World Trade Center

[Beltmann]

 

I saw it over the weekend, and what

[Dude]

I fired my last proctologist for not being tougher and more exploratory.

[cryptique]

Your "last" proctologist? How many have you had?

[Dude]

Your "last" proctologist? How many have you had?

 

Hold up a bunch of fingers...

[LouieB]

I have to admit it, I think I am still not ready for this movie, just as I was not ready for Flight 93.

 

LouieB

[MattZ]

 

While it enlarged my emotional comprehension of what it might be like to be trapped and dying under rubble, it didn't say much about what it meant to be trapped and dying on September 11, 2001.

 

Very interesting. I have to admit that I judged that book by its cover (and its preview) and sort of assumed that it was a lame hollywood flick. Its one of several reasons why I wont be going to see the movie.

 

That being said, the quote of yours that I clipped was particularly interesting to me. I guess when it comes down to it, if you are a cop trapped beneath rubble what's the difference? I dont mean for that to sound smug (and like I said, I havent seen the movie, so i am not sure what the central thesis of the movie is), but I would think that if you are trapped, it wouldnt matter when or why. And isnt this movie about the cops that were trapped? What would it have meant to be trapped on 9/11? Seems to me that's a theme that folks who weren't trapped beneath rubble on 9/11 would struggle with... but that those trapped would be concerned with pure animal instinct fear and hope for survival whether it was on 9/11 or 3/3 (or some other date).

 

Thanks for the review though -- it was very interesting to me. You almost convinced me last time around to go see United 93... I am still strongly considering it. In large part, based on your thoughtful and interesting reviews of that movie. It just still hits a little too close to home for me as a new yorker.

[Spawn's dad]

it's playing around the corner from me at this place

 

 

big old time theater complete with the organ. I see most things they play here, but I can't seemed to get reved up for this. Maybe like Louie I'm just not ready.

[embiggen]

a guy that was at Trade Center when it happened saw it on Friday. he actually liked it and thought that Stone made a very good and tasteful movie. I'm surprised he went to see it since he had a few really good friends perish in the disaster. personally, I'm not sure that I'm ready to see it...

[anodyne]

i'm suprised stone didn't have the mob, cia, cuban exiles and assorted underworld types conspiring to bring the towers down.

[Beltmann]

I guess when it comes down to it, if you are a cop trapped beneath rubble what's the difference?

To the man trapped, it makes no difference. For a viewer like myself, who had hoped that Stone would use this event to pinpoint the political or metaphorical meanings behind the experience, it makes a world of difference. As you said, "Seems to me that's a theme that folks who weren't trapped beneath rubble on 9/11 would struggle with." That's it precisely--I'm one of those folks, and so are most of those in the audience.

 

By refusing to place this event in a larger political or metaphorical context, Stone gives us only a fairly routine rescue movie, one that might have been set anywhere, anytime. (There's not even much suspense, and the viewer never really shares their sense of exertion or claustrophobia.) I just sent Gary a PM explaining that the film doesn't feel much different from one of those flagwaving war movies from the Forties. While that's perfectly fine, when compared to movies that aim to do more, it ends up feeling a little less worthwhile, at least to my taste. I'm not questioning the validity of Stone's choices, only suggesting how this movie could have been more interesting to me.

 

 

i'm suprised stone didn't have the mob, cia, cuban exiles and assorted underworld types conspiring to bring the towers down.

He will make that movie in about 10-15 years, I expect.

[MattZ]

To the man trapped, it makes no difference. For a viewer like myself, who had hoped that Stone would use this event to pinpoint the political or metaphorical meanings behind the experience, it makes a world of difference. By refusing to place this event in a larger political or metaphorical context, Stone gives us only a fairly routine rescue movie, one that might have been set anywhere, anytime. (There's not even much suspense, and the viewer never really shares their sense of exertion or claustrophobia.) I just sent Gary a PM explaining that the film doesn't feel much different from one of those flagwaving war movies from the Forties. While that's perfectly fine, when compared to movies that aim to do more, it ends up feeling a little less worthwhile, at least to my taste. I'm not questioning the validity of Stone's choices, only suggesting how this movie could have been more interesting to me.

He will make that movie in about 10-15 years, I expect.

 

Gotcha -- now I see what you mean. Thanks.

[cryptique]

He will make that movie in about 10-15 years, I expect.

Nah. By then there will likely be some other huge terrorism-related tragedy to dramatize.

[tongue-tied lightning]

no need for this movie IMO.

It's still to fresh

[cryptique]

no need for this movie IMO.

It's still to fresh

When won't it be? There are always going to be people who think it's "too soon." It's been five years, though -- how much longer would you have people wait?

 

Believe me, I'm not saying this to try to stir up shit -- I'm just curious.

[Beltmann]

no need for this movie IMO.

It's still to fresh

For me, though, one of the most important functions of art is to deal with contemporary issues in a timely and relevant manner, so making these films now fulfills a necessary obligation of the artist. In my eyes, when artists shy away from such material they are neglecting a responsibility. For me, it is never too soon for artists to grapple with important events and their consequences.

 

That said, I can totally understand and respect why many people would not want to deal with 9/11 at the movies yet.

 

While World Trade Center was a little too conventional for my tastes, I'm also open to the possibility that such traditional, uplifting storytelling might yield exactly the 9/11 movie that a lot of other people need right now. If so, then I suppose Stone has provided a useful service.

[Dude]

When won't it be? There are always going to be people who think it's "too soon." It's been five years, though -- how much longer would you have people wait?

 

Believe me, I'm not saying this to try to stir up shit -- I'm just curious.

 

The night Lincoln was shot, you couldn't joke about it. You just couldn't do it. But now, time has gone by, and now it's fair game.

 

Comedy is tragedy plus time.

[quarter23cd]

Comedy is tragedy plus time.

Indeed. Wait another 50-75 years and this subject matter will be perfectly suitable for a 3 hour crapfest like Titanic or Pearl Harbor.

[El Picador]

I saw this one last night in one of those fancy new 1000 seat auditrium-like theaters with the massive sound. I must admit, I was quite touched and slightly moved by the heroics but can't say I'd recommend this film as a must see. I will say though, the sound and visuals when the building comes down are amazing.

[MattZ]

I will say though, the sound and visuals when the building comes down are amazing.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- its this part of these national tragedies depicted as art that bothers me. I cant help but think that the re-creation of those buildings coming down in surround sound with amazing visuals is nothing more than an attempt to appeal to the voyeuristic rubber-necking sensibilities of folks that get off on watching tragedy from the safety of the bucket seats of a theater as they slurp down their cherry cokes or stuff another handful of popcorn into their gourds.

 

I dont see what that has to do with art I dont see it as a statement and I certainly dont see whats so "important" about it. Seems more like a thrill ride where everyone knows they escape safely and so no one has anything to worry about. I dont see whats so entertaining or interesting or artful about watching a re-creation of an event that resulted in 3000 people dying.

 

I would never say that the movie shouldn't be made or that people shouldnt go see it. Just that I have no desire to see it. I recognize the hypocrisy in my position as I watch the glorification of WWII or the Vietnam War in movies, mini-series, etc. But I guess this one just hits too close to home for me. I used to work in those towers.

[Beltmann]

I dont see what that has to do with art

It's related to how those scenes are used in relation to a tone or point-of-view. Content is neutral.

 

In the case of World Trade Center, you could argue that Stone's decision to film the attack entirely from the POV of those first-responders on site--we never see the planes hit either building, for example--illuminates a specific point-of-view in an artful way. I'll let others decide whether he was successful, but to me his decision was at least valid and not exploitative.

[Dude]

Did you know what movie I was quoting, Beltmann? I figured you'd get that ref.

[El Picador]

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- its this part of these national tragedies depicted as art that bothers me.

 

I dont see what that has to do with art I dont see it as a statement and I certainly dont see whats so "important" about it. Seems more like a thrill ride where everyone knows they escape safely and so no one has anything to worry about. I dont see whats so entertaining or interesting or artful about watching a re-creation of an event that resulted in 3000 people dying.

 

Who said anything about art? I don't think this film was meant to be an artistic statement. Rather, to give the viewer a glimse of what it might have been like as a rescue worker or family member during this tragedy.

[bjorn_skurj]

Do you realize how much it costs to make movies?!?!?! I would argue virtually EVERY movie is made to make money, first, art later.

[Beltmann]

Who said anything about art? I don't think this film was meant to be an artistic statement. Rather, to give the viewer a glimse of what it might have been like as a rescue worker or family member during this tragedy.

Wouldn't giving that glimpse qualify as one possible function of art? To me, narrative is a kind of art, especially when filtered through the POV of the filmmakers, since it carries their personal imprint of what this story ought to look, sound, and feel like. This same story told by another crew, led by another director, would probably be a very different movie.

[Beltmann]

Do you realize how much it costs to make movies?!?!?! I would argue virtually EVERY movie is made to make money, first, art later.

Certainly every filmmaker wants to make money--no one tries to lose money on a production--but especially when we step outside of Hollywood (which only represents a tiny fraction of the movies made around the globe), I think there's a relatively high percentage of filmmakers who actively strive to reconcile business realities with their desire to self-express. In many, many cases, I think art is at least on an equal footing with commercialism.

 

I also think that big budgets are often the enemy of art--the more the financiers risk, the less chances a filmmaker gets to take. Allowing for exceptions, this is why so many huge Hollywood blockbusters lack imagination... studio executives need to make back their huge investment, and don't want to risk alienating any potential ticket-buyers by asking them to engage with, you know, ideas. I know that sounds cynical, but in interview after interview, studio heads will openly admit as much. They aren't even coy about it.

 

The budget for World Trade Center was estimated at $63 million, but can you imagine Oliver Stone being given that much to make one of his paranoid, speculative pieces about 9/11? Not with Hollywood money, at least.