Kenneth Feinberg as first written by Kenneth Feinberg in his book, from which the Netflix-distributed "Worth" is based, "What Is Life Worth?, comes off quite well here, including being portrayed by the likeable Michael Keaton. Now, I don't know whether Feinberg deserves such a portrayal or not and, as his character in the movie might at least say, it doesn't really matter--it isn't about whether he deserves it or not. The bottom line is it's self-serving--about the ego that Feinberg in the movie is even willing to admit might've played a role in him taking on the job of determining how to distribute the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund enacted by Congress to, as the movie says, prevent the airlines from being sued and that potentially leading to general economic damage. Consequently, as far as the movie is concerned, Feinberg is "the bridge," which is to say it's about him.
Regardless, it's a grim job, I concede, but it doesn't necessarily make for an uplifting or heartwarming drama. Indeed, it seems the turning point is the concession that "Moneyball" on tort law for actuaries doesn't make for a good movie. Besides, Feinberg's mathematical formula is supposedly above reproach, as if it were an objective science and not based on capitalist and other philosophical assumptions. This isn't calculating the distance between the Sun and the planets. So, we get a movie about Feinberg listening to the families of the 9/11 victims tell their stories about their lost loved ones--not a movie about the families telling those stories. Its background in the horror of the 9/11 terrorist attacks may be moving, but it's a dull, even formulaic, legal drama otherwise.
The main artistic thing this one tries to do, too, has been done better before, which is to place an appreciation of art within the art that is the movie. In this case, it's opera. "Philadelphia" (1993) and who knows how many other films have done this before. Another picture I saw recently, "Margaret" (2011), which is set around Manhattan and also, albeit less so, references 9/11, exploits opera far more thoroughly and in interesting ways. Here, it merely humanizes the character and provides for his eureka moment of what's portrayed as being little more than a change in marketing strategy to enlist signatures to the fund. Quite disappointing for a star-studded release timed before the upcoming 20th anniversary of 9/11. The cold calculation being that the loss of this movie would be negligible.
Regardless, it's a grim job, I concede, but it doesn't necessarily make for an uplifting or heartwarming drama. Indeed, it seems the turning point is the concession that "Moneyball" on tort law for actuaries doesn't make for a good movie. Besides, Feinberg's mathematical formula is supposedly above reproach, as if it were an objective science and not based on capitalist and other philosophical assumptions. This isn't calculating the distance between the Sun and the planets. So, we get a movie about Feinberg listening to the families of the 9/11 victims tell their stories about their lost loved ones--not a movie about the families telling those stories. Its background in the horror of the 9/11 terrorist attacks may be moving, but it's a dull, even formulaic, legal drama otherwise.
The main artistic thing this one tries to do, too, has been done better before, which is to place an appreciation of art within the art that is the movie. In this case, it's opera. "Philadelphia" (1993) and who knows how many other films have done this before. Another picture I saw recently, "Margaret" (2011), which is set around Manhattan and also, albeit less so, references 9/11, exploits opera far more thoroughly and in interesting ways. Here, it merely humanizes the character and provides for his eureka moment of what's portrayed as being little more than a change in marketing strategy to enlist signatures to the fund. Quite disappointing for a star-studded release timed before the upcoming 20th anniversary of 9/11. The cold calculation being that the loss of this movie would be negligible.