Modern Art takes on the tragedy of 9/11

Rating: 5/10 (23 September 2007)

How do we define the right time to make a motion picture about a recent and terrible tragedy? Was it too early for a cinematic retelling of a real life disaster? Was it in bad taste to recreate the event on celluloid with movie star Nicolas Cage fore fronting it for the box office? Was it an injustice to those who perished on that fateful day of September the 11th, 2001? The real question I asked myself before sitting down to watch the film was; is this just a cynical, manipulative Hollywood heroism feature designed to capitalise on the deaths of thousands of innocent people?
The casting of Nicolas Cage in one of the central roles was a foolish move for Oliver Stone, for while he is very good in the part, we cannot forget that this is a real event that is still fresh for many of those who lost someone, and to cast a movie star in the lead is to sell the idea to the public that this was as much about honouring the fallen as it was about ticket sales. This should have been much like "United 93," and cast with relative unknowns. The recognisable faces ultimately takes away from that feeling of reality that Stone brings to much of the horrific visuals recreating, almost unsettlingly, the iconic image of the towers wounded, bleeding and falling. Michael Pena fares much better as his low key, natural performance brings heart and soul to his scenes with Cage, trapped underground in their hellish environment. Maggie Gyllenhaal and Maria Bello are also brilliant in the roles of the waiting, worrying wives, Gyllenhaal particularly believable as the five month pregnant Allison. Most surprisingly of all is Stephen Dorff playing one of the brave emergency service workers who risked life and limb to save the few who survived amongst the smoke and debris. His performance stands out as the finest in a film overrun with actors thinking that it was the right time for this story to be told.
Oliver Stone ditches the conspiracy theories, shockingly doing away with his political ideals in the process and muting any such conjecture surrounding 9/11, although occasionally giving cheeky, yet subtle references to certain inconsistencies of that day, such as the pentagon being hit by a missile, united flight 93 being 'mistaken' for another flight, the way in which the buildings exploded and fell etc. Instead he opts for out and out themes of heroism, courage and the instinct for survival. Even the score for the film is what you would expect, understated melodies that are constantly reaching toward the life affirming.
With all of that said, it isn't a bad movie. The second act is where it falls down under the weight of its own melodrama, but the first twenty minutes and last half an hour find some honest moments and moving fragments of life amongst all the dramatic re-enactments. Like two grieving women embracing in an emergency ward, one black, one white, both strangers. The long hospital wall plastered over with the missing posters of loved ones in their thousands. The twisted metal, dusty rubble and rising smoke of ground zero itself. That beautiful bird's eye image of the decimated towers from the air, that grey cloud of smoke and fire reaching into the sky. The sense of unity and empathy so real and powerful between the people of New York is touched upon in the scene where hundreds of emergency service workers form a line over the mountain of rubble to help get these men out, suggesting that the ripple effects from the terrorist attack made them stronger, rather than weaker.
It is surprising that in a film by Oliver Stone, although inevitably certain for a film about 9/11, there is a patriotic, flag waving rhetoric disturbingly buried amongst the pieces of shrapnel and concrete along with our two protagonists. The marine who comes back to serve out of a sense that God has asked him to do so doesn't sit well and seems almost designed so he can deliver the uncomfortable line at the end, "Someone has to avenge what happened here." Revenge is a less honourable message, and certainly a much less empowering theme than love helps us survive the worst of times, and hope helps bring us together, while disaster turns ordinary people into extraordinary heroes. The religious element is puzzling too. Jesus comes to Michael Pena's character in a hallucinatory dream to offer him water, now are we supposed to buy this as the real deal, or simply a dream? I just found it wholly inappropriate when so many people still ask "Where was God that Day?" Apparently he was going around offering water to those who really needed a drink.
At bottom World Trade Centre is a well made movie, designed to pull the heart strings. Yes, it is manipulative. Yes, it is obvious. It is as you would expect a film so soon after the event to be. But Stone elevates enough moments and points out enough detail for us to find something of worth in the endeavour, at least beyond the immediate cynicism. The true life story sifts through the wreckage to find shreds of humanity and hope for those of us who like to hang on to these glimmers of heroism and find a semblance of good from that fateful day. Commendable for its initial intentions it might possibly be, but if I want to remember 9/11 I will watch the much more heartening, and real life tributes that are shown on TV each year to commemorate the event on its anniversary. Real world tragedy has always inspired art, but I would refuse to accept art masquerading as real life tragedy.