'Sully' is more of a monument than a movie

( PG-13 ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

'Sully' stars Tom Hanks as Captain Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger, who landed a plane safely in the Hudson River after the plane's engines were knocked out. The movie co-stars Aaron Eckhart and is directed by Clint Eastwood.

Warner Bros. Pictures/AP
'Sully' stars Tom Hanks (l.) and Aaron Eckhart (r.).

In “Sully,” Tom Hanks is playing someone with ramrod rectitude – not exactly a stretch. (Remember “Bridge of Spies”?) Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger is the certified real-life hero who, on Jan. 15, 2009, 208 seconds into lift-off from New York’s LaGuardia airport, flew into a flock of birds, knocking out both of his U.S. Airways jet engines only 2800 feet off the ground.

As all the world knows, Sullenberger – who, with his 40-plus years experience as a pilot, believed no other option was available to him – landed the plane safely in the icy waters of the Hudson River. Miraculously, all 150 passengers and five crew members survived, with only a few suffering even minor injuries.

Rest assured director Clint Eastwood and screenwriter Todd Komarnicki have found a way to insert some dramatic tension into the proceedings. Not enough, though. Still, “Sully” brings out a little-known aspect of this hero fest: Sullenberger, with his co-pilot Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart), was investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for possible negligence in landing the plane in the Hudson instead of LaGuardia or one of the neighboring airports.

Eastwood begins the film with Sullenberger’s nightmare of the plane crashing into a Manhattan skyscraper instead of landing in the Hudson. This establishes the fact that Sullenberger (like Skiles) is certifiably human, despite his supreme level-headedness at the moment of crisis. His rectitude and grace under pressure cannot entirely muffle his trauma. But the occasional blips of post-traumatic stress that Eastwood serves up seem more like concessions to reality rather than explications of Sullenberger’s inner life. For the most part, Sullenberger seems wounded more by the NTSB investigation than by his memories. (In reality, the hearings took place not in the immediate aftermath of the forced landing, but 18 months later.)

Hanks is very good at playing an Everyman, and Eastwood is content to showcase Sullenberger in that way. “I don’t feel like a hero. I was just a man doing a job,” says the captain in his most characteristic moment, and it’s clear that, for Eastwood, this attitude represents the highest masculine ideal. It’s a noble and ennobling stance but also, finally, a bit boring.

There are many kinds of heroism, of course, but the version on display in “Sully” is, well, unsullied, and that sort of thing is more suitable for a monument than a movie. Grade: B (Rated PG-13 for some peril and brief strong language.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.