Movie: Sully

Re: Ed Locke’s post 13203 of 9/27/16

   One-line summary: What was missing from Sully

We just got back from seeing Sully — thanks to Ed for recommending. Very worthwhile and inspiring to see the entire event in context. I was especially pleased at what was missing from the movie — there were no religious elements that I noticed. No “Thanks be to God!” No little Christian cross jewelry on the crew. No praying by the crew. No heavenly sun-rays bathing the wrecked airplane in holy grace. No visits afterward to church. No priests, no pastors, no nuns. No sudden conversions to Jesus. No Bible verses. No St. Christopher medals. Nothing mystical at all. Everything was objective. Thanks, Clint Eastwood!

(I don’t count as mystical the expression “Miracle on the Hudson.” It was a miracle in the proper meaning of the term — after all, the etymology of that word boils down to “Look at that! Wow! Amazing!” Entirely appropriate in this case. As Ed said, a movie not to be missed. Our audience applauded at the end.)

/sb

Re: Ed Locke’s post 13203 of 9/27/16

  One-line summary: Sully is an excellent movie that concretizes the virtues of rationality, logic, and professionalism.

I agree with Professor Locke and Tom Bowden’s assessment of Sully. It really is an excellent movie in which the central character is an unblemished hero with an unwavering commitment to excellence. 

The aspect of Sully’s character that I very much admired, and which is made very explicit, is his professionalism and commitment to his career as a pilot (he says that it is “his life”). He exudes extreme competence and responsibility in all of his actions, a status that I as a physician strive to achieve. 

A great line from the movie exemplifying Sully’s active-minded approach is:

A pilot never stops learning

/sb

Re: Amesh Adalja’s post 115176 of 10/3/16

   One-line summary: Another virtue of Sully.

For all of the reasons above, I agree that Sully is a must-see for Objectivists.  It is heartening that a movie like this can still be made in our increasingly nihilistic culture.   If there were 20 films likes this, I would make sure to see one a day so as to distract me from the moroseness of the presidential campaign.  I’ll probably go see Sully again soon.

Not mentioned above is that one of the main conflicts in the movie is the one that takes place in the hero’s mind: he is not 100% sure that he made the right decision, and he needs to know this, for selfish reasons. This is not frailty. It is rigorous rationality. I won’t go further than this so as not to spoil the story.

I should mention that there has been some criticism of the portrayal of the NTSB investigators in the film: namely, that they are shown to be much more antagonistic than they actually were. I don’t know the truth of this claim, but I don’t think it matters. If it is only a dramatic device, then it works, if only to further the internal conflict I mentioned above.  

I was thoroughly engrossed in this film. The 100 minutes passed much too quickly. I was so surprised to realize that there was very little “physical action.” Probably fewer than 20 minutes were spent on the actual flight and landing. The “action” was epistemological and moral. And, the audience cheered heartily at the end.

Thank you, Tom Hanks and Clint Eastwood.

/sb

Re: Ed Locke’s post 13203 of 9/27/16

   One-line summary: Huge missed opportunity

This movie has cemented my view of Eastwood as one of the worst directors extant (from the standpoint of my sense of life).  I’ve avoided his movies for years, because of his truly ugly view of man exhibited time after time, as a director. Sully’s actual heroism is given a bland, naturalistic treatment by Eastwood, which drains the real story of its wonder and greatness.  (Compare another true-story film, such as Chariots of Fire, which was designed by the writer and director as a true Romantic film.)

I suspect the well-known events of Captain Sullenberger’s accomplishment colors viewers’ perceptions of the movie. Most people know the heroic bones of the story, thus they bring those feelings to the movie, rather than receive from the movie a true sense of the man’s mettle.

The portrayal of Sully is radically off. The real Sully is one who exudes classic “pilot-ness” — someone with a quiet confidence and a scientist’s mindset — open, inquiring, with a joie de vivre. The Hanks portrayal presents a dour man most of the time, and full of angst — which is typical Eastwood coloring. Seeing the real Sully for a mere minute after the movie ends, as the credits roll, one sees a face of a man who is very different from the Hanks portrayal.

/sb

Re: John Gillis’ post 115598 of 10/28/16

   One-line summary: I agree with Dr. Locke on Sully

In this day, when the pitiful, pitiable, mediocre, and bizarre are held up as the admirable, this movie, in bright contrast, shows man at his best and most heroic. Bravo, Clint Eastwood and Tom Hanks, for this inspiring movie. It is a gripping and emotional production. I was on pins and needles throughout the entire movie.

Sully saved 155 passengers and crew by his cool, clearheaded, on-the-spot thinking and actions. I did not know the backstory on this.  It was obvious that the NTSB, in going after Sully, was going after “the good for being good.”

If there were some ‘naturalistic’ elements, they were in the proper context. Who would not be rattled a bit by going through such a traumatic event? It was also genius, the way that Sully forced the NTSB to present their case, thereby proving that Sully did the right thing (by their standards).

I also think that Clint Eastwood is a fine producer. His movies usually offer a non-apologetic clear-cut view of good vs. evil.

*sb