Sully

Dir: Clint Eastwood

2016

***

Clint Eastwood's 2016 adaption of Chesley Sullenberger's hit autobiography 'Highest Duty' that he co-wrote with the late Jeffrey Zaslow, is refreshingly subdued, particularly given what Sullenberger is most famous for. Chesley Sullenberger, or Sully as he is best known, is the talented hero pilot who, with the assistance of First Officer Jeff Skiles, landed an A320 Airbus on the Hudson River, saving the lives of all 155 people on board and preventing even more loss of life, had the plane crashed on land. The typical Hollywood biography might see Sully as a young man, then as a young pilot etc and would follow a linear path, ending with the famous landing on January 15, 2009. Eastwood doesn't do that, instead, the film begins with the famous incident, at a level most people know of, and then revisits key moments and explores details that most people are unaware of. I had no idea for example that his actions were ever under scrutiny. This is because they weren't, at least not how the film suggests. Every incident needs a full investigation and it is totally understandable that simulations were needed to verify the need and justify Sully's emergency landing. If he really had no other choice then he would be a hero, if however he could have avoided landing in water, a move that has never worked in aviation history, then he would and should have to take responsibility. So of course he was investigated, but the National Transportation Safety Board are depicted in quite an antagonistic light, one that is completely unfounded. Sully himself had reviewed an early draft of the script, which identified NTSB investigators by their real names, and asked that these be removed. He felt that the real-life investigators "were not prosecutors" and it was not fair to associate them with changes in the story to depict "more of a prosecutorial process". So the very man who the film is about has basically said this aspect of the film is fictional. Why do that? Is this what modern audience’s desire in this day and age, a hero story that we can't fully enjoy without outdoing someone? Is this a dig at modern day health and safety by an aging right-winger who hasn't quite finished preaching? I think so, Mr Eastwood can protest that he's neither right nor left-wing, a Libertarian etc but in all the films he has directed there is an underlying message, an antagonistic jab where there just isn't a need for one. He lost my respect and faith in him when he declared American Sniper to be one of the greatest (and misunderstood) anti-war movies of all time. Pull the other one Mr. Eastwood. Anyway, back to Sully, I thought most of the film was an interesting look at the details that resulted in that miraculous landing. It is tarnished by Eastwood stupid tampering but the editing and structure of the film is actually rather brilliant. The performances are also brilliantly subdued and there is little in terms of false emotion or in emotional blackmail. I just don't understand why such a great story needed elaboration. Hollywood tampering in true stories needs to stop before every single film becomes the same, Sully is a good example, otherwise you should just make a documentary. Credit it due to editing, screenplay and performance (Ton Hanks and Aaron Eckhart are on good form), but shame on painting good people as villains, especially when the actions of those good people have saved many lives.