligent dramatic tutorial on the inner-workings of a fictional White House.  First was the departure of star Rob Lowe, who played deputy communications director Sam Seaborn and, who like Noah Wiley’s John Carter on another NBC show ER, was the heart and soul of the show — the character with idealism who reminds the rest of the characters why they do what they do and without many pats on the back.  Who knows the real reason — money probably or a shift towards highlighting Martin Sheen’s President Bartlett — but when Rob Lowe left, he took away the one character who was the surrogate viewer, the character to which we placed ourselves into the show to ask the key philosophical questions about the rights and wrongs of serving the public.  The next change was more significant when creator, executive producer, and chief writer Aaron Sorkin was booted out, which always happens when a show’s ratings dip and the network gets nervous.  They ask for changes and when they get resistance, it’s the guy in charge who gets axed.  They brought in a very capable producer to take over the reins in John Wells, proven on ER, but it was just good enough to keep the show on the air — the magic was lost as the show just got boring, to say the least, and viewers decided there was something better to watch.

But in true fighting spirit, this past season some of the old vigor was resurrected and somebody on the show was channeling Aaron Sorkin (I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t the man himself) to return to the show’s original intent of showing the frenzied behind-the-scenes look at politics — this time a presidential campaign between republican Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda) and Democrat John Santos (Jimmy Smits).  The many fresh faces, plus some old reliables, made the show watchable again, and you began to care about the characters and what happens to them — key to any great show (see Lost, 24 and American Idol).  The trouble was that it was too much, too late and the puny ratings, plus the death of actor John Spencer in December 2005, helped justify to NBC that pulling the plug on The West Wing was for the best.  But it’s fitting that as the Bartlett administration bows out, the show does the same.  I enjoyed The West Wing in the beginning and have enjoyed it here at the end. As the last episode plays out Sunday, I must say I enjoyed getting to know Josh, C.J., Sam, Charlie, Donna, Tobey, Leo, and Jed, and I probably would have watched another season if the writing stayed vibrant and the stories interesting.  But we’ll just have to imagine what a Santos administration will be like and if happiness comes to those who served seven years for the good of the country and Nielsen households.

The series finale of The West Wing airs Sunday at 9 p.m. ET, May 14th on NBC, preceded by the pilot episode, so you can see where it all began and how different the actors look after seven years.

Rich Burlingham