Posted on 08/10/2006 5:54:35 PM PDT by World_Events
Oliver Stone has managed to get his hands on a lot of history. For the last 20 years Stone has been working away on his own personal Time-Life series about baby boomer America - earnestly hitting every liberal highlight, whether it's the My Lai massacre ("Platoon"), Reagan-era "greed" ("Wall Street"), or Nixon-era corruption ("Nixon"). Stone has twisted and rewritten history - "personalized" it to suit his own peculiar, paleo-liberal vision of the world - all the while imputing dark motivations to anyone who disagreed with him.
And so it should be no surprise that Stone would get his hands on 9/11, too.
And truth be told, the results could've been much, much worse than what we get with "World Trade Center." The fear, of course, is that Stone would've turned the story of the 9/11 attacks into another "JFK": a feverish thriller playing fast-and-loose with the facts, spinning outlandish conspiracies involving - who knows? - Halliburton, Dick Cheney, secret Israeli strike teams detonating explosives in World Trade Center broom closets. Thankfully we don't get anything like that in "World Trade Center."
And the reason for this is simple: Stone and his bosses at Paramount recognized they were dealing with an event that was much bigger than them, an event that overwhelms so many liberal memes: "America as an empire," "America as a focus of evil in the modern world," "America as a decaying democracy," etc.
In the space of an hour, 9/11 reversed a generation of baby boomer clichés about how friendly and peace-loving the rest of the world really is, and about whether Americans could take a punch. Stone and Co. saw all that and understood what boundaries they couldn't cross.
I don't mean to be cynical about this. I don't doubt that "World Trade Center" is a personal film for Stone. And I don't think "World Trade Center" is merely Stone's effort to revive his career after his last film ("Alexander") tanked spectacularly.
I think Stone's film is sincere because there was a time in his life long ago when he dropped out of college and volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam (25th Infantry Division and the 1st Cavalry Division) - duty that earned him a Bronze Star with a "V" device for "extraordinary acts of courage under fire," a Purple Heart, and one Oak Leaf Cluster. What this means is that Stone has done something neither Michael Moore, nor George Clooney, nor Sean Penn have ever done: served his country. What this means is that at a crucial point in his life, Stone stood up and volunteered to walk into the meatgrinder.
And basically, that's what "World Trade Center" is about.
"World Trade Center" is a sincere, emotional film with a big heart. It's about a pair of men who are the real deal: heroes who voluntarily walk into a burning building - the ultimate burning building - to save lives, and then endure a catastrophe that still seems inconceivable.
The film tells a true story about two men named John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Will Jimeno (Michael Peña) who represent the muscle, bone, and sinew of what this country is, as opposed to how it tends to be portrayed in the media (racist, hegemonic, decadent, etc.). McLoughlin and Jimeno are two Port Authority officers who get the call that the World Trade Center is burning. Unfortunately they're not in the building very long - and never get further than the concourse level - when suddenly the North Tower collapses on them.
Through some miracle, and some clever thinking by McLoughlin, he, Jimeno, and an officer named Dominick Pezzulo survive the collapse - although they remain trapped in debris. Pezzulo, however, is able to extricate himself and could have - incredibly - walked away alive. Instead Pezzulo tries valiantly to at least free Jimeno. It's at this point that the South Tower collapses, sending debris down on Officer Pezzulo, who tragically wasn't able to survive both towers falling on him.
After Officer Pezzulo breathes his last, McLoughlin and Jimeno are left by themselves, still pinned under mounds of debris. And here the movie stays with them for quite a while, as the two men keep talking to each other, trying to keep themselves alive. What relieves their misery are thoughts of their families - and it's here that Stone cuts away to the families suffering back home. The crucial figures here are Maria Bello playing McLoughlin's wife, and Maggie Gyllenhaal playing Jimeno's.
These women play a vital role in the film, because in having to wait that day and wonder about the fate of their husbands, their suffering may actually have been greater than what the two men endured. And basically what it comes down to is Maria Bello is up for this role, and Maggie Gyllenhaal isn't. Bello comes across as resolute, composed and warm-hearted. Gyllenhaal comes across as a narcissistic, insufferable Amherst-type who's completely unconvincing as someone who would marry an earthy Port Authority lug.
Now, I've said to this point that "World Trade Center" is a sincere film. I haven't said it's a great film, or even a good film. And if "World Trade Center" didn't happen to tell a true story, I probably would have a very different opinion of it. As it turns out, "World Trade Center" is merely a mediocre film that presents a somewhat sanitized, Hallmark Channel version of 9/11 - very much in contrast to what Paul Greengrass did with "United 93."
In trying to be "non-controversial" with this film, in trying to present a unifying, ecumenical vision of 9/11 that "everybody can agree on," Stone and Paramount have so denuded that day as to make this film not really about 9/11 or terrorism, at all. In fact, the big problem with "World Trade Center" is that the exact same film could've been made about a car accident, or any other burning building or public tragedy involving rescue workers.
It isn't simply that no terrorists appear in the film, it's that everyone in this film is behaving so nobly and efficiently that the film lacks any villains, whatsoever. And this presents a problem for Stone's film, because the middle of the film drags considerably.
McLoughlin and Jimeno's only enemy seems to be the clock, and so during the film's second act - when the poor guys are just sitting, buried in rubble - the film becomes a little tedious. It becomes a waiting game for both the men and the audience. This is in direct contrast to Paul Greengrass' extremely intense and suspenseful "United 93" - a film to which we also, alas, know the ending.
Stone has made a feel-good movie about an event it's impossible to feel good about, even if officers McLoughlin, Jimeno, and 18 other people survived that day. The grief, anguish and desolation occasioned by the attacks - the tragic cell phone calls, the lost family members, the nation's shock and outrage - none of that can be so easily healed by focusing on the few people who miraculously survived.
Some conservatives in the media have suggested that "World Trade Center" is "right wing," that it's something like John Wayne's "Back to Bataan" or "Flying Tigers." It isn't. Stone and Parmount's film is much too cautious and measured to be compared with the films Hollywood was making in the 1940s. This isn't a war film, it's a rescue film.
So to fellow conservatives I say don't expect Oliver Stone to be directing "Rumsfeld: A Hero's Road to Bagdad" anytime soon. Nor will Stone be guest-hosting for O'Reilly. Oliver Stone is a veteran, and he's made a film respectful toward those who serve their country in times of need. That's all.
And perhaps, given the present climate in Hollywood, that's a great deal.
Jason Apuzzo and Govindini Murty are NewsMax columnists, filmmakers, and co-directors of the Liberty Film Festival.
I just looked it up. United 93 will be released on DVD on September 5.
So to fellow conservatives I say don't expect Oliver Stone to be directing "Rumsfeld: A Hero's Road to Bagdad" anytime soon.
Bwahahaha! That's good. Who is going to direct it then?
- "Rumsfeld: A Hero's Road to Bagdad" -
Hilarious!
Remember how respected and beloved Rumsfeld was after 9/11? Now you have everyone's naggy mother/ex-wife, Hillary, screaming at him while Muslims are plotting to blow up jetliners.
Do you ever feel like you're living in an alternate universe?
Another review:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1681587/posts
The movie was worth my time, but I have one question. Did the third Transit Police officer kill himself with his weapon? I saw him point the gun in the air away from his body then you heard a shot.
United 93 was excellent. I don't know why more didn't see
it. I will not be seeing Stone's film. Don't want to put any money in his pocket. Don't care for Maggie G. either.
Didn't she say the attack was our fault or something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.