United 93 Ending Altered
Let’s stop right here and point out the ending of United 93 no longer has George W. Bush telling Andy Card, “Dammit, Andy! No goddamed evildoer is going to kill innocent Americans on my watch. Now prep and scramble a jet for me pronto. I’ve got democracy to save. Here, hold my goat book.” Bush then flies above United 93, ejects, crashes through the windscreen, subdues the hijackers and lands the plane safely, welcomed by a crowd of flag-waving soldiers with “Baghdad or Bust” signs on their Hummers.
Focus groups felt it lacked “verisimilitude”.
Because, as we all know from the released 9/11 transcripts, one of the passengers was heard saying, “I sure hope George Bush wins the War on Terror by invading Iraq to avenge my senseless death.” Oh, and another said, “Now I’m going to miss the Red Sox winning the series in 2004. Fuck!”
Reader â€˜Davidâ€™ notifies me about a Village Voice article in which it is reported that the concluding title card on Paul Greengrassâ€™ United 93, which had apparently read during preview screenings:
â€œAmericaâ€™s war on terror had begun.â€
â€¦ has been excised by Universal. According to The Village Voice:
As noted above, this review of United 93 was based on an unfinished print. Since then, Universal has excised the concluding title card, which read, â€œAmericaâ€™s war on terror had begun.â€ The final caption now reads: â€œDedicated to the memory of all those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001.â€
Back on April 12th I wrote this about the original postscript to the film:
I donâ€™t know about you, but â€œAmericaâ€™s war on terror had begunâ€ strikes me as being an entirely neutral, dispassionate statement of fact â€¦ Personally I hope that little addendum to the film remains. Iâ€™m reminded of a similar addendum (I canâ€™t remember the exact phrasing, but it had to do with Americaâ€™s unwillingness to respond to the Mogadishu debacle as being a catalyst for bin Ladenâ€™s subsequent attacks) from Ridley Scottâ€™s BlackHawk Down that was pulled because certain parties felt it mightâ€™ve been too damning in what it implied about the Clinton Administration. Hereâ€™s hoping Universal and Greengrass stick to their guns, and donâ€™t allow the Thought Police to cut the end text â€¦
Well, apparently Universal did not stick to its guns, and we now know that there apparently is a â€˜chill windâ€™ blowing on free speech in America, and that â€˜chill windâ€™ is coming from Hollywoodâ€™s executive suites, where apparently some thoughts still arenâ€™t allowed â€¦
Of course, we will hear no cries of â€˜censorshipâ€™ from liberals about all this, because the cultural Left wishes to de-couple the emotionally shocking events of 9/11 with the ongoing War on Terror. The Thought Police have won on this one, and itâ€™s a shame.
Except, oopsie, the Thought Police were busy reponding to a call from David Horowitz who thought he saw Ward Churchill chatting up a coed at the Starbucks over on Market Street, which is just as well since…
[Update: We now learn that it was apparently Paul Greengrass himself who is responsible for removing the original postscript to the film. Here is Greengrassâ€™ explanation, from over at Hollywood Elsewhere:
Journalist Rob Scheer spoke to United 93 director Paul Greengrass yesterday about that closing-credits line â€” â€œAmericaâ€™s war on terror had begunâ€ â€” that has been removed â€œIt was absolutely my inclusion, and my exclusion,â€ Greengrass said. â€œI wouldnâ€™t read too much into it. What was seen [by critics] was a very early version of itâ€¦it wasnâ€™t finished. The thinking was, I wanted the story to feel like it was relevant to today. But when I saw that particular card at the end, I thought â€˜thatâ€™s not rightâ€™ because thatâ€™s going to divide people. People are going to think, â€˜Oh does that mean heâ€™s for the war on terror or is he against?â€™ and in the end, thatâ€™s irrelevant. So in the end, I replaced it with the dedication to the victims of September 11th, because I think that the film speaks for itself. I didnâ€™t want a card to divide the audience.â€
Iâ€™ll simply note how bizarre I find this remark, which comes from a man who has just directed a film about Muslim terrorists hijacking a plane with the intent of ramming it into the Capitol building: â€œPeople are going to think, â€˜Oh does that mean heâ€™s for the war on terror or is he against?â€™ and in the end, thatâ€™s irrelevant.â€ Irrelevant?
Amazing. I understand Greengrassâ€™ desire to avoid making a â€˜politicalâ€™ statement, but the original postscript to his film simply states a fact: Americaâ€™s war on terror had, indeed, begun with the passengers of Flight 93 fighting back! Itâ€™s not as if the postscript read: Vote for Giuliani in â€˜08.â€™
So instead of dedicating the film to the brave people portrayed in the film, Jason wanted the movie to be a rallying cry for America to invade
Besides all of those people are dead now anyway…