| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| World Trade Center "is a solid piece of filmmaking." |
| 2006-08-04 |
| by Jonathan V. Last, Weekly Standard IT IS DIFFICULT, maybe even impossible, to render critical judgment on a movie such as World Trade Center. The normal aspects of appraisal are meaningless. It would be absurd to measure the film by its pacing or its cinematography. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is whether or not it feels right, and even that nebulous criterion probably has more to do with the viewer than the movie. All of that said, Oliver Stone's World Trade Center is a solid piece of filmmaking. WTC is an important movie. There were three stories from 9/11 which needed to be told. The first, about the doomed heroics of Flight 93, was brought to the screen by Paul Greengrass earlier this spring. The second, about the FAA's struggle to clear the skies and land 4,452 planes in 180 minutes, has yet to be made. But Stone has picked the most dramatically satisfying part of the triptych: The story of Will Jimeno, John McLoughlin, Dave Karnes, and Charles Sereika (see this fantastic Rebecca Liss piece for the full tale). Jimeno (played by Michael Peña) and McLoughlin (Nicholas Cage) were Port Authority officers who went into the Trade Center to help with the evacuation. When the first building collapsed, they were pinned down and buried in an elevator shaft. Karnes (Michael Shannon) was a retired Marine working as an accountant in Connecticut. When he saw the news on the television at his office, he left, went to a barber for a buzzcut, put on his old uniform, and drove straight to Ground Zero, where he headed out onto the pile, searching for survivors. Authorities were calling the official workers back because night was falling and the area was unsafe. Amidst the carnage, Karnes hooked up with another man, Sgt. Jason Thomas (William Mapother), and the two roamed Ground Zero, shouting, over and over, "United States Marines, if you can hear us, yell or tap!" After an hour, they heard something: Jimeno and McLoughlin, still alive under 20 feet of rubble. Thomas went for backup, which arrived in the form of Charles Sereika (Frank Whaley), a recovering alcoholic and a former paramedic, who had also put on an old uniform and come to the crater to help. Sereika, Karnes, and then others, dug for hours to rescue Jimeno and McLoughlin. Stone tells the story with confidence and an astonishing degree of empathy. . . . if anything, the only criticism which Stone could be open to with WTC is that he's too sentimental, that he feels the material too deeply. He lacks the clinical dispassion Greengrass brought to United 93. Some audiences may see this as a failing; I suspect most will not. That Stone was able to make a steady, emotionally fulfilling movie from this amazing source material should come as little surprise to those familiar with his work. But what is surprising--astonishing, even--is that Stone has made a full-blown Jesus movie. World Trade Center is filled with Christianity. Karnes goes to church to pray before heading to Manhattan and Stone focuses for long stretches of this scene on the cross above the altar. There are crucifixes and rosaries everywhere. McLoughlin's emergence from the pit is shot as though it were the resurrection. Christ even appears in the film, twice. And all of this is handled not with condescension or even with a distant respectfulness, but with actual reverence. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #9 Cindy's a narcissistic idiot |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-04 17:55 |
| #8 The New York Post panned it in a big way. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-08-04 17:53 |
| #7 M1 I would like to see a movie from a pro US perspective on the politics and struggle we have with the EU cowards, the French apologists, Russia and China stabbing us in the back and Iran, the Soddies all in their true colors. But then there is no one in hollywood that would even concider it! |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-08-04 17:45 |
| #6 Agreed, 49 Pan--- I've already heard his political views and have no desire to hear them again. I'm not saying Stone should have politicized the film, but that a film that clearly delineates what happened, without the BDS or hate America content, needs to be made. In the end though, for what this film is, it's sounding good. My criticisms dealt with what it is not. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-08-04 15:29 |
| #5 Once the fight starts its not about politics and Islam. It's about survival at the lowest level. I'm sure there will be many movies covering the politics of this war and their strike on 9/11, a time I am not wanting to arrive. The stories of the folks at the WTC and their heroics transcend the politics that lead up to it. This is such an emotional issue; I'm relieved to hear the director left all the politics out when telling these heroic stories. The last thing I needed to hear was Stone's political views during a story this important. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-08-04 14:45 |
| #4 How do you de-politicize an inherently political and world-changing event? Yes, and the irony is that any movie about Katrina will have more politics in it than a movie about 9-11. |
| Posted by: qwerty 2006-08-04 14:32 |
| #3 From what I've gleaned, it IS a good film, about people doing the right thing, about heroism, about sacrifice, about helping your fellow man. However, at the risk of being the lone voice of dissent, I have to say that a film about 9/11 that isn't political misses the point. True, 9/11 did bring out the best in people, and particularly, the best in New Yorkers. But the same could be said about American heroes down through the decades, who, when faced with horror and tragedy, rose above it and acted with the highest nobility and courage. 9/11 was about Islamofascist terror. It was about a paradigm shift. It was about a new and harsh reality in the world, that there are ragheads who want the death of every American and every Jew, and who actively seek to kill them. Of course, this reality wasn't new on 9/11, but the magnitude of the event brought the issue into focus. The WTC film should deal with that as well as the heroes. How do you de-politicize an inherently political and world-changing event? In many ways, you do a disservice to those who died by de-politicizing the events of that day, because it is only in the context of why they died that their deaths have meaning. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-08-04 14:13 |
| #2 Sounds like one I've gotta see, reading most of the reviews. While I can't stand Stone's politics, we should be the first to support him, if this film is as truly politically neutral as many say it is. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-08-04 10:41 |
| #1 I will reserve judgment until after I've seen the film. However, most of the reviews thus far say that Stone has avoided his penchant for conspiracy tropes and instead has delivered a fine film. We'll see. |
| Posted by: Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-08-04 10:15 |