9/11 is in the eye of the beholder: Michael Pena (center) in "WTC."
That's a question everyone who sees Oliver Stone's 9/11 movie will have to answer for him- or herself. The studio's official line is that it's an inspirational and healing movie ("The World Saw Evil That Day. Two Men Saw Something Else"), and that it's not political at all. But it's about 9/11, and no contemporary event has been more politicized -- beginning within moments of the attacks themselves.
Stone himself is quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times, sounding very political indeed:
"At the time, I thought we were overreacting," he says. "I've been through many disasters in my life. There was Vietnam. The Kennedy assassination, Watergate. The last presidential election. Sept. 11 to me was a national wound. It was one big murder job. But it plunged us into this homeland security state of mind.I have to say I agree with Stone on this. I think history will show that the World's Only Superpower's overriding reaction of "Why us?" (going beyond righteous grief and shock and anger to a protracted and unseemly wallow in self-pity, as if we had the corner on victimization in the world) was one of our most shameful hours as a nation, and was, as we witnessed at the time, part of what sparked an anti-American backlash in record time of only a few weeks. If this was indeed a modern Pearl Harbor moment, we failed miserably in our response. I kept thinking of FDR, who made a stirring speech without resorting to overblown (and simultaneously reductive, picayune) language about "Evildoers." Stone actually makes Bush look good, and doesn't show how he went AWOL for most of the day, or how, when he did finally appear, he looked like a scared rodent in the headlights. That's something else about that day that we should never forget -- not that we could if we tried."All I can say is that we had the sympathy of the world on that day. The rest of the world was with us. We had a right to pursue those murderers. We should have closed the circle. We didn't need more and more terror, Constitutional breakdowns and more pain. But those are only my opinions as John Q. Citizen."
Richard Roeper, in his Sun-Times review recalls thinking of A-- C------ (The Coprophagic Thing That Shall Not Be Named) while watching "WTC" -- and, I confess, I did, too -- for the same reasons:
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."OK, so maybe Roeper goes a little easy on C------, but his heart is in the right place. "Unconscionable pig" may be the kindest thing one can truthfully say about her -- and even that's giving her more attention than she deserves. She'd probably get off on "WTC" -- probably dig it as war porn. But to hell with her. She's just another Shock Clown, the Andrew Dice Clay of the moment. (Who? Right.)-- Hatemonger Ann Coulter's assessment of some of the widows of 9/11 victims.
It would be my great pleasure to arrange for a screening of Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" for Ann Coulter and some of the families whose loved ones were killed or seriously injured on 9/11. It could take place in New York, New Jersey, any place, any time, all expenses on me. All I ask is, after the screening is over and the lights go up, that Coulter should stand and face these families and explain to them why she believes they experienced anything but the most profound emotional pain on that day and on all the days that have followed.
Of course, Coulter will never go for something like that. That would take character and humanity, and she's an unconscionable pig.
My own take on "WTC" is at RogerEbert.com. An excerpt:
Stories of survival need to be told, and "World Trade Center" needs to be seen in perspective, as an early (five years later?) attempt to deal with a galvanizing tragedy in the lifetimes of many Americans. In ten years (or even next week), I don't know that this will be seen as anything more than an average TV movie about a not-so-recent disaster. "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. But I was reminded of what Stanley Kubrick said about "Schindler's List": "Think that was about the Holocaust? That was about success, wasn't it? The Holocaust is about six million people who get killed. 'Schindler's List' was about six hundred people who don't." That's perspective.A closing voice-over states the movie's theme, to the effect of, "I saw good that day." And it's true -- catastrophe can bring out the best in people, more than they even knew they had in them, and 9/11 witnessed countless heroic, compassionate and selfless acts. But perhaps the most emotionally resonant moment in "WTC" comes in a passage after the collapse of the towers, when the movie flashes to televised reactions from all over the globe. It's a reminder that 9/11 also represents a missed opportunity. In addition to remembering the victims and the many who risked -- and gave -- their lives trying to help others, it's important to remember the intense, "We are all Americans" outpouring of grief and sympathy that united so much of the world on that day, and for just a few days or weeks afterwards, before politicians had reduced 9/11 to an election slogan. And it's a sad, terrible reminder of the enormous good we've lost in the five years since. Had we been able to build on those feelings, it would have been the most constructive and meaningful tribute to those who were killed, and to their families, and to those who survived. Maybe this is a political movie after all.
5 Comments
I do wish I could read Ann Coulter's comments in full. I think the impact of what she said may well have been amplified by its reduction to just a few sentences. My instincts tell me that her artical may have been very similar to one I by The Misanthropic Bitch (www.misanthropic-bitch.com). Here's an excerpt from her article. I don't think we can honestly say that there isn't any truth to it.
Millions of Americans die each year. Drunk drivers kill them. Rampaging, psychotic former co-workers kill them. Cancer kills them. Cancer kills them in droves, but their relatives can't get Diane Sawyer on the phone.
Time doesn't want to do a photo spread of the children born in the months after their daddies died of pancreatic cancer. Mariah Carey isn't singing that a hero lies in them. They don't have a $250,000 check waiting for them to soothe their pain and suffering. There is no billion-dollar charitable or government fund to turn to when they fall behind on the mortgage. They still have to pay their taxes. Any counseling they receive is paid for by them. They survive on their own -- barely, in some cases -- because they have no other choice.
The 32-year-old, lower middle-class woman who lost her husband in a car accident on September 10 struggles no less than the 40-year-old, upper-class woman who lost her husband to terrorism on September 11. Her pain is the same as she tries to identify the mangled, nearly unrecognizable remains of the man who brought home the bacon and gave her that loving slap on the ass as he walked in the door. Her financial status is downgraded because she too has lost half or even all of the family income. Her children, if she has any, also ask why Daddy didn't come home.
But touching anecdotes -- "Mommy, does American fly to Heaven or only into buildings?" -- seem to evoke charitable donations only when Daddy had the foresight to be pulverized or incinerated live on national television due to the actions of foreign, non-Christian terrorists. And this prescience gives the family members a free pass to put their greed on display, without fear of harsh public criticism.
(http://www.misanthropic-bitch.com/wtc.html)
And of course, I do have to agree that we seriously overreacted as a result of September 11th, and we haven't stopped for breath since. People are still over-sensative about it. You can't threaten to kill anybody anymore in a light, non-serious manner. (Some people like to pretend we never could do this, but we could. I remember it. I was there.) And right after the attacks, every person was afraid he was going to die in the next attack, no matter how minor the town in which he lived. I was very much ashamed by the cowardice.
And of course, I've always been ashamed of President Bush, with his unceasing condescension. We weren't attacked by religious fundamentalists because they feel we are morally corrupt and object to our foreign policies; we were attacked by evildoers because they hate our freedom. And patriotism means always agreeing with what your president decides, no matter how much it may hurt the nation. Let this period in American history be discussed by our progeny in hushed tones.
Forgive me for being slightly off the main topic of this post, which is your assessment of Stone's "World Trade Center" (unseen by me, although I'll probably go see it tomorrow).
I wanted to just briefly grapple with Stanley Kubrick's comment (that you quoted) about "Schindler's List". Like many others, I am a huge admirer of Kubrick (although I've always felt that his peak is early in his career...the run of "The Killing", "Paths of Glory" and "Dr. Strangelove" seems to me his best period). But Kubrick's comments about "Schindler's List" are infuriatingly simplistic to me.
"Schindler's List" is my favourite film because it seems to me to encompass the whole realm of human experience within it: cruelty, decency, greed, sacrifice, hatred, compassion, bravery, cowardice...and even, surprisingly enough, some humour. Yes, Spielberg has chosen to tell a story about a man who did something in the face of horror, but he never lets us lose sight of the scale of the tragedy unfolding around Oskar Schindler.
For Kubrick to say that "Schindler's List" is "about six hundred who were saved" reveals a profound misunderstanding of the film, but that is nowhere near as egregious as simplifying the Holocaust as being "about six million people who were killed". The Holocaust can not be boiled down to a simple statement like Kubrick's. We need to grapple with the difficult acknowledgement that it was perpetrated by certain human beings, while others stood by passively and others (like Schindler) attempted to do something to reverse its path.
In order to understand history, and more importantly understand humanity, our artists (in this case, our filmmakers) must approach certain broader societal trends through specific stories. When artists succeed (as Spielberg does so brilliantly in "Schindler's List"), they can present a kaleidoscope of human experience (both the inspiring and the tragic), even in a deceptively "uplifting" story. But when they fail, as Roberto Benigni does in the abominable "Life is Beautiful", we are left furious that the death of millions has been ignored or glossed over merely to promote a feel-good message.
Having not seen Oliver Stone's film, I can not judge whether or not he successfully presents all of the different things that September 11th told us about the human condition. But what I can say is that, unlike Kubrick with "Schindler's List", I am not inherently outraged at the premise of focusing on two people who survived on a day in which thousands were massacred. What would make me furious is if Stone puts this story in the service of something that is mawkish, cliche-riddled and dishonest. This is what Spielberg avoided doing so superbly in "Schindler's List", and that is why that film, despite what detractors like Kubrick may snidely say, is an enduring masterpiece that continues to reveal to its viewers all of the good (and, unlike what Kubrick would have us believe, the terrible) things that humanity is capable of.
JE: I don't think Kubrick was saying "Schindler's List" was not a good film, or a necessary story -- just that no film had ever captured the enormity of the Holocaust, and that perhaps no film ever could. Kubrick's comments came out of a discussion in which he was asking if the Holocaust could ever be dealt with on film. His contention was that it hadn't been, so far. For the reasons I cited in my review, I don't think "WTC" is a particularly good film, but I thought the comparison was an illuminating one. We're only just starting to address 9/11 in movies, and I wonder what other approaches we'll see in the next ten, twenty, fifty years...
Kubrick's quote for some reason will haunt me for the rest of the day, as "Schindler's List" originally did for weeks. The simplicity of his statement, and in the way it was worded and everything it implied has dug deep. Especially when equated with 9/11. The man is far ahead of his time, seperated from petty, and reactionary sentimentality - I wish there was another like him.
Having now seen "World Trade Center", I can see why you were reminded of Kubrick's quote. The film, which is naturally extremely evocative in its opening twenty minutes (how could it not be?) eventually becomes a fairly typical Hollywood story of men struggling to survive while their spouses worry incessantly. In the end, "World Trade Center" is schematically not too different from "The Perfect Storm", and doesn't a tragedy on the magnitude of 9/11 deserve something more thoughtful?
Your comparison is indeed illuminating because it emphasizes the difference between Stone's approach in "World Trade Center" and Spielberg's approach in "Schindler's List". Both films attempt to find a shred of optimism amidst a terrible tragedy, but it seems to me that while Spielberg utilizes a naturalist, documentary-like style that never lets us lose sight of the horror that is occurring on a large scale, Stone resorts to more of a glossy, traditional style with effects that distance us from the story (mawkish music, slow-motion, and the halo-like framing of characters that you point out in your review). By re-configuring a horrific, surreal day that all of us experienced into, as you called it, a movie-of-the-week, seems to me to do a great disservice to the heroes of 9/11.
As for Kubrick's comments, thank you for providing a context for them. However, I still believe that his comment is somewhat simplistic. Kubrick's contention is that "Schindler's List" is not a true Holocaust film because it is about people who are saved rather than those who died. I suppose Kubrick didn't feel that the atrocities presented in "Schindler's List" (which include multiple arbitrary killings, tens of thousands of corpses being burned, and a shot of people entering the gas chambers) were sufficient representation of the Holocaust's horror...but then, what could be? A film in which we see every single victim of the Holocaust killed?
Yes, Spielberg focuses his story on what is, I suppose, a success (although to call it that, as Kubrick did, seems a bit glib...it would be more accurate to describe what Schindler did as preventing a further tragedy). But does that mean that "Schindler's List" is not still about the Holocaust and what it told us about ourselves? To indicate as much, as Kubrick did, strikes me as short-sighted...as short-sighted as saying that Ingmar Bergman's "Shame" isn't really about war and how it effects people because we don't see any combat. I guess what I've been trying to say in these two posts is that the medium of film may occasionally have to focus on small-scale stories, even when grappling with large-scale events. Sometimes, such a reduction in scale will result in what some will perceive as a tone that is too far removed from the larger subject the film is dealing with. If "Schindler's List" ends on a somewhat uplifting note, it can't be a true Holocaust film, according to this theory.
But if you follow the logic of Kubrick's statement, then couldn't this same criticism be applied to all stories and all films? Should we consider a comedy an insufficient representation of human behaviour because it doesn't fully encapsulate all of the sadness and horrors that humanity has endured throughout its history? Is Kubrick's own masterpiece "Dr. Strangelove" not a useful film about the Cold War and the threat of nuclear warfare, simply because it puts a satirical and lightweight tone on the proceedings? I don't believe so...in fact, to me the absurdity of the Cold War mentality has never been better represented than in Kubrick's comedic gem. The humour of "Dr. Strangelove" provides a counterpoint to the gravity and potential terror of the situation, just as the relief we feel as certain Jews are saved in "Schindler's List" is balanced against our profound realization that millions more will not be. That's what makes Kubrick's comments so perplexing to me...I would have thought that a director of his intelligence would be able to recognize that "Schindler's List", in an odd way, makes the harsh truth of the Holocaust even more resonant by showing us the value of the lives that are saved.
It is true that Stone's "World Trade Center" essentially re-frames a day in which 2,749 people died into an uplifting story about two men who were saved. Should it be chastised simply on principle? I don't believe so. It should indeed be chastised (for its sappy, simplistic and distancing execution), but not for its basic premise. The film is indeed a failure, but in my opinion it's decision to cast an optimistic light on 9/11 didn't mean that its failure would be inevitable. Stanley Kubrick might have believed otherwise...and now that I think about it, who am I to argue with him?
JE: Alex, I don't disagree with you. And as I said (as an addendum to your first comment), Kubrick's remarks were framed as part of the question of whether ANY film could ever really deal with the enormity of the Holocaust. Again, he wasn't saying "Schindler's List" was a bad or unworthy film, just that it took a narrow focus -- which, I'd argue, is a perfectly legitimate (maybe even necessary) thing to do. I think Kubrick was, to some extent, playing devil's advocate.
The reason I was reminded of Kubrick while watching "WTC" was that it didn't stick with its narrow focus on the two trapped men. I'm not chastising "WTC" just on those grounds -- I remember well the psychological importance, the feeling of joy amid devastation, of finding those few survivors (I believe the title at the end of the movie says McLoughlin and Jimeno were the 18th and 19th survivors pulled from the rubble, out of only 20 or so). But it's one thing to read numbers on the screen; it's another to see those numbers dramatized. So, I thought Kubrick's quote provided a sense of perspective, and food for thought, given that "WTC" is still only the second 9/11 theatrical feature we've seen. I tried to place the movie in that context in my review.
I read one review yesterday that said the film, in effect, drew a kind of equivalency between the victims and the survivors, because we only see two deaths and two survivors. I see the point, but I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Still, I think it's another perspective worth keeping in mind...
Leave a comment