Oliver Stone gives up controversy and takes off any personality from World Trade Center

Rating: 6/10 (23 September 2006)

Will Jimeno, rookie cop of the Port Authority of New York, and his sergeant, John McLoughlin, were survivals number 18 and 19 to be extracted from the rubbles of the World Trade Center, in September 11 of 2001. After them, only one more victim would be found alive. 20 people saved, against 2 749 fatal victims. That is the kind of statistics that suggests predestination and heroism that leads to, in a appropriated scale, a story with a high tone ending. Exactly the masterpiece, at last, that could interest a large studio dedicated into making a film that doesn't dishonor the facts, and that yet the public still wants to see. The most curious thing is that a project like this ended up in the hands of a director like Oliver Stone, known for his excesses, his conspiracy theories and his explosives political inclinations. But in World Trade Center (2006), the director does whatever possible to brake himself. Shows the two cops leaving their houses while their wives and kids are still sleeping. Follow them from start to what appears to be a normal day and, after, in the confusion of the emergence call. Bury them in great style and follow them in their mutual effort to stay alive, as well as their families, that are unaware of their destiny. Result: of two so specific stories such as of Jimeno and McLoughin (respectivelly Michael Penã and Nicolas Cage) it is made a narrative so absolutely generic - a sort of Apollo 13 on Ground Zero.
This confusion between respect and dull-ness (that former director Paul Greengrass skillfully avoided in United 93) is what makes World Trade Center so unsatisfactory. Fearfull of being accused of sensationalism, Stone suppressed all and any shots of the towers themselves. either of the impact of the airplanes, either of the collapse. Alleges that these images have nothing more to offer - and that is saying a lot more of his fear that he has today of his instincts to controversy then of the emotional spirit of the audience regarding the tragedy. In several interviews to the press and critics, the director said that his intentions were to portray the moment before the politicalization of the attacks, when the world was still on the same side of the Americans. It is highly doubtful that, considering the scenes of commemoration in arab countries immediately after the fact, that he believes what he is saying. The most likely is that he is trying to re-invent himself as a non-political being. And teethless: a film-maker with less past would have less motives to retreat, and would have served history better.