Tragedy + Time = Popcorn

"It's more than a movie - it's a vivid reminder of the love, heroism, faith and patriotism that comprise the fabric of our country." — Brent Bozell, President of the conservative Media Research Center At the conclusion of Monday night's screening of Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, I found myself the lone dissenter among the small group of film critics I was chatting with. While not overly enthusiastic about it, they all felt the film had its merits, and found it to be a well made and effectively moving drama. Their reaction left me questioning my own — was my utter disdain for the film purely a subjective response based on personal losses, grief, and suffering on that ill-fated day? Or is the film truly nothing more than a piece of patriotic propaganda that panders to the pro-family Christian right? Days later, I'm still at a loss in understanding exactly what purpose the film serves. That Stone exhibits restraint in telling the story of two men who survived beneath the rubble is hardly grounds for praise. This emphasis on what the film isn't takes away from what it is — an unabashedly sentimental procedural that wouldn't have found its way to the Hallmark Channel if it wasn't enveloped in the 9/11 tragedy. After the collapse of the towers, the film alternates between scenes of trapped police officers McLoughlin and Jimeno (Nicolas Cage and Michael Pena), and family members eagerly awaiting news. At this point we're left with the bog standard [people] trapped in [place] story, yet without any dramatic tension. With its pre-determined conclusion, I imagined Stone would try to capture what it felt like that day — not just for the family (which the film does, albeit poorly), but for all of us who were left transfixed and glued, zombie-like, to our televisions. But the collective experience is not to be found here, save for a single scene towards the end with Viola Davis as a mother hoping to locate her son, whose last encounter with him was an argument. A well-acted scene that offers only the briefest of glimpses into what many went through on that Tuesday. It was during this long middle section, where the men were discussing their wives, baby names, and Starsky and Hutch (in order to stay awake) that my mind drifted to the people who died that day, and of their family members who didn't receive a phone call with happy news. I thought how helpless I felt, and of the constant reminders that remained for the days and weeks that followed — the personal papers that littered the streets, the walls of 'Missing' photos, the hovering clouds of dust and smoke, and the unforgettable smell of burnt steel, plastic, and flesh. Yet nothing of the day lingers in the film, and the reunion picnic that closes the film (two years after the fact) makes it that much easier for us to leave the theater feeling chipper, and damn proud to be an American. While it is remarkable that anybody was found alive in that rubble (McLoughlin and Jimeno were 2 of only 20), I feel that there's something inherently irresponsible in narrowing the focus in order to create an uplifting, feel-good story. It's as if the film exists in a vacuum, and its refusal to acknowledge facts (both pre- and post-event) is not only naive, but also a bit dangerous. This kind of over-simplification is exactly how Bush & Co. would want you to remember that day. That it was simply an act of 'evil' carried out by individuals who hate our freedom. Is it any wonder that right-wing media outlets are praising the film, or that Paramount hired the same PR firm that brought us the Swift boat campaign against Kerry? Towards the end of the film, a voiceover tells us how people came together to help each other. Yet you wouldn't know it from this film, which reduces the search effort to the lone Connecticut businessman who got a haircut, went to church, threw on his fatigues, and headed to ground zero. Driven on by the lord, his final utterance in the film is about how "America will need some good men to avenge this." We then learn that he served two terms in Iraq, which some might read as a connection to 9/11, and thus legitimizing the war. In his Village Voice review, Jim Hoberman refers to the film as Stone's rehabilitation. After the failure of Alexander, one can see why he might try to curry favor with the American movie going audience, yet I can't help but feel he takes additional steps to win the hearts and minds of those who would normally avoid an Oliver Stone film. From the Brooks & Dunn song that Jimeno cranks on his car stereo (Dreamin' in red, white, and blue/Only in America/Where we dream as big as we want to), to the endless references to children and family, and of course the multiple appearances by Christ himself, this is, as Cal Thomas puts it, "one of the greatest pro-American, pro-family, pro-faith, pro-male, flag-waving, God Bless America films you will ever see." Yay men, and Amen! Though I'm willing to admit to a heightened subjectivity when it comes to any film about September 11, Stone's film is little more than an overly sentimental cliché-laden bit of Hollywood manipulation. Waking up this morning to hear about a planned attack of US-bound airplanes only strengthens my belief that World Trade Center is exactly the film we don't need right now.

Comments

[The Cinesthete]

People are always going to be polarized about everything around 9/11 including this film. Some are going to think its exploitative, some are going to think its honorable. People are always going to argue.

Still, what you really can't argue about is that as a film, WTC was just not that good.

[Filmbrain]

Succinctly stated, Cinesthete. The film may be called World Trade Center, and it may be set on 9/11, but it actually says very little about that day. Take the same actors, same script, modify it to be trapped miners, or firemen, or schoolchildren and nobody would even pay attention.

Stone brings nothing new or original to the table here. It really is a prime example of a bad Hollywood movie.

[WTC Commenter]

A few right-leaning publications did give it bad or mixed remarks: Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, NationalReview.com

[phyrephox]

FB, why did you decide to see this movie but not the Greengrass film?

[Filmbrain]

A good question, Phyrephox, and now that I have seen WTC, I almost feel obligated to watch the Greengrass film as a comparison.

I originally stayed away from the Greengrass film because it troubled me that much of the material was based on speculation, inconclusive evidence, etc. I didn't (and quite frankly still don't) understand the purpose of imagining how the passengers of F93 reacted.

[Rich Drees]

My problem with the film, which I won't even get to see until late next week probably, is that due to the subject matter, any critic of the film's technical faults runs the risk of being accussed of attacking the subject matter, i.e.- "If you hated WORLD TRADE CENTER you hate America."

[Filmbrain]

Rich - you are absolutely right, and it's bullshit. Simply more of "you're with us or against us" mentality that the right loves to cling to.

Dare I wonder if some of the film's critical praise is due to this very fact?

[duncan]

i think united 93 is a must see. unlike WTC, it is a great film, 9/11 or not. you can see it as much as a film about action movie cliches as a commentary on 9/11. it seemed totally apolitical to me. i haven't seen his guantanamo movie yet though, so who knows what that's about.

[James Russell]

I haven't seen the film, but I have read some of Brent Bozell's stuff in the past, and if he likes WTC, that frankly makes me worry about it. Not that it will necessarily be a bad film, but what its politics will be.

See United 93 as well. It generally resists the temptation to Hollywoodise the events of that morning and does a pretty good job of visualising the unimaginable. Mind you, it's so shattering I'm not sure I'd ever want to sit through it a second time myself.

[Geeno]

When I first heard about this film, I thought "two guys survived, good for them - thousands didn't". I just can't see anyway to derive entertainment from 9/11 while the culprits are still at large. It's too unresolved for feel good moments.

[plutonious monk]

9/11 hysteria has been hyped by the media and pimped by Republicans pols for almost 5 years now. Isn't it now time for Americans to grow a bit and quit wallowing in the sick fear and enjoyment derived fromm wallowing in the events of that day.

[plutonious monk]

9/11 hysteria has been hyped by the media and pimped by Republicans pols for almost 5 years now. Isn't it now time for Americans to grow a bit and quit wallowing in the sick fear and enjoyment derived fromm wallowing in the events of that day.

[plutonious monk]

9/11 hysteria has been hyped by the media and pimped by Republicans pols for almost 5 years now. Isn't it now time for Americans to grow a bit and quit wallowing in the sick fear and enjoyment derived fromm wallowing in the events of that day.

[Diorist]

As the lone person in our screening who disliked the movie, I also wondered whether I was just allergic to the topic. Honestly, I'm not over 9/11. But even aside from that, there are a few specific things I hated about the movie:

1. The cartoonlike look and dialog of Karnes. I know he’s a real person, but the onscreen image is a joke.

2. The lack of global, political, or even civil context (FB, you described it well)

3. The lack of heroism by the “heroes.” What the hell were they doing? They didn't save anyone. They didn't comfort anyone. They didn't even talk about wanting to save anyone. It seemed like they deliberately dragged their feet collecting equipment until a building fell on them. Was that supposed to be dramatic tension?

4. The seemingly calculated portrayal of the central police team as subintelligent. They stared open-mouthed at wounded civilians staggered by. They stared open-mouthed at wreckage falling from the sky. They stared open-mouthed at other rescue personnel rushing between towers. Their dialog was inane. They come across as people who would have a hard time achieving dinner, much less a rescue.

I almost prefer to think the movie is a cynical sneer than to think of it as the soul of 9/11. In fact, I know the latter isn't true. So, the way I see it, WTC is either a simple sell-out (what happened to you, Oliver?), or it's a scathing criticism of a nation that has no soul or memory, only sentimentality waiting to be manipulated and monetized. Either way, it's fairly outrageous.

[Steve]

UNITED 93 is brilliant, and it didn't seem apolitical to me. The politics, though buried, are in the confusion of the military and federal bureacracy, and the implication (documented by the 9/11 Commission, though not well-publicized until recently) that no one knew what the hell was going on until seconds before the plane crashed (Cheney's post-9/11 comments about orders to shoot it down notwithstanding).

[kei & yuri]

We hope you will not find the comparison too stretched, but we think the salient other media product to compare it to is a thirty second drug commercial featuring a middle-aged waitress who inexplicably has the funds and dietary options to talk to her doctor about cholesterol. We know plenty of middle-aged waitresses in gorgeously greasy diners. They might see an ObGyn for a "special case" but in general they don't even get regular checkups or have a GP. None are that worried about cholesterol, which they swim in. The commercial is a grotesque case of willful class unconciousness, a totally mendacious grafting of upper middle class values and circumstances onto a lower class service industry worker, at best for a cheesy line about tipping at the end. But like Stonedboy's hoopjumping monkey impression ("I'm so sorry for making Salvador. Will you let my kids go now?" "No. Remake the Green Berets -- with Matthew McConnaghey in John Wayne's part!" "No my dark masters, that is too evil!"), it is another case of Stalinist America. Growing up during the cold war we thought that the hallmark of totalitarian propaganda, the fantastic disregard for reality, would always sink its attempts to mislead a populace who knew better. We never took into account what effectiveness it could have against a populace that knows better, but nevertheless wants it to be true.

[Kae Seki]

Filmbrain will never get sucked into those Republican family values.

Little Filmbrain: Daddy, can we have a catch.

Filmbrain: How can you ask such a thing? Daddy needs to drink scotch and watch Koreans torture school girls.