World Trade Center Movie- Page 4

[Peter]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 2:59pm

Nearly hated the film. It takes a really skillful director to take such an incredibly moving story and not cross the line into complete sappiness, but Stone took the easy route here and went beyond turning it into something approaching Republican propaganda.

The visions of Jesus..the memories of the simple things in life..like fixing a roof.., the scene with the black woman in the hospital and then the heroic Marine who acts like some kind of deranged video game hero (with some of the silliest dialogue Ive ever heard) and many other scenes..are actually quite hilarious if taken out of context of 9/11 and just add up to a weak director's manipulation here. Not only that, the film has a definite Republican bent here...Stone actually implies a connection with 9/11 and Iraq with the Marines pro-American defense stance and the superimposed lines that he served in Iraq. We learn very little about the trapped guys too..other than the fact that they are heroes and good family guys who love their family. This is just a feel good about yourself, contrived, Hollywoodized, rah-rah America, manipulative account of 9/11 IMO. The LA Times pretty much got it right I think:

"Even more puzzling is that Stone, usually viewed as the antichrist in conservative circles, has made a film that rightist commentators are falling all over themselves to applaud. Cal Thomas, in a much-quoted example, has called it "one of the greatest pro-American, pro-family, pro-faith, pro-male, flag-waving, God Bless America films you will ever see." This tribute comes in part because "World Trade Center" makes an explicit connection between Sept. 11 and the war in Iraq that will make the Bush White House and the Republican National Committee eager to embrace it as their own."





LA Times Review Updated On: 8/17/06 at 02:59 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 3:13pm

I'm a Gore lovin', Kerry votin', Bush hatin', homosexual, liberal mofo and I thought it was a good film.

I can see how you would draw those opinions, but I don't agree with them. I think the film is non-partisan.

[JbaraFan1]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 4:05pm

I'm with you, jerby.

I don't think this has been mentioned in the thread yet (if so, sorry to repeat it), but the two couples were consultants on the film (that's listed in the credits).

[Peter]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 4:43pm

A director makes choices. Just because these guys were consultants on his film doesnt mean that Stone had to use everything or anything they tell him. This is not a documentary..it is BASED on what happened on 9/11. IMO, the choices Stone makes here have a manufactured feel to me, like those scenes I mentioned in my review. To top it off, if this material weren't so inherently emotional, the scenes with the Marine would have had me in hysterics. His dialogue, especially his final line "They're going to need some good men to avenge this," followed by the superimposed message that he served in Iraq certainly implies a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. IMO, the majority of the film has this contrived sappy, pro-American, pro-family, Hollywoodized feel to it. Its certainly not surprising the Republican commentators are so excited about this film given that and the Marines depiction. Its easy for any average director to make people cry, especially given the subject matter here, but it takes a skillful director to earn our tears. IMO, the only tears here come from knowing what happened, not from good direction.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 4:55pm

I never thought Stone was trying to infer a connection between Iraq and 9/11 and given his political views, I know he wasn't.

Also, how exactly are terms like "pro-American" and "pro-family" only terms for conservatives? They are equally liberal values. Just because conservatives can't exhibit range doesn't mean that liberals can't.

[Peter]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 5:36pm

Oh sure liberals share the same values, but personally I dislike sappy, badly directed liberal films too. I really dont know how you could depict a character like the gung-ho Marine and give him lines like "They're going to need some good men to avenge this," followed by type that says he served in Iraq and see that, perhaps unintentionally, Stone is implying a connection of 911 with the war in Iraq, and even a certain validation for the war. Its just truly sloppy filmmaking on his part.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 5:39pm

Oh. I apologize. I didn't realize you were so connected with what is going through Stone's mind.

Also--I wasn't aware that a film had to convey ONLY liberal OR conservative views. No complexity please!!

Updated On: 8/17/06 at 05:39 PM

[Peter]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 5:44pm

Now if this isnt example of the pot calling the kettle black..Your direct quote "Stone was trying to infer a connection between Iraq and 9/11 and given his political views, I know he wasn't."

Too funny.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 5:47pm

Because I have READ his statement in interviews on this film. I also recall his post 9/11 actions.

You, on the otherhand, seem to have found a telepathic connection with him via the film tapping into intentions and motivations his interviews did not bestow upon the rest of the world.

[JbaraFan1]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 5:55pm

I think anyone who takes a little time to read about Dave Karnes (the Marine played by Michael Shannon in the film) will
find that the lines he has in the film don't sound at all uncharacteristic.
The Marine who found two WTC survivors. By Rebecca Liss - Slate Magazine

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 5:58pm

I'll tell you what I saw in that character:

A nutty, conservative war-hungry man who was a hero. And, I find that to be stunning complexity. He is nothing I would ever agree with or like in real life--and yet, he did a great thing that I do respect. Fascinating--but maybe that's too much for some people who want the world to be black or white right now. (said sincerely)

[Peter]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 6:32pm

I really dont know why Ive struck such a nerve with you Jrb. I mentioned specifics in a film and supported my claims with examples of Stone's bad direction. I never once said I knew his intentions..I used words like "perhaps unintentional" and "infer" because like you, Im aware of Stones publicized political views. Im only going on whats IN THE FILM. I even included a review from at least one major newspaper that points out this inferred Republican bent too, so Im not exactly alone in my opinion here. IMO, its just a badly directed film.

But Id have to strongly disagree with you about one thing. If anything, IMO this film is black and white..with very little in the way of grey areas. Theres not one person in this movie who isnt depicted as anything but heroic and having the perfect family life. Not one of these characters (and they are characters since this is not a documentary style film) is given complete characterizations. Stone has one thing in mind..to wring as much emotion as possible from the audience. Also I really think youre exaggerating when you call the Marine incredibly complex. Hes a conservative (which btw is an inference here) and you dont agree with someone conservative so when he does something heroic ..that itself makes him "complex"?? Really??? IMO, hes given a totally one sided CHARACTERIZATION as a military hero-type down to his totally inane dialogue. To me, he's ANYTHING but complex.

Sometimes I think Im talking about one thing...the film as end product...and others here are talking about other things...interviews and what they know of 9/11 and what they know of the director and people in it. Its also very easy to be moved by a film like this and it doesnt take an especially good director imo to do so.

I seem to have upset you with my supported viewpoints on a film..so Ill stop now before you burst a vessel.
Updated On: 8/17/06 at 06:32 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 6:43pm

Oh, sweetie--don't delight and dazzle yourself with any notion that you've upset me or that you need to stop before I burst a blood vessel. I'm debating the film with you. Don't be so silly.

"not one person in this movie who isnt depicted as anything but heroic and having the perfect family life"

Then you weren't paying attention as that was the very crux of Cage and Bello's relationship--they were in the middle of a very strained and dying marriage when 9/11 happened and the film for their characters was all about losing each other on bad terms.

And please don't put words in my mouth regarding the marine. In a socio-political climate where we want to box "the other side" as being the bad guy whether you are conservative or liberal, I found the painting of a conservative character who you ultimately come to respect as providing a complexity. If you can't comprehend what I was saying, then that's on you. And, I apologize that I just don't have any more blood vessels...I mean...energy to make it clearer for you.

Sorry you hated the film. Life goes on.

Edit: typo

Updated On: 8/17/06 at 06:43 PM

[Peter]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 7:32pm

Jerby, you continually say things like "You, on the otherhand, seem to have found a telepathic connection with him via the film tapping into intentions and motivations his interviews did not bestow upon the rest of the world." Maybe its me, but these kinds of things arent debating the movie..theyre debating an interview, and certainly your tone here makes me think you're jumping up and down in your chair as you write, "Sweetie."

Ive tried to stick to whats in the film and the directorial choices/vision here that I dont agree with. You are correct that it is pointed out that their relationship is somewhat strained, but Stone so glosses over it to me and envelops their memories in this over-the-top sentimentality that the "strain" comes across as just an implied lovers spat. The whole thing had a hokiness to me...a manufactured sense of reality and an attempt to make people feel good about themselves. But if you enjoyed it, good for you "Sweetie"

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 8:32pm

I have never jumped up and down in a chair!

A bed or sofa maybe--but never a chair!

SWEETIE.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 4:22pm

"To top it off, if this material weren't so inherently emotional, the scenes with the Marine would have had me in hysterics. His dialogue, especially his final line "They're going to need some good men to avenge this," followed by the superimposed message that he served in Iraq certainly implies a connection between 9/11 and Iraq."

I never jumped to that conclusion. In fact, I found it to be rather ironic that he rejoined the Marines and served in Iraq, considering what we know now. Not once did I think Stone was trying to imply there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. As for the Christian imagery, to me, it seemed character-driven, not so much a specific directorial choice. It's no secret that most members of the Hispanic community are Catholic and the use of Jesus in their symbology is HUGE. For a Hispanic man to have a vision of Jesus when he is trapped and possibly dying in the rubble of one of the biggest disasters in American history for over 24 hours does not sound specifically Republican to me. Trying to find the Republican in anything that is not a cynical view of the US does sound suspiciously like liberal fanaticism, however.

"Theres not one person in this movie who isnt depicted as anything but heroic and having the perfect family life. Not one of these characters (and they are characters since this is not a documentary style film) is given complete characterizations."

This is rather contradictory. As jrb pointed out, the families depicted were far from perfect, but how could you define them as perfect families if there is so little characterization?

"Ive tried to stick to whats in the film and the directorial choices/vision here that I dont agree with. You are correct that it is pointed out that their relationship is somewhat strained, but Stone so glosses over it to me and envelops their memories in this over-the-top sentimentality that the "strain" comes across as just an implied lovers spat. The whole thing had a hokiness to me...a manufactured sense of reality and an attempt to make people feel good about themselves."

This totally confuses me. How did you want them depicted? How much about them do you know to imply that they were somehow misrepresented? I'm not clear why attempting to make people feel good about themselves is such a terrible thing. Especially with regards to an event that will forever be shrouded in anger, pain, and sorrow. To me, Stone surprised us by taking the unpopular view of this particular event, given the amount of finger-pointing, rubber-necking, racial profiling and First Amendment abuse we've been subjected to since that fateful day. I'm thrilled with what he has offered us.

[SweetQintheLights]

Posted: 9/2/06 at 5:10pm

I just got back. WoW.

I'm honestly too drained to write a review and don't really think I'll ever be in the "mood" to.

It was well depicted. There were some things I didn't like (ie: visions of Jesus) but for the most part, it was well done.
I can't really see people coming out of it and saying it was "ok." I think it's a kind of thing that you think was well done, or you just plain hated it.

**Well done is not to be confused with good**

On one hand, I think it's good to see that something somewhat positive came out of it but on the other, I feel that they (producers/directors) aren't making movies with what mostly happened- death.

Do we want to see happy things in movies? Yes. But we also want reality. And, while this was reality- it was far from the "real reality."

Sorry, I don't think that made much sense.

*sigh*

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/2/06 at 5:53pm

The guy had a vision of Jesus--that was not made up. And dramatically, it's a wonderful thing to use.

I don't agree with your point. United 93 was in no way a happy ending. WTC was a "happy ending" but it didn't betray the sense of tragedy of the day. And those men had an awful recovery (all those surgeries, for example). It told the truth about one of the stories that can be a source of hope for what that's worth.

I imagine there will be more films dealing with the events of that day. And, most likely, they will be telling the stories that do not end with "happily".

But, I think if one were to one day gather all the films about 9/11 as a way to understand the many facets of that day, WTC belongs there as a story of some who survived such madness. I look at these films as a mosaic--much the way the various stories about WW II/Holocaust and Vietnam work as a kind of mosaic to give us some sense of the bigger picture and of the different views/voices.

[dramaparoxysm23]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 10:30pm

I try not to watch depressing movies.

And I'll do the thing where I think of other [happier] things during the worst scenes so I won't feel so terrible. Of course, then I feel terrible for not feeling terrible.
It's complicated.

[broadway86]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 11:14pm

I liked it. Didn't love it. Fine acting all around, certainly by the four leads. I much prefer United 93, which was one of the most riveting movie experiences I've ever had.