‘Sully’ is latest historical film to prompt off-screen drama

Sun, Sep 11, 2016 (2 a.m.)

Even before this weekend’s release of the Hollywood movie “Sully,” about the pilot who safely landed a disabled US Airways airliner on the Hudson River on a frigid January day in 2009, a rebuttal campaign is underway by some of the participants in the real-life story.

The federal investigators who conducted the inquiry into the flight contend that “Sully” tarnishes their reputation.

“That’s not how it happened” has become a routine response in recent years to movies based on real events, but in this case the protest is by officials of a federal agency — the National Transportation Safety Board — who have a public record to buttress their side of the debate.

The investigators, including Robert Benzon, the now-retired leader of the inquiry, studied the events of that January day, held hearings and ended up praising the actions of the pilot, Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger III, known as Sully.

Their conclusion, in a May 2010 report, lent support to the public consensus that Sullenberger was a hero for landing the disabled plane and enabling all 155 aboard to escape with their lives.

So familiar was the story, in fact, that the scriptwriters heightened the drama by adding a level of testiness to the NTSB investigation that Benzon and others involved say is unfair and inaccurate. But that may not matter when the raw material of real life is redone as mass entertainment.

There is no question that the film’s version of the inquiry veers from the official record in both tone and substance, and depicts the investigators as departing from standard protocol in airline accident inquiries. The NTSB released a statement saying the agency regretted that the filmmakers had not asked them to review the movie for accuracy.

Moviegoers are led to the conclusion that the NTSB team was prosecutorial and closed-minded and that, without guidance from Sullenberger, played by Tom Hanks, the facts of what happened that afternoon might never have been known.

“We weren’t out to hose the crew,” Benzon said. “There were no rubber hoses being brought out, no bright lights,” he said after being told of the confrontational nature of the scenes between the pilots and the investigators. “Sully is worried about his reputation, but this movie isn’t helping mine.”

Because the film does not use the real names of the investigators, including Benzon, his interviews this week with the news media might be drawing more attention to him and his reputation than “Sully” would otherwise have done.

There is also the complicating fact that, as of Thursday night, Benzon had not seen the movie — only the trailers — and was relying on descriptions from people who had seen early screenings of the film.

Allyn Stewart, a producer of the film, said it was not a case of taking creative license to ratchet up the drama. “The story is told through the experiences of Jeff and Sully, and so they felt under extreme scrutiny and they were,” Stewart said.

Jeff is the co-pilot, Jeff Skiles, played in the film by Aaron Eckhart.

Sullenberger, who retired from US Airways in 2010, said in an email that the tension in the film accurately reflected his state of mind at the time. “For those who are the focus of the investigation, the intensity of it is immense,” he said, adding that the process was “inherently adversarial, with professional reputations absolutely in the balance."

Sullenberger has become a popular and well-paid personality on the lecture circuit, with two best-selling books to his credit — including “Highest Duty,” on which the film is nominally based and which has been rereleased as “Sully,” with a cover photo of Hanks.

The film industry has a long history of taking liberties with true stories, but Hollywood has relied much more heavily on the practice in recent years. Phrases like “based on a true story” give studio marketers a hook to grab ticket buyers — an increasingly difficult task given the number of alternative entertainment options, particularly online.

The trade-off is often blowback.

Last year, more than a dozen dramas and comedies faced factual questions, including “Spotlight,” which examined predatory priests in Boston and the Catholic Church’s cover-up attempts; “Concussion,” centered on a forensic pathologist who helped expose traumatic brain injury among professional football players; “The Big Short,” billed as a true story about the subprime mortgage crisis; and “Straight Outta Compton,” a biopic about the rap group N.W.A.

Hollywood mostly responds with a shrug.

In a promotional video on the Warner Bros. website, the director, Clint Eastwood, says that the NTSB was trying to frame the accident as Sullenberger’s fault.

“The investigative board was trying to paint the picture that he had done the wrong thing,” Eastwood said.

In his book, Sullenberger acknowledges he was worried that, after 40 years of flying, his professional reputation would come down to his performance on US Airways Flight 1549 on Jan. 15, 2009. The Airbus A-320 jetliner lost both engines after hitting a flock of geese shortly after taking off from La Guardia Airport.

But few details of the investigation or Sullenberger’s reaction to it are in the book.

The film suggests that the NTSB thought the pilots probably could have safely returned to the airport. The investigators in the movie base this assumption on a series of flights in an A-320 simulator at the company headquarters in Toulouse, France.

Presented with this information, Hanks’ Sullenberger tells the investigators they have failed to account for the time it would take the pilots in an actual situation to react to the event. Subsequent simulations are then conducted and, when the additional reaction time is factored in, the plane crashes before reaching the airport. Only then are the movie investigators forced to re-evaluate their position.

In reality, there were no subsequent simulations conducted at Sullenberger’s suggestion. There was no need. Before the safety board presented its findings to the real Sullenberger at a public hearing, it had conducted its simulations both ways and found that the plane did indeed crash when the “human factor” — the added reaction time — was accounted for.

As described by Eastwood in the promotional video, the purpose of the accident inquiry was to assign blame. But the NTSB maintains that its investigations are primarily meant to learn how humans and machines fail, to prevent the same sort of accidents from happening again.

Benzon, pointing out that Sullenberger was a safety representative for his union at the time, and trained to participate in NTSB investigations, said the pilot should not have allowed the process and its purpose to be portrayed inaccurately for the sake of cinematic drama.

“He knew of our procedures,” Benzon said. “The union had taught him our procedures and to have them so bastardized shocks me.”

But Stewart, the producer, indicated that the pilot’s and co-pilot’s perceptions of the inquiry were just as valid as the version presented by the investigators.

“It’s not a documentary,” Stewart said. “But at the same time it needs to be an authentic view of what Sully and Jeff experienced, and this was what they faced. This was what they went through.”

Back to top

SHARE

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy