Flight

"Flight" is a film that brought Denzel Washington an Oscar nomination...something his performance richly deserved. It's a terrific performance in a terrific, yet harrowing, film.

Whip Whitaker (Washington) is an absolute mess. Although he's an airline pilot, he's an addict and boards a plane under the influence of cocaine and alcohol. He's so badly impaired that during the flight, he managed to sneak MORE alcohol into his body! Now here's the amazing part....the plane literally begins to fall apart in midair and through VERY quick thinking, he manages to crash land the plane with only minimal loss of life. When Whip awakens at the hospital, he soon learns that the press is declaring that he's a hero! This film is about his actions and the airline's and the pilot union's following the crash.

The scene where the plane begins to fall apart and crashes is about the most harrowing and adrenaline-pumping scenes you'll ever see in a film. I could actually feel my chest pounding and STRONGLY recommend anyone with a fear of flying to avoid this film!!! It's well done...and it's shocking no Oscar nominations were given to the folks who created this scene!

I appreciate Denzel Washington in this film. Not only is he very good, but he really took a risk here playing such a screwed up and self-destructive guy. This was clearly a stretch for him...and it's nice to see him do something different.

Overall, this is a really amazing film...not just because of the crash but also because it really shows addiction in all its ugliness and with great realism. Among the best of 2012...though oddly apart from Washington and one minor award, the film wasn't nominated for Best Picture nor Best Director.

UPDATE: I recently found "The Pilot" on YouTube. It's a very, very similar story starring Cliff Robertson...so similar that I have to believe the writer of "Flight" was 'inspired' by it strongly. Because it's so similar, I am amending my score for "Flight" from 10 to 9....but it's still a terrific story.

"Flight" hinges on one question, but before I get to the question we have to set the stage.

Captain William "Whip" Whitaker (Denzel Washington), a commercial pilot, spent a night of boozing, snorting, and sex with a flight attendant. The next morning he had a flight out of Florida to Atlanta with a manifest of 102 persons. The weather was extremely rough upon take off, but not enough to ground the flight. Whip deftly maneuvered through the storm then the flight was relatively smooth after that, so Whip slept. Somewhere over Georgia the plane experienced mechanical problems and went into a nose dive. With the utmost calmness Whip pulled yet one more set of maneuvers to land the plane with minimal loss of life. Six people did die, but it could've been so much worse.

Whip's lawyer, Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle), did some maneuvering of his own and had Whip's toxicology report suppressed. The NTSB, after an extensive investigation, found that Whip performed outstandingly. They attempted with simulators to have other experienced pilots land Flight 227 and they all failed. Whip was a hero. So then, here's the question:

Was Captain Whitaker's inebriated state a matter of importance with him flying that day?

Whip was an incorrigible drunk, but a functional one after a few lines of cocaine. His problem ruined his marriage, his relationship with his son, and was threatening his freedom. It was an unshakable factor throughout the movie and one that would cause you to shake your head in pity as well as embarrassment for him.

What makes "Flight" a good movie is the question I posed because how many people in society are functioning addicts or alcoholics? I just watched "Puncture" with Chris Evans who played an addict lawyer who was superb at his job as long as he was high. Such people exist.

Flight was a top tier production with awesome performances from the likes of Denzel (naturally), John Goodman, Don Cheadle, and Bruce Greenwood. The production and acting helped make the movie standout, but the plot itself and the central question it poses makes it what it is.

I am an aircraft mechanic, so admittedly I have trouble watching a movie which will undoubtedly abuse reality in terms of physics and aircraft design. I recall seeing previews for this and being stunned at the laughable scenario of an inverted passenger plane. That experience dropped my expectation to essentially zero.

When I watched this film I was surprised in two ways. Firstly, the scenario was more plausible than I had given it credit. Inverted flight is a problem for most planes because of aerodynamics. And while some aircraft are aerodynamically capable of inverted flight (even some passenger planes) it is additionally a problem because hydraulic and engine oil systems are often gravity fed. This means that if a plane is able to fly this way, most of them won't fly for long before systems begin to fail. The film did a reasonable job of portraying this as the plane was just barely able to sustain level flight with a full pitch down elevator position and displayed low engine oil press warnings which led to engine fire. I suspect the roll maneuver would require more altitude than the film suggests...but otherwise it's not far from what could happen in reality if this was actually attempted. Most engine fire T-handles are designed to instantly shut fuel and bleed air valves for an engine...which doesn't seem to happen here, but that was my biggest realism gripe.

My second surprise is that this movie has very little to do with aviation. Aviation seems to be the setting for the story, but the subject itself is substance abuse. The story could have just as easily been set around a bus driver or a ship captain. Given the fact that aviation was merely a setting for the story I have to give credit to the film makers for paying at least some attention to realism.

I thought the story was fascinating. It's the sort of film that requires something of the viewer. You can't watch this without making moral judgements and that process requires each viewer to evaluate how they feel about certain subjects. The story creates just enough moral dilemma to get people thinking and any story that can succeed in that gets a pass from me.

After the opening scene in which pilot Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) wakes up with a monster hangover yet drinks some more alcohol, smokes some weed and does a line of cocaine, it's clear the trailer for Flight was massively misleading. This is not a light-hearted movie with elements of mystery, trademark Denzel coolness or a hint of darkness; this is an intense drama about alcoholism that cuts deep at every turn. The plane crash isn't the focus here, it's merely an extraordinary situation which serves to push Whip's condition to the fore, allowing an examination of the addiction that can inflict itself even on people in positions of great importance. There's no doubting the nobility in attacking such a serious topic, but there's elements that don't work: Kelly Reilly's heroin addict doesn't convince, Don Cheadle is criminally underused as Whip's lawyer and the ending is, if not necessarily the easy route, definitely gift-wrapped a little too neatly. With a solid turn from Washington, a thankful resistance from director Robert Zemeckis to get melodramatic and a terrific soundtrack, Flight manages to stay on track about a man who goes way off it.

Trailers might lead you to believe this is a film about flying. Or about an amazing flying feat. But it is all about the lead character, Captain "Whip" Whitaker (Denzel Washington), a man who is a pilot and an alcoholic. The flying and a terrible crash provide background for the story of this man, who has struggled with his illness for years.

In many ways the story is not that original. We have seen numerous stories about alcoholics and heard real-life testimonies of the behaviors that accompany alcoholism, and this film tracks with all of them.

It is worth seeing for the brilliant portrayal of Captain Whitaker and the performances of the other actors in the film. Some parts are difficult to watch because the acting is so engaging.

I also think the film raises some interesting questions that some viewers may not be willing to acknowledge. If one is an alcoholic, is the entire worth of that man nothing more than what his sickness drags him down to? Are we what we do? Can we rise above our neuroses or our worst behaviors? Often we see public figures condemned in media for indiscretions or harmful acts; is that, then, the measure of the man or woman?

The film, even if judged solely for its dramatic content, is worth seeing.