World Trade Center

[MacGuffin]

Oliver Stone minus the edge
By Anthony Breznican, USA TODAY



Oliver Stone has spent his film career pointing out the flaws in the country he loves.

He is one of his generation's most provocative filmmakers, exploring themes of greed, nationalism, secrecy and war in movies such as Born on the Fourth of July, Wall Street, Platoon and JFK. Now the celebration of heroism at the heart of his latest film, World Trade Center, a true story of rescue from the ruins of the twin towers on 9/11, is surprising both his fans and detractors — and both sides seem to like it. The movie opens Wednesday.

The apolitical surface of the film has earned Stone unlikely support from right-wing pundits as well as left-wing admirers of his more incendiary anti-authoritarian themes.

Stone, who turns 60 next month, remains a political firebrand but says he took a non-partisan approach to 9/11 because something extraordinary emerged in Americans that day.

"The beauty of the film is that we get into it through their suffering and how they overcome their fear and suffering and put them together as something stronger: hope or love," the director says in his editing office in Los Angeles.

World Trade Center focuses on two Port Authority cops trapped in the rubble, their wives awaiting word of their fate and the lone former Marine who puts on his old uniform to sneak into the disaster area to help find survivors.

"These men and women remind us of that day. They acted well, they acted with courage, and we can too," Stone says.

Stone compares the straight-facts approach to therapy for a person who has been assaulted. "A therapist would sit you down the first day and say, 'Look, you've got all this fear, sit down, tell me what happened that day.' That's how you begin the process of recovery."

But how can anyone — especially Stone — avoid the political implications of that day? "That's another issue beyond the confines of this film," Stone says. "(Partisans) took that event and politicized it both ways. (The movie) is just about those two men and women and that Marine and what they did that day with the rescue team."

The two-time Oscar-winning director bristles at the label "conspiracy theorist," which has followed him since he explored the elaborate assassination theory in JFK. The common thread in his other films —The Doors, Nixon, Natural Born Killers, even the football drama Any Given Sunday — is a mistrust of authority and warped values. Stone doesn't consider them conspiracy movies, but he doesn't apologize for being an iconoclast.

"In these articles, you know where they're going the moment they use 'conspiracy theorist.' It's some kind of derogatory term," he says. "Some conspiracy theorists are completely insane. But it's not wrong to question the official story. Never. That's been the story of my life and in all my films."

One group seizes moment

A group called 911 Courage (911Courage.org) is using the film to draw attention to what organizer David Slesinger calls unanswered questions about the day. Though he hasn't seen the movie, he says, "it'll be the first time people see the collapse of (World Trade Center) building 7," which was not struck by a plane. "I don't go with the Pentagon version" of what happened that day, Slesinger says. Members of his group will distribute leaflets at theaters in Rockville, Md., Tampa and San Francisco. "Somebody needs to be asking important questions."

But Slesinger says he isn't upset that Stone doesn't ask those questions. "It's not for a propagandist like myself to question an artist like Oliver Stone."

Stone acknowledges that World Trade Center is unusual for him because it focuses more on hopefulness than skepticism and does not question the motives of any leadership figure. In fact, it lauds Port Authority Sgt. John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) as a hero, praised by his fellow trapped officer Will Jimeno (Michael Pena of Crash) for adherence to policy.

That his movie does not criticize the actions or policies of President Bush should not be read as an endorsement. Stone is not a fan.

"Bush makes Nixon look like St. Augustine," he says of the saint known for his zeal in confessing wrongs. "At least Nixon had some intelligence and a conscience .... Bush is The Manchurian Candidate," a reference to the 1962 movie about a presidential contender manipulated by immoral handlers.

Books and television programs about 9/11 have done well, but movies have been more difficult sells. Universal's United 93, released in April, took in $31 million. That's healthy, considering it cost half that to make, but those are not blockbuster numbers.

World Trade Center, which cost $63 million to make, hopes to capitalize on its optimism.

Paramount Pictures, which is releasing World Trade Center, reached out to conservatives and Republicans to gain their support for the movie, and it worked. Conservative columnist Cal Thomas says the movie "is one of the greatest pro-American, pro-family, pro-faith, pro-male, flag-waving, God Bless America films you will ever see." An editorial in the right-wing Washington Times praised it as "a truthful work of art with the ability to touch all Americans."

On one hand, they're celebrating his movie for not politicizing 9/11; on the other, Stone says enlisting it in their own red-state cause "would be a usage of the film and it would not be correct."

Arianna Huffington, who runs the left-leaning news and opinion site HuffingtonPost.com, says the values in World Trade Center "are not right-wing or left-wing; they're American human sentiments."

Stone's movie reminded her of the unity among Americans that day and the worldwide goodwill directed toward the USA. "I immediately thought, 'And what happened to that incredible awakening?' It was squandered," she says.

Band of brothers

Stone compares World Trade Center to his 1986 Vietnam drama Platoon, which won Oscars for best picture and best director, among others. Though that movie is regarded as an anti-war classic, "Platoon doesn't come down on either side. It just showed a very rugged situation," Stone says. Critic Emanuel Levy agrees both movies are objective stories of "ordinary Americans, and it doesn't glamorize them. This is the day-to-day survival." It has one major difference, Levy adds: "To me World Trade Center is a very simple movie, a morale-boosting movie."

Stone is a Vietnam veteran who enlisted in the Army after dropping out of Yale. He served combat duty in the infantry and was wounded twice, receiving the Purple Heart with an Oak Leaf Cluster and a Bronze Star for valor.

"I questioned authority after that much more so," he says.

On World Trade Center, for the scenes in which the men are trapped in the rubble, Pena says he often asked Stone about Vietnam to get a sense of tension: "I'd ask for some advice: Give me something that can help me. How was it for you? And he would go back into his own memories and thoughts." Pena won't reveal what Stone told him, but says it's still a raw experience for the director. "I don't know if anybody is that eager to talk about something like Vietnam, but he's a man who wears his heart on his sleeve and he gets hurt."

On the horizon

Stone is a fan of the hit Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth and would like to develop a drama about the environment. "To dramatize that and make it exciting would be brilliant. But how do you make carbon dioxide poison exciting?" he laughs.

Stone's future hinges on the success of World Trade Center, particularly after his 2004 historical epic Alexander bombed, which still stings. And he says his outspokenness has made studios wary. "It hurts my career and chances in Hollywood. They've been attacking me for so long, these people in the media, and it has damaged me. I've been ultra-controversial for the wrong reasons and people in this business want to make movies."

Would he have preferred to make a film that explores the political implications of 9/11 instead of a strict rescue docudrama?

"If I could go back, would I change it? Good question. At what point am I a filmmaker and at what point am I John Q. Citizen?" He begins quietly, and then rouses his own anger. "I hate that kind of censorship which says celebrities can't speak." Stone hammers an open palm against his chest with each syllable: "John Q. Citizen — that's my right. I served my country. I've got a host of medals. I paid my taxes. I raised children, went through the whole system. And I can't (expletive) speak, as John Q. Citizen, about the state of the nation?"

[Ultrahip]

So is xixax boycotting this film or just boycotting comments on it?

[©brad]

So is xixax boycotting this film or just boycotting comments on it?

yeah no joke.

i'm going tonight. surprised no one else has seen this. (come on GT. as the only other avid stone fan on the board, i'm counting on you to see this pronto and report back).

[modage]

i am definitely seeing this, but since i missed United 93, and am pretty sure that will be the better of the 2 i figure i will wait for this on dvd as well.

[SiliasRuby]

i am definitely seeing this, but since i missed United 93, and am pretty sure that will be the better of the 2 i figure i will wait for this on dvd as well.

Probably the same here, even though I love Stone's work.

[©brad]

just as powerful as united 93, but much different.

i saw this in the city at AMC 25 on 42st street and 8th ave, a block away from where the port authority resides. needless to say, the walk home to my apartment was a chilling one.

no matter what your political stance, gender, race, or country of origin may be, if you have a pulse, this movie will hit you in the gut. and despite the flaws (and it's got a few), it'll leave you crying, laughing, cheering and most importantly (and this is where it differs from united 93) with a feeling of hope.

[RegularKarate]

Anyone who's not in love with this hack's work see it?

[Jeremy Blackman]

New Oliver Stone 9/11 Film Introduces 'Single Plane' Theory

[samsong]

wrenching but i don't see how a movie about 9/11 can't be.  beautifully set up, with the shots of a mostly empty new york in the morning--the sense of impending doom is suffocating. stone's depiction of the attacks manages to create a sense of horror and chaos without making the film unbearable to watch.  it was hard to maintain composure... i felt like breaking down a few times, which i'm not sure is entirely because of the film rather than the subject matter.  but the film is pretty bland, save for some bizarrely expressionistic cinematography and the marine character, who didn't exactly work but was an interesting element. 

[JG]

yeah the marine character was the only thing that didn't work.  every line was pretty painful, including "i don't know if you guys realize, but we're at war," and the way he was prophet like. 

i was hooked, though, from those beautiful opening shots.  this a restrained stone, so its not the stone i've come to love, but its a good film nonetheless.   

hard to hate. 

[Gold Trumpet]

The film is ultimately dissapointing, but even a Stone misfire is more valuable than a Greengrass success. I reviewed the film for Alternate Takes. Like I said at the beginning of the year, I'm trying to slowly weed my way off this site. Doing my review elsewhere was helpful.

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/?2006,8,89

[pete]

"hey honey, finding that other girl is helpful in the process of dumping you."

[Derek237]

I saw it last night. I'm a huge Stone fan but the man has not made a really good movie in over a decade. Ever since Alexander's failure, he's been a pathetic conformist, first with making a DVD Director's Cut omitting anything too "gay," and now with WTC which is just one of those crank-up-the-dramatic-music, make-a-little-speech, show-the-statistics-at-the-end melodramas which might as well have been directed by Michael Bay.

Obviously it's an amazing story and a happy one, but they're just cashing in on it 'cause no one would want to see a movie about a how a family of one of the many other killed officers would deal with the situation. Instead, we get a sappy movie with a moronic message (apparently in times of need, people actually help other people, wow!) that runs just way too long. We get too many pointless flashback scenes about moments when the men are with their families having good times, etc.

Basically, it's everything United 93 wasn't, and everything you hope a movie about 9/11 won't stoop to. United 93 is so much better. It's actually frank and fucking adult, and shows how not everything can be wrapped up in a nice little bow. World Trade Center, though, is insulting to peoples' intelligence, emotions, and it's insulting to anyone who lost someone they loved that day.

So...NOT GOOD. 

[gob]

I am going to have to agree with Derek here, I  saw United 93 and WTC within days of each other and I can say without any doubt that United 93 is a far superior film.
Whilst WTC is not offensively bad it is frustrating and throughout the film walks a saccharine tightrope that it occasionally comes very close to falling off. All the actors do a good job, Stephen Dorff was surprisingly the best actor in this film in my opinion despite his relatively short screen time.

United 93 was thought provoking, made me cry and kicked the shit out of me whereas WTC never connected with me enough for me to experience an intense emotional reaction that arguable a film dealing with such subject matter should.

I don't think it's an insult to those involved with 9/11 but it isn't a sufficiently well-made and well thought out film to tackle perhaps the most affecting moment of this decade.

WTC is not a bad film, you care about the characters on screen but at the end of the day it was, for me at least, about Nicholas Cage and the guy that was pretty good in Crash stuck in a well crafted movie set.
I think Oliver Stone is capable of making challenging, sociopolitically conscious and effective cinema; this is, unfortunately, no such film.
Whilst I would say that people should see both WTC and United 93 to make their mind up and experience two pretty different films.

[Gold Trumpet]

The United 93 praise is really becoming too easy and frequent to continue. No one's saying anything critical about the film. Yet, like all bandwagon-jumping works, its not a very good film.

When I reviewed the film, I mainly reviewed it as phenomena in the historical context of filmic capabilities. It was a well made film of its kind, but obviously not very good. The filmmaking relies largely on consistent and frequent edits. It refuses to be interesting filmmaking. It consistently works on one note of draining the viewer with heavy editing. Until the end, the cuts have no rhythm or momentum that suggests higher thought. They are just consistently frequent to keep the viewer on edge. The edits don't completely dislodge the viewer from story like in Bourne Ultimatum, but they still aren't very good. Its because the edits are so frequent that many people come out with the illusion that it is well made. It isn't. The greatest thing a film can do is leave itself room for choices to be available. The choices of rhythm in editing. The choices of score and music. The choices of sound effects to co-inside with action. The choices of perception for dramatic purpose. Then the choice to switch up all those things during the film to evolve the story. So many more could be named. Its because United 93 decides to be a large dose of constant edits and sound effects that only numb the viewer that many people get the perception its something valuable because they rarely see filmmaking like this. It's not. Most films that are released nationally are more mature in realizing the larger canvas that a film can have for putting more into it.

With that argument, the counter argument is that the nature of the story needs filmmaking that will suit its realism. The problem with United 93 is that the story isn't interesting anyways. Behind the filmmaking, the story is a weak attempt at realism that only has the purpose of gut checking the audience out of their seat. All the melodramatic romances that just follow a couple til one of them dies has the same low standard. Watching characters die in a sacrificial way is always painful. Its obvious audiences will fall for the story, but its more obvious there will be nothing meaningful to that story. United 93 does not challenge anyone's intelligence. It doesn't even challenge their perception of September 11th. The only note of saving grace for the terrorists is that the film opens with moments of them praying for their religion. I don't understand how this cliche is becoming acceptable. The Muslim religion is continually being portrayed as a mysterious religion in a far away land. Those who follow it seem to do terrible acts and their only redemption is that they pray more often than most Christians. I want the Muslim film that shows the depth and nuance of the Muslim religion and those who follow it. I want a film that shows the Muslim religion as third interpretation of the popular version of God that most people seem to believe in. Finally, I want a film about terrorism in the Muslim religion and how those who do perform acts of terrorism are in the minority. I just want a film by Paul Greengrass to show us the larger picture of 9/11. The film he made wasn't worth the film he made it on.

World Trade Center also isn't very good. It at least tries to be a good film though. People here are too obsessed with filmic realism. People need to realize the feeling of artificiality in the best films have a purpose. For instance, the French New Wave writers in the 50s based the auteur theory on films that were only "cinematically" interesting. Disregard story, disregard purpose, disregard everything else. Those critics valued films that were interesting in what only film could do and no other art could do. They were naive and ridiculous. Film is inherently tied to all the arts and those who judge films should have that in mind. Those who argue that point should take note of this curious fact. Before 1960, only one term that was related to film aesthetics was unique alone to film. It was montage. Every other term of theoretical basis to judge films had beginnings in other arts.