J. Neil Schulman
@ Agorist.com
@ Agorist.com
Back in the seventies two novels — The Glass Inferno and The Tower — were melded into a mega-disaster movie titled The Towering Inferno.
As a thought experiment I’m going to combine two movies into one: 2012’s Flight and 2013’s The Challenger Disaster.
Both movies are about a disaster in the air ending in a crash.
Flight is about a fictitious airliner crash.
The Challenger Disaster is about the real-life investigation of the explosion, shortly after launch, that destroyed the space shuttle Challenger and killed its crew.
One of these movies is about an investigation that ultimately finds the true cause of the disaster and places fault where it is due.
The other movie is a fundamentally dishonest propaganda piece.
And, coincidentally enough, actor Bruce Greenwood plays in both movies.
So, let’s put ourselves into the plot of a fictitious combined disaster movie in which after scientist Richard Feynman proves that the cause of the Challenger explosion was launching on a day colder than the shuttle’s O-rings could properly function, the chief investigator finds vodka bottles among the shuttle wreckage and spends the rest of the investigation trying to find out if any of the crew of the Challenger was drunk at the time of the launch.
End of thought experiment.
Spoiler alert for anyone who hasn’t seen the movie Flight. I’m going to reveal major plot points and the ending.
In Flight — a movie directed by one of my favorite filmmakers, Robert Zemeckis, and with an Oscar-nominated screenplay by John Gatins — airline pilot Whip Whitaker (the always-brilliant Denzel Washington) is a raging alcoholic and cocaine user who pilots a flight while on a bender. With a blood-alcohol level three times as high as would qualify for a DUI charge behind the wheel of a car, Whip makes ultra-competent decisions demonstrating that he’s a better pilot drunk than most pilots are cold sober, and when a critical component of the aircraft fails making the aircraft’s controls useless, he nonetheless executes the radical maneuver of regaining control of his aircraft by flying it upside down until he can land it right-side-up again in a field. The maneuver works but in the crash landing two flight attendants and four passengers die, and his co-pilot has his legs crushed so that he’s unlikely ever to walk again.
Nonetheless, the plot establishes the facts that the cause of the crash was the mechanical failure which disabled the aircraft’s controls, and that Whip’s brilliant piloting skills are the only thing which saved the lives of nearly 100 passengers and crew.
The movie’s plot shows us that after the crash Whip decides to quit drinking and his resolve is only broken when it becomes evident he’s going to be scapegoated for the crash by his airline and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator when his blood toxicology report shows he was drunk and coked up while piloting the aircraft.
At this point let me recount a story that, during the Civil War, President Lincoln received a report that the leader of the Union Army, General Ulysses S. Grant, was drunk most of the time. Lincoln is reported to have replied, “Find out what he’s drinking and send a case of it to the rest of my generals.”
We live in an age where what you put into your own body is more of a crime than what you do with it. Smoking, for many people, is more on their radar of sin than murder. Driving while intoxicated is a worse crime for many people than sending a drone into another country and killing a wedding party.
The movie Flight follows the plot formula of the old True Confessions magazines: sin and redemption.
In a critical scene near the end of the movie, Whip gets blind drunk the night before he has to testify at the NTSB hearing into the cause of the crash, and his lawyer (Don Cheadle) and union rep (Bruce Greenwood) get his drug dealer (John Goodman) to fix him up so he can testify lucidly.
At that hearing the chief NTSB crash investigator Ellen Block (Mellisa Leo) establishes that mechanical failure caused the pilots to lose control of the aircraft and using the cockpit flight recorder establishes for the record that only Whip’s brilliant piloting decision to invert the aircraft to regain control saved most of the passengers.
At this point in the movie, logic demands that she thank Whip and end the hearing.
But noooooooooooooooooo!
Instead, having shown in her own presentation that the cause of the problem was mechanical and the savior of the lives was Whip, she continues her interrogation of Whip by asking him to give an opinion that two empty vodka bottles found in the airliner’s trash were consumed by the flight attendant that we in the audience knows was partying with Whip the night before the flight.
At which point, rather than lie, Whip confesses to having drunk the vodka himself.
The movie ends, true to its true-confessions formula, with a redeemed Whip in prison, having confessed to his sin of piloting an aircraft drunk and coked up — more expertly than any other cold sober pilot could have done.
WTF?
In a sane society not in thrall to Puritans and Prohibitionists, Whip would have told Ellen Block, “Suppose I was intoxicated, hypothetically. In which case your own investigation demonstrates that I’m a more competent pilot drunk and coked up than any sober pilot you could have put in my place, and but for my drunken flying there would have been 100 more deaths. So go fuck yourself, you statist sow.”
Only a libertarian like me would write dialogue like this.
But it’s dumb statists who get the writing jobs in Hollywood.
More’s the pity.
December 27, 2013 - 4:48 pm
Thank you for the spoiler, Neil. I didn’t think I was going to watch this movie – ever – and your piece has confirmed my decision. I don’t need to have my mental state polluted by great acting depicting this kind of disgusting belief.
You have to think that people like that investigator would rather the other 100 had died than be saved by someone doing something politically incorrect. It’s got to be the attitude that informs any cop or prosecutor who charges the intended victim of a crime for successfully defending himself against the criminal!
December 28, 2013 - 3:48 am
As usual with most libertarians, the moral of the story is lost in the ever-present need to prove that individualist ideology trumps all other moral quandaries.
…if you really think that your summation of the story of Flight is actually captured in the above straw-manning, then you have my pity.
“Violation of the Public Trust” is a phrase without meaning when you are arguing with someone who denies the existence of something called “the Public”.
December 28, 2013 - 2:26 pm
So “violating the public trust” by your way of analysis is that being a more skillful pilot while drunk — being the only person with the skills necessary to save 100 souls onboard an airliner under his command — is less important than following abstract rules about blood-alcohol content that ignore biological individual capacity.
That sort of one-size-fits-all collectivist rule-making that in the specific case would have resulted in 100 additional deaths is precisely why you statists are fucking insane. Your abstract theories of how things should work is more important to you than real-world results, whether your utopian theory is gun control or inflating the money supply to “correct” business cycles or destroying industry because of fantasies about global warming or making society decent by prohibiting anything you think sinful. Unintended consequences mean nothing to you so long as your theory is being implemented. Alfred Korzybski termed this making the territory fit the map — and if the map shows a bridge where there is none you drive right off the cliff.
December 28, 2013 - 8:56 pm
This comment was originally posted here https://www.facebook.com/jneilschulman/posts/10202579452308066
I hesitated to even post (hell, I’ve toyed with simply unfriending the last of the libertarians on my friends list simply to be spared the annoyance of their nutty twist on things) a response, but having read the article that was linked, I pretty much felt compelled to.
First off, I don’t have to ‘prove’ that there is a public, or define it. It is defined in law already. Secondly, the argument concerning Duck Dynasty is completely fallacious, and off-topic. Anyone who thought that A&E would not air the season that they had taped already was living in a fool’s paradise. What they hoped to achieve was to take the heat off of themselves, before they actually air the episodes they paid for. The true test will be if the show maintains it’s ratings, and is or isn’t renewed for another season. All that will prove, however, is that American’s like watching hicks do stupid shit. That isn’t even a revelation.
But that entire chain of argument has nothing to do with Neil’s strawmanning a fictional film, and mashing it up with the real-life events that lead to the Challenger disaster; failures in large groups which can and have been documented, and we’d be wise to take heed of; http://www.amazon.com/dp/1591026601 …as opposed to fictionalized stories (something he should be quite familiar with) which tell morality tales, or at least get us to thinking about questions that merit discussion.
Flight, while flawed, wasn’t about what Neil says it was. The pilot in question wasn’t even jailed at the end for the reason he states. The movie was a limited exploration of how we treat addicts in this country, and how we mask over the functionally addicted among us with just the kinds of platitudes that Neil offers in his counter argument above. I would be the first person (and it was my first reaction on viewing the film the first time) to say that the pilot should not have been sent to jail. Yank his license, encourage him to seek treatment, etc, sure. Jail proves nothing, except that we will punish scapegoats in this case.
However, to suggest he merited no punishment because he was a ‘superman’ able to function on a level no other person could… May I remind you that the film was a work of fiction? And while I have known many functional alcoholics in my lifetime, most of whom drove drunk every day of their lives, it doesn’t mean that they would not be responsible for accidents that they might have been involved in, because of their impaired capacity. It would be amusing, for the purpose of illustration, to put some of these types to the test, to find out if they really aren’t impaired. I’d be willing to bet that they would fail the same tests that the rest of us did, at statistically predictable rates. At least it would silence the people who insist that they not be subjected to the same laws as the rest of us.
…In any case, I find it amusing that Libertarians have gone from being the party of personal responsibility, to the party of no responsibility. Quite telling, actually.
December 31, 2013 - 11:51 pm
Neil continues to respond on Facebook in the thread linked above, BTW.