Question

Paul Greengrass’s account of how a single group of passengers, almost certain of death, decided on the morning of September 11, 2001, to fight back against hijackers on a suicide mission turns out to be – after much public anxiety about potential “exploitation” – an example of a hundred per cent professional filmmaking. Greengrass’s movie is tightly wrapped, UNRELENTING, and, no matter how exciting, superbly precise. For this story of semi-anonymous group heroism, he uses actual professionals (pilots, flight attendants, an air-traffic controller) mixed in with largely UNKNOWN actors, and avoids visual or verbal rhetoric. The handheld camera is an active participant in everything that’s going on –and still manages to see what it needs to see out of the corner of its eye. The avoidance of front-and-center staging makes us feel the uncertainty of an unprecedented situation. This is true existential filmmaking; in the end, the viewer’s dread is released in mad exhilaration as the passengers charge the hijackers with the force of water breaking through a dam. (Adapted from The New Yorker) De acordo com o texto, o filme a) tem como tema central um acidente de avião. b) retrata o ponto de vista dos profissionais envolvidos no evento. c) foi filmado com câmeras fixas, o que contribuiu para a dramaticidade. d) conta com atores conhecidos. e) foi feito de maneira muito profissional e capta o drama do momento.

Answer 1

sorry but i want points:(