MovieChat Forums > The Hamburg Cell (2005) Discussion > Interesting subject, needless imagery

Interesting subject, needless imagery

posted 20 years ago by ukaskew
9 replies | jump to latest

The basic concept of this film is quite interesting, looking at the events from the terrorists point of view is actually a commendable and thought provoking direction to come from.

I just have one serious problem with the film, the constant interefering and needless footage of the Twin Towers being hit and destroyed. It simply wasn't needed, if Michael Moore can make Farenheit 9/11 without a single shot of the towers, then so can these guys. Its there for nothing more than impact in a film that on the face of it may have been quite boring without it. If the last shot of the film had been the guy walking onto the plane (as it was) with no previous footage of the towers, the impact of that shot alone would have been incredible.

In conclusion, interesting story and approached well, but needless shock footage ruins the film and its credability.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ukaskew 20 years ago

I think most people are fully aware of the actual times each impact and collapse occured though, I think time captions on screen would have worked much better, even including "09:03 Tower 2 Impact" would of been a possibility.

I'm not here to suggest alternatives though, that was down to the film-makers, but I do feel they took the easy option when there were other more original options available to them.

I don't feel that the images captured on September 11th should be erased forever, I just feel given the short time since the event occured and the massive saturation of impact footage broadcast at the time of the event, that there is a risk of becoming detached from what actually occured. Michael Moore managed to cover the actual event in horrific clarity in Farenheit 9/11, without ever showing us the towers on screen. Had the film-makers approached the final 10 minutes or so as well as he did I feel they would of had a far more powerful film at the end of the day.

[–] ieuantiriarll-1 20 years ago

I don't see that comparing Bird's film to Moore's is fair or relevant. Moore's subject was not 9/11 but the American administration's response to it, which Moore (I happen to think rightly) denounces. Footage of the Twin Towers on fire, with people jumping from them to their deaths, would have weakened Moore's case - to some audiences, it would have made the Iraq invasion seem justified, or at least forgiveable. There was lots of horrific footage in "Farenheit 9/11", but it was of the results of American fire in Iraq, not of Arab terrorism in the US. Quite rightly, for Moore's purpose.

[–] dhnet2 20 years ago

You're wrong about the timings, all hijackers were on the planes before the first tower was hit, check http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/dayof911.html

The (very) brief footage of the towers being hit was used to show the shock on the face of Ziad Jarrah's girlfriend as she watches the TV broadcasts and realises her boyfriend is surely involved in it.

This was a frightening film, all the more chilling that it's world TV premiere came the night before the Beslan massacre. Almost as frightening is the lack of reaction to the film. It is not sympathetic to the hijackers, as some have claimed - the film explores their motivations, which were, according to this script at least, far more complicated than just Jihad or hatred for the USA.

The film doesn't attempt to explain how the hijackers managed to take over the planes or guide them so successfully to their targets, because this isn't known. It also doesn't involve itself in the flight school/Florida intrigue that some of the hijackers (particularly Atta) were involved in for up to a year before 9/11.

It limits itself to 'giving faces' to and trying to understand the hijackers, and the actors who play Atta, Jarrah and al Shibh show the intensity superbly - and Karim Saleh looks spookily similar to Jarrah.

Superb and brave filmmaking.

[–] james-337 20 years ago

Well said. It certainly made no attempt to condone the actions of the hijackers as some have suggested. It portrayed most of them as fanatics, blinded by misinterpretation of religion and perceived injustices to others (not themselves, since they were well-off, middle class and successful). And the only person I felt sympathy for was Aysel, Jarrah's wife.

[–] shesokay 18 years ago

The towers were hit after all hijackers were on the plane. The montage at the end of the film is not in sequence but is instead mixed up so that the images of the towers being destroyed, the men going on the plane, and the girlfriend's reaction to this have more of an impact on the viewer.

[–] blfsweet16 18 years ago

The final ten minutes are very powerful. I found that the most powerful moments were the close ups of Jarrah's face as he walked toward the tunnel that would take him to the aircraft. There was no remorse on his face, no fear, nothing at all that would make us feel for this man. Etched on his face was a sort of grin, a willingness to do this. I just got chills when I saw the final shots as Jarrah took that final turn down the tunnel that would take him to United Flight 93.

[–] evallejr2002 17 years ago

I would be disappointed if the imagery of the towers were missing. There has been a concerted effort to suppress anything related to the twin towers from cinematographic material. It became taboo. The director refuses to go along with the taboo. Exactly because we expected to see the towers falling, if they were missing, it would be a statement. But which statement? That even three years after the events, showing what happened was, in a certain way, forbidden.

[–] tjaa_11 13 years ago

Not to mention it's quite confusing... in a timeline event. Or is it?

Did they really allow a plane to take off after the two towers had been hit and collapsed? Or did it jump back and forth.