World Trade Center: Review

World Trade Center faced perhaps the worst odds of 2006 for being unanimously received by critics and audiences. Considering Oliver Stone's past penchant for making overblown, passionate political statements, many braced for the worst when his version of the events of 9/11 was announced. People feared that the seriousness and tragedy of the day would be lost in Stone's hyper-stylized visuals (as of Natural Born Killers) or his controversial conspiracy theories (which work very well in JFK) and as a result, the victims of those horrific attacks would not be memorialized but rather mocked. Luckily for both doubters and believers alike, Stone has crafted a restrained, somber film that, while not entirely successful, is a fitting tribute to the great courage displayed on that fateful day.

Stone keeps his visuals in check, utilizing a natural look for his film, striving for realism rather than the manic surrealism that divided so many audiences with Natural Born Killers. This is not to suggest that his visuals are bland. In fact, the film is rather visually appealing, subtlety combining actual footage from 2001 with created footage from 2006. The results are effective and tasteful, adequately capturing the horror of the day's events while never becoming over the top. Stone does not appear to be concerned with graphic imagery detailing the deaths and injuries. Instead, he has produced a visually restrained film that never gets in the way of the triumph of the two men of which the narrative is based on.

That being said, these men's story is nothing short of miraculous and I applaud Stone for finding a personal story inside the larger events to track. He wisely eschews discussions of the political ramifications that followed the attacks in favor of centering on the men involved with the rescue efforts. While he is unable to completely stop himself from adding politics in (a brief moment at the film's conclusion looks at what the potential U.S. military response might be), World Trade Center never comes close to approaching the preaching of Natural Born Killers or even JFK. It is much closer in tone to Stone's Vietnam masterpiece, Platoon, in that it tells the basic story of the men involved and stays on a grounded, intimate level. However, unlike Platoon, which has aged very well, World Trade Center may become less of an achievement as time goes on and these terrible events are further removed from the public's memory. For current viewers, who have the attacks and subsequent military actions fresh in their minds, the film brings back many of the feelings of that day. Fifty years from now, viewers who did not experience 9/11 firsthand might find the film to be more emotionally manipulative than we do today.

Michael Pena and Nicholas Cage both give serviceable performances as the two Port Authority Police Officers who were stuck under the rubble of the World Trade Center for almost 15 hours. The majority of their time is spent lying under rubble, talking to each other in an effort to keep the other awake. Neither do a phenomenal job but as the previous sentence makes clear, there isn't a lot that they could do. Their respective moments of being saved are effective, largely do to their work, sufficiently bringing the audience in and making them care about these two men. It was an extraordinary struggle for survival and these men should be sufficiently congratulated. Their bravery and commitment are just one of the many stories that emerged from that morning and as Cage's narration tells us at the end of the film, these moments should be celebrated and remembered as much as the obvious show of tremendous evil that the day saw.

If I said that I thought this film was flawless, I would be lying. Rather, I found that at times, it dipped into the sensationalizing that Stone is famous for and often felt overly sentimental and emotionally manipulative. At the same time, despite the fact that I could recognize this happening while it was occurring, I realized that I quite frankly didn't mind. For someone who was aware of these events and experienced the emotional turmoil that the rest of the country felt, I have trouble distancing myself enough from these events to be fully unbiased. However, I can definitely state that Paul Greengrass' United 93 is a significantly better film and is equally as effective without ever being manipulative. Stone wants us to completely understand that these brave men are everyday people with everyday lives, going so far as to repeatedly have the film state their names, either through dialogue or visual means. Name tags are constantly visible and noticeable. Greengrass, on the other hand, just places his audience on the plane with the other passengers, never knowing their names or backgrounds. As a result, the audience learns about these characters through their actions, not their pasts or their families. I have a feeling that where United 93 will gain in stature, World Trade Center will become a lesser work in what will undoubtedly become the canon of films centered on and around the events of September 11, 2001.

****