Man On Wire

[cinemanarchist]

Now Playing (Limited)

Synopsis: On August 7th 1974, a young Frenchman named Philippe Petit stepped out on a wire illegally rigged between New York's twin towers, then the world's tallest buildings. After nearly an hour dancing on the wire, he was arrested, taken for psychological evaluation, and brought to jail before he was finally released. James Marsh's documentary brings Petit's extraordinary adventure to life through the testimony of Philippe himself, and some of the co-conspirators who helped him create the unique and magnificent spectacle that became known as "the artistic crime of the century."

Director: James Marsh

Trailer: http://manonwire.com/


One of the best films of the year. Seek it out.

[Gamblour.]

This is from my CHUD blog:

I'll begin by alleviating any curiosity that Man on Wire is somehow a play on Man on Fire. It is not. The phrase "man on wire" is what's used in the police report under "Details" for Philippe Petit's trespassing and disturbing the peace charges. The buzz of the world that day, no more details needed to be given as to who this man was.

Man on Wire details Petit's illegal feat of walking a tightrope between the World Trade Center towers in 1974. Petit himself was destined to be in a documentary: a fucking rocket blasting off, animated, passionate, charismatic, driven. American Movie and Rock School come to mind with their idiosyncratic protagonists, except here, Petit is incredibly self-aware, having had his life to reflect on his passion. He's able to examine his life in the most objective of ways, and share his story with brutal honestly and whimsy all at once.

The film boasts an incredible amount of stock footage, which is combined with impeccably shot reenactments. In fact, the quality of stock footage is such that it was actually confusing for a moment in figuring out if this was Petit or an incredible look-alike. It's amazing that they documented so much of their progress at the time, and only more amazing is the condition and quality of the work.

Petit describes planning "le coup" as tantamount to a bank robbery; his girlfriend at the time recalls him watching endless heist films into the night. And indeed, director James Marsh very clearly sets out to envision this. His reenactments are, again, immaculate, with several shots recalling the camerawork from a Kubrick or Paul Thomas Anderson film. There's immediacy and danger to these scenes, and Marsh fuses the animated urgency of Petit's storytelling (as well as other members of the group) with the black and white images to create very tense retellings. But there's also a great deal of comedy and whimsy that all seemed to be part of the plan.

The film never loses sight of the poetry of what Petit accomplished. There is weight and finality once it's accomplished, an understanding that something so great has just happened, that the way things were could never be the same. These people all gravitated towards this one singular moment, which occurred before the world, and what else is left? When you finish a book, there is a sense of loss, and in this same way, when Man on Wire ends, you feel as if this apex of achievement ended a lot of friendships and relationships. People had to move on.

I commented to my friend after it was over that the story itself was so great and spectacular that the movie just had to tell it well to be great itself. The story stays with you more than the film itself, but I'm trying not be ungrateful by keeping in my mind that the film was great as well.

[w/o horse]

Exactly when Kansas City Confidential came on screen is when I realized that essentially they were framing the story as a metaphysical heist and Philippe Petit as a creative criminal.  And all the nicknames and recreations fell into place.

I had time to think about this during the movie because I was bored.  A large portion of this film unfortunately mirrors the tedious build ups of your average heist film - and it's not the filmmakers or the subjects I blame.  I'm just the kind of guy who couldn't give a fuck about such mundane details.  I really don't think the filmmakers knew what they wanted to say about Petit or his event, and I think they wanted to duplicate his mysterious and miraculous (I'm quoting Petit himself) spectacle through their narrative.

Which would have been awesome, if they were less concerned about the execution and more concerned about the charismatic people who were the executors.  I don't mean they should have found their point - I just wished for tangents, I wished for some details into their lives.  It seemed like an extraordinary group of people who were able to vividly and imaginatively recount an amazing display of ambition and they made the film fun and quick but they didn't succeed in delivering a statement as bold as the event.  In fact, I don't recommend you see the movie, I recommend you read about it and you'll be fine.  There's nothing hidden that's uncovered in this film.

[cinemanarchist]

Exactly when Kansas City Confidential came on screen is when I realized that essentially they were framing the story as a metaphysical heist and Philippe Petit as a creative criminal.  And all the nicknames and recreations fell into place.

I had time to think about this during the movie because I was bored.  A large portion of this film unfortunately mirrors the tedious build ups of your average heist film - and it's not the filmmakers or the subjects I blame.  I'm just the kind of guy who couldn't give a fuck about such mundane details.  I really don't think the filmmakers knew what they wanted to say about Petit or his event, and I think they wanted to duplicate his mysterious and miraculous (I'm quoting Petit himself) spectacle through their narrative.

Which would have been awesome, if they were less concerned about the execution and more concerned about the charismatic people who were the executors.  I don't mean they should have found their point - I just wished for tangents, I wished for some details into their lives.  It seemed like an extraordinary group of people who were able to vividly and imaginatively recount an amazing display of ambition and they made the film fun and quick but they didn't succeed in delivering a statement as bold as the event.  In fact, I don't recommend you see the movie, I recommend you read about it and you'll be fine.  There's nothing hidden that's uncovered in this film.

I felt much the same way as soon as the film ended but upon further reflection I liked the fact that I learned so little about the people involved because it was the act itself that was the true lead character. It's certainly not your typical documentary because I feel like then we would have known everyone's background and why they chose to do the things they did. I was thinking to myself afterwards how weird it was for this guy to just sort of happen on people that would drop what they were doing and be part of this odd heist/ piece of art/whatever it was. I don't want to know anything else about the weird American guy that smoked weed everyday for 30 years...that's all I need to know and the mysteries that exist between these people is what made the film so great to me.

[w/o horse]

I felt much the same way as soon as the film ended but upon further reflection I liked the fact that I learned so little about the people involved because it was the act itself that was the true lead character. It's certainly not your typical documentary because I feel like then we would have known everyone's background and why they chose to do the things they did. I was thinking to myself afterwards how weird it was for this guy to just sort of happen on people that would drop what they were doing and be part of this odd heist/ piece of art/whatever it was. I don't want to know anything else about the weird American guy that smoked weed everyday for 30 years...that's all I need to know and the mysteries that exist between these people is what made the film so great to me.

I guess.  Personally I'd like to see a documentary about those people. 

It's not that I don't see what you're saying, and in fact I basically like what you're saying and how you and Gamblour are responding to the film, it's just that I think it was actually a highly typical documentary, appropriately produced or distributed by the Discovery Channel, that highlights several interesting details in a very conventional way and then neglects to add any dimensions to the story.

Fuck backgrounds, who wants a background, I'm talking about related personal obsessions or (a)typical personality traits or insight into the people in any way - some idiosyncrasies (the film wasn't totally without these, as you've pointed at the perennial pot smoker, the pens in the pocket is another example, the songwriter, the French journalist hoax is related to this, as are the crutches, and casual mentioning of previous escapades as an everyday wire-walker in France) that motivate us to believe in the reality of these people.  What is there is worked into the framework of the narrative with what you might call subtly and I would call empty-gestured.  Mere trivia stripped of context.

It's contradictory, too, that the film wants to retain the element of mystery about Petit but spends so much time convincing us that this was his dream fulfilled.  It fortifies the interpretation of the wire crossing as an ambitious indulgence, even goes into how the success of the plan reshaped his life and how he relished in the attention he received afterward.  Which I think is imposing structure - something I don't like in documentaries and think is unnecessary in them.  Only when they don't do this is when they achieve a revelation equal to or surpassing fiction.

[Gamblour.]

Your points have intrigued me, and it's funny because something I said as i left the film could be used against it. "The story is so great that all they really had to do was tell it well." And it definitely does that, but then that's there is, right? Just the story. I agree with your comment that you could read about this and be just fulfilled, to a degree. You would miss the animation in Petit's gestures and verbalization of his thoughts and feelings and the events. And really, the film is just a great adaptation of his own energy and description.

Speaking of structure, you got me thinking about another doc featuring apexes of achievement: King of Kong. Now, though obviously different, that film features a very refined structure, but it also has an element that I think you are saying is missing from Man on Wire: that real familiarization and personalization of the characters. We're hearing and seeing the characters in the present tense with Kong, but Wire is all about stock footage and reenactments, even though their subjects are live and talking to us. And I kind of see what you are saying. Man on Wire has a great feel for archetypes, but is Petit just a man or the embodiment of poeticism and all of that? I think when you have a film about the "artistic crime of the century" you do well to focus on that sort of hyperbole, but it can seem a little flaccid, as you've indicated. And there is part of me that agrees, I don't think the film is staying with me as well as it should.

[cinemanarchist]

It's odd because the film seems to really want you to embrace life but it is very cold and keeps everyone at arms length. There's no question that the story is fascinating but the execution of the documentary is pretty polarizing. The tone really worked for me because it felt like a piece of art in a gallery, a little bit sterile but something I could really sink my teeth into and make my own. That being said I see all of w/o horse's points and even agree with most of them but they are some of the same reasons why I did respond so well to the film.

[Reinhold]

this is playing at the MoMA tomorrow in new york.