September 11th 2001, a day which will forever live in the conciousness of America. Five years later our society still is feeling the effects of that day; watch the news any day of the week and you will see stories that have their basis from that infamous day. Last year saw the first two major movie releases directly about September 11th; "United 93" and "World Trade Center." Many have questioned whether or not now was the right time to begin releasing movies about that day, is it too soon? Is the subject too sensitive? How can the directors honor the victims, and respect the families of those who lost their lives that day? These are the types of questions that faced both Oliver Stone, director of "World Trade Center," and Paul Greengrass, director of "United 93." The way each of these directors tried to answer thier questions, and the confidence with which answered them led to the differences in the movies each created.
Greengrass faced these questions directly and confidently. His answer to the question of whether it was too soon to release his movies is a resounding no. Greengrass honored the victims by making a movie that was direct and honest, and in doing so creating an unforgettable movie experience. On the other hand, Stone seems as if he was intimidated by those same questions. I believe he was overly sensitive to the criticisms he may have heard about taking on this project now, and as a result he seemed to try way too hard to make a movie that everyone could love (which is very out of character for the in bold director of Platoon, JFK, and Natural Born Killers.) The result is a movie that is uplifting due directly to the nature of the story, yet in many ways felt cheapened by the over-sentimentalization.
Paul Greengrass, a documentary film maker, took a documentary-style approach to "United 93." The movie is, as most people ought to know by now, about the fateful flight of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, when the passangers and crew attempted to regain control of the airplane from hijackers. Their story is central to the movie. However, it is also the story of the civilian and military response to the hours of disbelief and confusion as the events of the day unfolded. It is told in real time, or at least very close to real time, and there is little in the way of movie trickery, simply we are put inside the air-traffic control towers, the air-traffic control centers, the military instalations, and of course Flight 93, as witness to what was happening. The verisimillatude that Greengrass achieves in "United 93" is the strength of the movie. He achieves this in a number of ways, one, and possibly the most important is that no known actors were hired to play any parts, if there would have been a Russel Crowe, or George Clooney, we immediately would have seperated the film from the actual event. Instead we see people who we don't know and don't recognize just as we would have had we been involved ourselves. Secondly, and this I found out through the commentary included in the DVD, many of the professionals portrayed in the movie; the pilots, air-traffic controlers, and even flight attendants were actual professionals from those areas, and not trained actors. Some were even the same people who were there on that day and were simply re-enacting themselves from that day. The most prominant example of that was the head of the National Air Traffic Control Center, in Herndon Virginia, Ben Sliney. Sliney is probably the most prominent single character in the movie. Sliney was playing himself, he had no previous acting experience at all, yet Greengrass felt that there was no one who could play the part any better than Sliney could himself, after all he was there as the day actually happened. And he did an outstanding job, the disbelief, confusion, anger, and also, the strength and determination of his conviction was clearly on display. The visual tricks are kept to a minimum, Greengrass brings no attention to the idea that these scenes are being recorded, much of the camera work is shakey and seemingly hand held, there are no sweeping dolly-shots, no steady tracking shots, and the score is effective yet never draws attention to itself.
It is one of the most tense movie experiences I've ever had. As one watches the movie the sense of impending doom grows stronger and stronger as the inevitable, tragic end nears. The last half-hour may be one of the most immediate, tense, and gripping moments in cinematic history. After the final moments reached its crescendo of a finish, and the credits roled I felt emotionally spent, yet exhilarated from admiration for Greengrass and the amazing film he was able to create which truly honors the heroes of September 11th.
Now on to "World Trade Center," which is about the true story of the rescue of two Port Authority Cops who were trapped underneath the collapsed World Trade Center Towers. I was very excited to see how Oliver Stone was going to tell this story. I knew it might not work, Stone has made flawed movies before, but I believed that if it didn't work it was because he would go too far. What made "World Trade Center" so dissapointing was that Stone seemed to shrink under the pressure of making a movie about a subject with so much weight.
Lets just start off by saying that "World Trade Center" is a good movie, its uplifting, has a number of really strong performances, especially Nick Cage, and Maggie Gyllanhal, and is beautifully shot. The first section of the film is especially strong, as the New Yorkers go about thier everyday business, and then react with much confusion to an unbelievable scene of a jumbo airliner crashing into the World Trade Center. However once the towers come down Stone and "World Trade Center" lose their way, and it feels more like a glorrified T.V. movie of the week. It is far too emotionally manipulative, and cliched. The story is a good enough story on its own that it doesn't need the overindulgence of rediculously soft-focused flashbacks, sweeping orchestration, and rah-rah-rah patriotism on which Stone so heavily relies.
"World Trade Center" will probably be more well regarded by the far right who, with their "good vs. evil" world view and idealistic opinion of the heavenly virtues of America and Americans (except, of course the left half), it is clearly aimed at appeasing. However, I beleive that it is the pressure from those same groups felt by the American Stone which led him to make this good, uplifting, yet ultimately flawed movie. The British Greengrass, a much less prominant director, on the other hand, ignored, or maybe because it was much less hyped, financed, simply didn't feel the pressure to the same extent while making "United 93". As a result Greeengrass pandered to no one and created possibly the best movie of 2006, and clearly the best movie movie of 2006 about September 11th.
"United 93" : 5 out of 5
"World Trade Center" : 3 out of 5
Note: The documentary on the DVD of "United 93" is the best special feature of any DVD I've seen. Moving, sad, and gripping.
Posts
