Stephen Dorff plays a rescuer in Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center."
Reading today's critical responses to Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center," I find it fascinating that the positive reviews and the negative reviews are saying essentially the same things. People have interpreted the movie in different ways, as a disaster picture and as a political picture, but if you look at the specific observations about the film, it's not as easy as you'd think to distinguish the favorable notices from the unfavorable ones.
I saw "WTC" with three other people: two of us thought it was an honorable memorial, two of us thought it was phony and formulaic, but we all thought it was more or less emotionally inert. (I thought Stephanie Zacharek at Salon hit the nail on the head: "Even when Stone is clumsy, he at least seems to recognize that he can't possibly re-create the experience of these policemen: The best he can do is put it onstage, reminding us that this happened to someone else and not to us." That perfectly describes the sense of distance I felt in, and from, the film.)
One of my friends (also a film critic) who was favorably impressed said she thought the portrayal of the heroic Marine at the end was sad, because he was deluded into thinking the war in Iraq was about avenging 9/11. I don't know if that's what Stone intended. I didn't see it that way. But it's a legitimate interpretation of what's up there on the screen. And make no mistake, this is a political movie. It makes choices about what to show and what not to show (including worldwide reactions on television), and in 2006 those choices in a film about 9/11 can't help but be political as well as dramatic or cinematic.
Now, here's a test (the movie itself is a test). What follows are excerpts of "WTC" reviews. See if you can guess which ones are considered "fresh" (by Rottentomatoes.com) and which are "rotten." Answers, and the identities of the reviewers, after the jump. Ready? Begin...
1) ['WTC'] wields a simple, blunt emotional instrument. It is a film about an American tragedy done up in the trappings of honorable, well-meaning melodrama.... 'World Trade Center' is the second major studio picture to weigh in on the events of Sept. 11, 2001. It is a more limited achievement: a comfortably unsettling drama."
2) "In this screen version of the Sept. 11 story, however, we see only two people die, the same number that the movie shows being rescued. By creating a kind of equivalency between the living and the dead, the picture always feels as if it's laboring to arrive at a Hollywood ending. 'World Trade Center' delivers to its audience a calculated dose of uplift and gooses us along to feel suspense here, compassion there and hope at the end."
3) "The filmmaker and his colleagues have brought the sensibility of an old-fashioned Hollywood disaster movie..."
4) "Stone's film bears some thematic resemblance to 'Alive,' Frank Marshall's 1993 chronicle of a plane crash in the Andes. Both offer a tribute to human endurance under unimaginable conditions, but watching young guys huddle together trying not to freeze to death or two cops pinned under tons of debris isn't exactly a cinematic thrill ride."
5) "Attempting to convey a macro vision of Sept. 11 through a micro lens, Oliver Stone is to be credited for presenting this challenging, fact-based story with admirable restraint, a quality that has not always characterized his past directorial efforts...."
6) "'WTC' is not a definitive statement about 9/11, or one that is likely to make you see that day any differently than you do now. And there's nothing wrong with that."
7) "The surprising thing about this commission job, directed from Andrea Berloff's script, is not its factuality but its restraint.... As befits a new-style disaster film, spectacle is subsumed in subjective experience—in this case, being buried alive."
8) "Stone has dutifully repeated his studio-given mantra that 'World Trade Center' is "not a political movie." (As if that were possible: Even the musical cues suggest the mawkish piano doodling that's been a campaign ad staple since Reagan ran for re-election.)"
9) "In some ways, it's a typically unsubtle Stone movie. Stone can't show New Yorkers (civilians as well as firefighters, policemen and Marines) helping one another through the disaster without later adding a voiceover about how everyone helped each other that day.... Over and over in "World Trade Center," Stone acknowledges the importance of showing, as opposed to telling, and then goes ahead and tells anyway."
10) "It's impossible to watch Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' without being moved.... Although 'World Trade Center' doesn't fuel anyone's political agenda, it lends itself to the kind of romanticized view of ordinary men that found its way into 'Platoon.' Stone can't conceal his admiration for these salt-of-the-earth cops."
11) "For the reality of what took place on the streets of Lower Manhattan is such an overwhelmingly sad and troubling story that simply re-creating those horrific events, as this film does, guarantees that your work will have moments of power and emotion. A person's heart would have to be made of stone if he or she weren't at least a little affected by the against-all-odds rescue of two Port Authority policemen, played by Nicolas Cage and Michael Peña, from beneath crushing piles of rubble, as their despairing wives, played by Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal, cry literal tears of joy."
12) "The unthinkable has happened. Oliver Stone has made a film that is unrecognizable as an Oliver Stone film.... Most of all, it exhibits no political slant whatsoever, injecting only heartfelt empathy for the day's many victims and heroes."
13) "The films of Oliver Stone are the ongoing cry of a distressed romantic. Romantic, because the best of them are animated, and the worst marred, by the same simple dialectic of good versus evil.... Here, evil is a 'yeah, sure' given, unnecessary to cast and too obvious to show as anything more than a plane's fleeting shadow, hovering above a valley of death where goodness and mercy abound. Such is the heroic myth that now permeates the hours of that fateful day."
14) "As a tribute to those who died, and survived, on Sept. 11, World Trade Center is a scrupulous and honorable film. Yet it never comes close to being a revelatory one; it sentimentalizes more than it haunts."
Answers next...
ANSWERS
1) Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune -- "ROTTEN" (2.5 stars out of 4)
2) Bruce Newman, San Jose Mercury News -- "FRESH" (3 stars out of 4)
3) Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal -- "ROTTEN" (no star scale used)
4) Brian Lowry, Variety -- "ROTTEN" (no star scale used)
5) ALSO Brian Lowry, Variety -- "ROTTEN" (no star scale used)
6) Jim Emerson, RogerEbert.com -- "ROTTEN" (2.5 stars out of 4)
7) J. Hoberman, Village Voice -- "FRESH" (no star scale used)
8) ALSO J. Hoberman, Village Voice -- "FRESH" (no star scale used)
9) A gimme: Stephanie Zacharek, Salon -- "ROTTEN" (no star scale used)
10) Robert Denerstein, Rocky Mountain News -- "FRESH" (B on a scale of A-F)
11) Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times -- "ROTTEN" (no star scale used)
12) Amy Biancolli, Houston Chronicle -- "FRESH" (4 stars out of 4)
13) Rick Groen, Toronto Globe and Mail -- "ROTTEN" (2.5 stars out of 4)
14) Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly -- "FRESH" (B on a scale of A-F)
Hmmm. Can a film be explictly political and nonpolitical at the same time? Yes, thanks to a little trick called the "politics of no-politics."
Example:
Politician: My opponent talks about government machinery and my ethical choices as a hinderance to government efficiency, but what he is really doing is PLAYING POLITICS.
The politican is stating that his opponent is playing the (shameful) game of politics, but that he is , in fact, above politics. This is a patently ridculous, but often used statement. My imaginary politician claims that he is above the political fray, disavowing himself of the filth, while leveling accusations against his opponent (how dare he use politics!..that no good, disgusting...politician!)
Based on the reviews I think the film is sibling to my imaginary politician. By showing something that is inherently political in nature, while pretending to be above the politics of the situation the film is trying to wash its hands, to show that it is somehow better for not engaging in politics.
If you have a modicum of political savy this attempt would strike you as inane and disingenuous.
I'd say more but fear I'm already rambling.
JE: I think you're quite cogent. (In my review I went on for 1600 words!) It's one thing to say the movie doesn't get into its characters' politics (although it definitely gets into their religious beliefs -- in an event caused by, and met by, a fusion of religion and politics). It's quite another to say the movie itself "is not political." To me, this is as naive as saying that documentaries tell the truth. All filmmaking is spun, whether blatantly or with more finesse. And "WTC" may not be as overtly political as some hoped or feared, but nearly every moment in it it has political implications.
Mr. Emerson You're generally right that 'WTC' positive reviews have been slightly reserved, however you do not include quotes in your quiz from David Ansen or Richard Schickel, both very enthusiastic about the movie. The film has also recieved strong praise from Leonard Maltin and Joel Siegel, not to mention the early reviews, who could barely contain their emotional response in their reviews.
It's a very interesting thing to peg politics on this 9/11 film when politics weren't even being considered on the day of the event. Both democrats and republicans watched Rudy on the television. Both democrats and republicans watched Bush on the television. Both democrats and republicnas were deeply effected by the events (fear, anger, misery), just as the rest of the world was. How can politics enter into it completely when politics were nonexistant that day - during those moments. Only the coldest of bastards would react with a political agenda after such a tragedy. Is it a political film to show that both sides were affected in the same way that day? It's an easy assesment to say yes in regards to how political parties are split now - but they weren't split then! To me that's the point of view this film takes. If events are playing out on the day it happened, what then figured into the lives of these two men more or the people around the country - their political leanings, or their religious? How many people that day were speaking politically? Very few. Now if this were a story about Katrina - well, there was politics written all over that disaster from day one.
I do agree with both of you in saying that a filmmaker does leave a mark no matter how hard they try not to, but I don't think this mark has anything to do with politics. And I think it's silly that conservatives are hugging this film like it does. Look at the patriotism! Look at how America comes together! BS! Look at that day - that's what happened.
The saddest line in that film is when one of the characters says how everything since has changed, and I look around me and see that nothing has changed. Our culture has gone under no change, we've fallen right back into our pattern. A happy story or a tragey in consideration with where we are now. I'd say quite tragic. No one still cares to see the world through someone else's eyes. It's become all very selfish again. We're a civilization that learns nothing.
Phillip, I'm afraid it's even worse than "nothing changed" attitude you describe. The terrorists accomplished exactly what they set out to do on that day -- spread fear and hysteria, provoke a response that would alienate America from the global community, and create deeper polarization and partisanship within America itself. They scored on all three counts. The mantra on 9/11 almost immediately became: "This changes everything. The world will never be the same." And yet, what the politicians and media types were really saying is "OUR world will never be the same," 9/11 had very little effect on the lives of most people on most continents. 9/11 was politicized within seconds of the planes striking, whether we knew it at the time or not. (The people in the debris of the towers did not, but "WTC" doesn't just tell their stories.)
I think you're right on the mark when you say: "No one still cares to see the world through someone else's eyes." That was at the heart of the the "failure of imagination" that led to 9/11 and our inability to stop it, even though we had plenty of hard evidence that a plot of this nature was taking shape, and we even knew the identities of some of the 9/11 hijackers and should have been keeping an eye on their activities. It's also at the heart of our ineffectual response to 9/11. Rather than try to understand what motivates people to fly passenger jets into skyscrapers, so as to discover how best to fight back, our leaders chose to simply label them as "evildoers" -- and thus managed to turn many of our former friends against us. (And later, in Iraq, to help create an insurgency far stronger than it ever would have become without our help.)
You write: "It's a very interesting thing to peg politics on this 9/11 film when politics weren't even being considered on the day of the event."
What I was trying to address in my review was that the film, made in 2006 and not on September 11, 2001, could not help but politicize the events of that day because it doesn't actually stick with what happened at Ground Zero, but shows politicians responding (Bush in spin mode; Giuliani in eloquent but no-nonsense crisis mode), worldwide reactions on TV, and characters already interpreting the event when, on that day, there was no solid evidence who had attacked or why. The guys in the rubble knew only that a plate or planes had hit the WTC. But the movie goes beyond that and shows, for example, the hero of the film saying "this country is at war" (a political statement by definition -- another response could have been, "This is a terrorist atrocity"; to choose to cast the events as a neverending "war on terror" is political in and of itself).
And, of course, the movie makes the direct link between the Marine saying "It's going to take a lot of good men to avenge this" and the end title stating he had served two terms of duty in Iraq. You can interpret this different ways (that Iraq was about avenging 9/11; or that it didn't and the Marine's genuine feelings of patriotism were exploited by politicians), but the movie is opening itself up to political discussions beyond the central story of the rescue of the two men in the debris at Ground Zero.
Saw something germane to this discussion in the NY Times this morning, from Paul Krugman:
"Just two days after 9/11, I learned from Congressional staffers that Republicans on Capitol Hill were already exploiting the atrocity, trying to use it to push through tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. I wrote about the subject the next day, warning that “politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots.�
"The response from readers was furious — fury not at the politicians but at me, for suggesting that such an outrage was even possible. “How can I say that to my young son?� demanded one angry correspondent.
"I wonder what he says to his son these days.
"We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited. The story of the latest terror plot makes the administration’s fecklessness and cynicism on terrorism clearer than ever."
Okay, I understand what you're saying. I guess what I meant, and what you already mentioned is that all political leanings were vague enough that those moments can be left open to interpretation. I would like to see the film again just to catch what was being said in those television clips - if I remember correctly, it was mainly hot air. I remember those things being said and feeling just as lost as I was before they were said. For awhile we were a country without a leader.
The two men stuck in the basement of a collapsed building story wasn't used quite well enough to allow me to appreciate what happened that day, and what people went through. It could have been to accentuate what was happening above ground, instead the above ground was used to accentuate what was happening below. In a way, though we saw the images and the disaster, it stopped being about 9/11, and was just about those two men.
Unfortunate, this film could have really helped open people's eyes to the realities of that day and what it means to us now, or should mean to us now. Stone has said he may attempt to make a film like that (so does he already know how this film has failed?) - should we be worried or excited or a little of both? I happen to be a little excited, and hopeful.
I know I'm much too late getting this to you Jim, but if you care, Zacharek's review is listed as FRESH on Rottentomatoes. What's interesting is that the sample quote that's used is the very same one you used "Even when Stone is clumsy..."
In the context of her review she meant that as a compliment. She was comparing the movie to United 93 (that got a ROTTEN from her)and her point was that "The picture doesn't beat you up, like Paul Greengrass' scrupulously made "United 93".
She goes on to say,
"United 93 is the kind of harrowing moviegoing experience that's supposed to make us feel like better people for having suffered through it."
And then,
"Greengrass approached his subject with a you-are-there immediacy, while Stone settles for old-fashioned dramatization, which may be more honorable".
Then comes "Even when Stone is clumsy, he at least seems to recognize that he can't possibly re-create the experience of these policemen: The best he can do is put it onstage, reminding us that this happened to someone else and not to us"
So what you quoted as a negative criticism of emotional distance, Zacharek meant as an accolade to something she felt was respectful to the real survivors, putting the audience in its place.
It does emphasize your point about critics saying the same thing, but meaning something different.