‘Sully’ adds a bit of drama to a hero’s tale
It's a truism that Hollywood prefers drama over authenticity. Which means that no matter what the historical facts are, some director is going to change something to make the movie play better. And all the best directors have done it.
I usually don't complain about the practice. What would be the point? But I always try to point out when it happens and whether it affects my moviegoing experience. And that is the basis for the criticism that I throw at Clint Eastwood's movie "Sully." Following is an edited version of the review that I wrote for Spokane Public Radio:
Clint Eastwood is a most improbable movie director. Whoever thought the guy who starred in the TV show “Rawhide,” who played the serape-wearing wanderer in Sergio Leone’s westerns or who personified the character of Dirty Harry would end up being an Oscar-winning filmmaker?
But it happened. And when he is on, as in such films as “Unforgiven,” “Mystic River,” “Million Dollar Baby” and “Letters From Iwo Jima,” Eastwood proves to be as good a director as anyone working today.
And so he would seem to be the perfect choice to direct the film “Sully,” which tells the story of what came to be known as the Miracle on the Hudson – namely, that day in January 2009 when US Airways pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger landed his Airbus A320 in New York’s Hudson River.
You know the story, right? Some 90 seconds after taking off from La Guardia airport, Sullenberger’s jet hit a flock of birds, which caused both engines to sputter and stop. Taking control, Sullenberger – a pilot with four decades of flying experience – decided that his best option was to ditch in the Hudson. Which he did. Expertly. And then he oversaw the plane’s evacuation. And all 155 on board survived.
So why is Eastwood the perfect person to helm this project? Because the character of Sullenberger, both as demonstrated in the numerous media appearances he made after the incident and as portrayed by actor Tom Hanks in Eastwood’s movie, fits one of the director’s favorite types: the man who, under pressure, coolly makes a firm, non-nonsense decision that others might not have but that ends up being the right thing to do. And who, afterward, is humble about his achievement.
When asked by Katie Couric how many other pilots could have done what he did, Sullenberger had a simple answer: “Thousands.” It was only chance, he said, that put him in the pilot’s seat.
From a technical perspective, “Sully” captures the full drama of that day. Based on a screenplay by Todd Komarnicki – a dramatized version of Sullenberger’s memoir “Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters” – the film does a good job of playing with chronology, flowing from past to present and showing the actual water landing from a number of perspectives. And the computer graphics put us, the audience, right there with the water with passengers and crew.
The acting across the board is spot-on, too. Hanks gives the straight-arrow Sullenberger an added dimension, and Aaron Eckhart is stalwart as his copilot Skiles (who was at the controls when the birds hit). Only the actors playing the National Transportation Safety Board investigators seem a little too dastardly to be real.
Which leads to the thematic problem with “Sully.” Komarnicki, presumably with Eastwood’s blessing, concocts a narrative that makes Sullenberger into a potential victim. In the days following the water landing, the movie has the pilot being grilled by NTSB investigators who point to computer simulations that show the plane could have made it back to the airport.
The truth was, though, that the after-incident investigation took some 15 months, during which all the standard questions were asked.And as the investigators themselves readily – not grudgingly – admitted, the computer simulations didn’t exactly replicate the situation that Sullenberger and his copilot, Jeffrey Skiles, were facing.
Final verdict: “Sully” is an inspiring story that didn’t need any added drama. Dirty Harry in particular should have realized that.