Stone eschews the political for a powerful human drama

Rating: 8/10 (12 August 2006)

Those who say the American people aren't ready for a "9/11" movie are, in my mind, either simply wrong, or perhaps overly committed to some sort of epiphany they may have experienced in the aftermath of the WTC attack half a decade ago. Five years is a long time, certainly more than enough to get over the "shock and awe" that was unleashed by Islamic terrorists upon the American mainland. Perhaps it has to do with a perceived failure to exact revenge, a lack of closure to the experience via righteous retaliation. Perhaps unconsciously we're aware that the temporary disruption of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq have not given us that relief, certainly not in any tangible way, and has in fact possibly contributed to an increased animosity in the world toward the United States and a worsening of the always volatile situation in the Middle East.
The truth is, though, that Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" isn't about the attack per se. It's about the indomitability of the human spirit and its will to survive. It's a disaster movie set in the rubble of two gigantic towers that collapsed.
Stone fans (and haters) will be taken aback as they realize that "World Trade Center" is NOT a typical Oliver Stone film. There are no conspiracy theories contained within. There's very little in the way of quirky film technique or over-the-top acting or splintered storytelling. There's no anti-establishment rhetoric or sentiment. In fact, "World Trade Center" goes out of its way to avoid these very things.
What you will get is a well-crafted story scripted by a relative newcomer, Andrea Berloff, concerning the fate of two New York Port Authority policemen, John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Will Jimeno (Michael Peña), who were trapped under the ruins of the two towers. Their claustrophobic dilemma is juxtaposed against the effects of this misfortune upon their respective families and the efforts of the selfless many who labored to rescue them. That these two men actually lived through the collapse was miraculous in and of itself; that they survived long enough to be rescued beggars the imagination, especially when you consider that they were essentially found via sheer serendipity in the form of a driven ex-Marine (played with perhaps too much iconic resolve and fortitude by Michael Shannon) randomly searching through the rubble for survivors.
Some will not be satisfied with Stone and Berloff's effort to put a dramatic human face on the horrific events of September 11, 2001. Some will resent the inherent profit motive of film-making. Some will simply not wish to be reminded of that dark day, ostrich-like as that may be. I have no easy answer for any of them, other than to remind them that they are free to not see the film. There are still many of us who are not afraid to relive the emotional experiences we underwent five years ago, who are willing to engage ourselves in the catharsis that this film provides. It's a part of the healing process, and as far as I'm concerned, something like that can never start "too soon." At any rate, "World Trade Center" cannot be faulted on any significant technical grounds. The acting is faultless, with the possible exception of Cage's NY accent, which really didn't bother me all that much; all four of the leads--including the always impressive Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal as the distraught wives--fully deserve award nominations. Seamus McGarvey's cinematography is superb, the production design, art design, costuming, and so on are uniformly excellent; one feels as if they're right there at the scene. Craig Armstrong's music is at times heavy-handed, but invariably serves its purpose. The sound design is particularly effective, especially when the towers collapse; if that doesn't generate an Oscar nomination at the very least, I don't know what will.
Most pointedly, this is a film that, despite its horrific subject matter, manages to effectively illustrate a characteristic of human beings that belies the baser motives of the perpetrators of the attack: we have the ability to band together to surmount our difficulties, no matter how horrendous, and come out on top, unbowed, ready to move on against all odds. I find it hard to knock a movie that will tell me that, and do it with a relative minimum of schmaltz. Say what you will about Stone "selling out" or compromising his reputation and values, "World Trade Center" is a powerful piece of film-making that, in my opinion, ought to be seen by everyone with the emotional strength to watch it.
1/19/07 addendum: Having recently seen and reviewed "United 93," I thought it worthwhile to return here. I note with interest that IMDb'ers gave "World Trade Center" a much lower percentage of "10" ratings, though still a healthy 19.4%, as well as a significant "1" rating of 11%, which I attribute to A) a strong anti-Stone sentiment, and B) unfair comparison to relatively undramatic, documentary style of "United 93." Also interesting is the cumulative "7.6" from 204 under-18 females, the highest rating cohort apart from the IMDb staff. One could probably write a thesis on the whys and wherefores of such voting.
I'm also amused to see that only one reader (so far) has found my comments to be "useful." I can only wonder how much this reflects a dislike of my politics as revealed, and how much it reveals the possible poverty of my writing. Another thesis, anyone?