9/11 Comfort Blanket
9/11 Comfort Blanket
Oliver Stone's World Trade Center (Paramount, 8.9) is a well made, emotionally satisfying rescue movie. It happens to be about a couple of Port Authority cops (played by Nicolas Cage and Michael Pena) who got buried in the rubble of 9/11, but it could be about any two family men who nearly buy it while doing a tough job on a bad day.
It's pretty much as screenwiter Andrea Berloff described it three or four months ago -- a boy-down-the-well movie only darker and with blood and bruises and crushed bones, and times two. Not the most striking or labrynthian or emotionally complex film you've ever seen, but a good one.
Nicolas Cage as John McLoughlin in Oliver Stone's World Trade Center
It's spookier and less talky and certainly more traumatic than Ron Howard's Apollo 13, but it's basically the same thing. Brave guys get caught in it, seem fucked, are fucked, families think they're fucked, a nervy guy with smarts and ingenuity is determined to save them, he finds a way, brave guys aren't fucked after all and they're home free and out. Otherwise there are loads of differences between Stone's and Howard's film, and one that stands out in particular: Apollo 13 has a more interesting story and a much stronger second act.
World Trade Center is about two guys trapped in a dark hole full of rocks and dirt and twisted metal, and the audience definitely shares their plight in the middle section. A feeling of being enveloped by despair and then hopelessness, a sensation of oxygen depletion, of being trapped with life slipping away. If this weren't a grim-up-and-pay-attention 9/11 movie and was just an original script, agency readers would be writing the same thing all over town: "Great beginning, good ending...and a second act that literally lies there."
Stone has directed World Trade Center like a champ and made it into something sharper and more shaded than what it probably was on the page. It could have been television -- the bones are straight out of a made-for-TV movie manual -- but it's not. Nor is it the Second Coming. But because of the 9/11 baggage factor it's being called a knockout and a cathartic wowser by both Time and Newsweek this week. And it's not. Or at least, it didn't feel that way to me.
By my standards World Trade Center is a solid 7.8. Not quite an 8, but absolutely nothing for anyone on the team not to be proud of, or at least very content with. I have no significant beefs with this film. I'd be surprised if anyone does. It's not the kind of movie that will tick anyone off. It's too decent and restrained and respectful and sharply rendered. But in a ground-rule-double sort of way.
Oliver Stone on Playa del Rey set of World Trade Center
It's very well acted up and down (Nicolas Cage, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Stephen Dorff are the best of a uniformly pro-level cast). The sense of 9/11 realism is bracing all the way through, and the visual effects are top-notch, by which I mean nearly invisible. (There's an overhead shot of the smoldering World Trade Center site on Tuesday, 9.12, that's one of the best non-fake-looking CG shots I've ever seen.) I really have to hand it again to Stone for doing an excellent job of "getting out of the way" and just directing it like a no-nonsense pro -- as if the spirit of Anthony Mann swirled up from the grave and took over.
I think it's fine that the patriotic right-wing community has been shown World Trade Center in advance screenings and that they're digging it and all. I can see why. It has no politics, no Hollywood leftie attitude -- it's just a straight drama about a lot of good people pulling together to save a couple of guys from the jaws of death. A movie about caring, family, duty, perseverance.
Everybody knows Cage plays Port Authority cop John McLoughlin and Pena plays Will Jimeno, right? Two real-life guys who had to go through dozens of operations to recover from their 9/11 injuries, and who've been helping to promote the film that last several weeks.
The Newsweek story, written by critic David Ansen, says that World Trade Center "celebrates the ties that bind us, the bonds that keep us going, the goodness that stands as a rebuke to the horror of that day. Perhaps, in the future, the times will call for more challenging, or polemical, or subversive visions. Right now, it feels like the 9/11 movie we need."
Not very challenging or polemical, and yet Newsweek has World Trade Center on the cover. It sounds like the editors might have been the ones doing cartwheels in the lobby rather than Ansen. Boil the snow out and all he's saying is that WTC is classy emotional therapy.
Michael Shannon as Dave Karnes
I have one very small quibble with World Trade Center and two mid-sized ones. A tinkling of piano keys at the wrong moment near the beginning, and two small but significant omissions in the portrayal of Dave Karnes, the ex-Marine who drove in from Connecticut on the afternoon of 9/11 and made it through the police barriers and onto the WTC site by dinner hour.
It was Karnes (portrayed by Michael Shannon) who discovered McLoughlin and Jimeno and brought the rescue teams to their aid. Everybody had quit looking that night for fear of other buildings collapsing. If Karnes hadn't put on his Marine uniform and gotten himself a Marine haircut at a Stamford barbershop and driven down to Manhattan and all, it's quite possible McLoughlin and Jimeno might not have survived. Shannon portrays him as a bit of a religious weirdo, a bit of a nut. But a good kind of nut in a situation like 9/11 -- a guy who laser-beams right into what needs to be done, and then does it.
Curiously, Stone decided to omit a character detail that I find really interesting. Karnes drove into Manhattan in a recently purchased Porsche 911 convertible, and at times, according to a 9.02 Slate story by Rebeca Liss, at speeds of 120 mph.
That's a fascinating trait for a 9/11 savior -- tear-assing down the Connecticut Turn- plike and the Henry Hudson Parkway in a muscle car with the top down, and stop- ping at a McDonald's along the way.
Why didn't Stone show this? My theory is that he wanted Karnes to appear selfless and monk-like -- a slightly bent military saint. And I think he knew this impression wouldn't fly with audiences if he had Karnes driving a Porsche 911 because a lot of people think that guys who drive Porsches are dickheads. But I had read about Karnes and his Porsche two or three years ago and was waiting for that shot. I felt that Stone sold Karnes and his audience short by trying to simplify him into a ex-Marine who resembled Karnes in a lot of ways but not entirely.
There's another thing that happened between Karnes and the men he saved that Stone chose not to dramatize. It would have been touching. Liss describes it thusly:
"Karnes left the site that night when Jimeno was rescued and went with him to the hospital. While doctors treated the injured cop, Karnes grabbed a few hours sleep on an empty bed in the hospital psychiatric ward. While he slept, the hospital cleaned and pressed his uniform."
The little thing I didn't like is a bit at the very beginning when Cage is dressing and getting ready to drive to work from his home in New Jersey. The movie has been running for maybe four or five minutes as he walks down a hallway and opens a door and looks into the bedrooms of his sleeping children. And Stone ruins the moment by putting a "sensitive" little piano riff on the soundtrack. Sensitive as in "awww, he loves his children" and "boy, the quiet little moments in life are what make it all worth it, you know?"
Without the tinkling piano it would have been a nice honest little moment -- with the tinkling piano it's Hollywood bullshit. It's okay to use tinkling piano riffs to emphasize emotion but only after the film has been running for 15 or 20 minutes, by which time you've built up your characters and plot elements a little bit.
There's a perfect little piano tinkle when Gloria Stuart's "old Rose" first looks at Jack Dawson's old drawing of her naked younger self in Titanic, but because we've gotten to know a bit about her character and who she is, and because we don't exactly know what the piano tinkle means...but we can tell it means something. And so it gets us on some level.
Michael Pena as Jim Jimeno
I seem to have lost my World Trade Center thread here....
At least I haven't oversold the thing. If you go and feel this afterwards, blame Ansen and Time's Richard Schickel.
Addendum: I happened to meet Mcloughlin's real-life son on the Paramount lot after seeing World Trade Center a couple of weeks ago. He was with a couple of friends in a small white car. We shook hands and talked about the film a bit. I asked if his dad has been in touch with Karnes since 9.11 and I think he said "once." I asked why Cage portrayed his dad as walking in an awkward stumpy fashion at the end of the film, and he said it's because the bones in his dad's feet were totally crushed and aren't flexible and that he basically "walks around like Frankenstein."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 31, 2006 at 10:08 PM
comment #1
MAGGA says ...
Feels strange for the once-great Stone to make pedestrian movies. His run from Salvador to Nixon is, in my opinion, one of the best of all time. After that he has been pretty weak, so it´s good to hear he has made a good movie. But I hope he goes on to do something that makes use of his intellect and his inventive editing again. Uhm, of course I haven´t seen this film myself.
Posted by MAGGA at August 1, 2006 2:32 AM
comment #2
Anonymous says ...
I think history will prove this film to be the biggest missed opportunity in Stone's career.
http://www.loosechange911.com/
Posted by Anonymous at August 1, 2006 3:14 AM
comment #3
MAGGA says ...
I remember being in absolute shock when I saw loose change, but even though I still believe that the US gouvernment missused the events to promote their endless wars, and maybe even had foreknowldge, most of the claims in the doc don?t hold up, like its references to contradictory eyewitness reports, showing three differing accounts. I checked out the eyewitness reports online, and the overwhelming majority of the witnesses saw an American Airlines Jet. I still agree that something fishy is up, especially the "dog didn?t bark"-theory, but as this story apparently take no political stance, these facts don?t dimminish the story of surviving in the wreckage, or the selfless actions of many people on that day. Also, a blockbuster conspiracy movie about 9/11 would never get financing.
Posted by MAGGA at August 1, 2006 3:31 AM
comment #4
Patrick says ...
I knew Jeff would be so-so about this since it
wasn't some great 9/11, Bush bashing, conspiracy
centered Stone opus. So, I'm fine with his "more
positive than I thought he'd be" review.
However, the nameless person saying this will go
down as the biggest missed opportunity of Stone's
career is simply NUTS. What fucking studio or
indie film company would give Stone ANY SORT OF
MONEY to make this great "the neo-cons did it"
9/11 film? HUH? Come on! Stone couldn't have made
the film he talked about doing back in Oct. of '01
and I think it's just crazy to rake him over the
coals for it.
Now, at it's best, this will only be a minor
Stone flick. Although, in my opinion he won two
Oscars for minor works, so who's to say that this
film won't be up for Best Picture and Best Director.
We'll see how the fall and winter cannon of films
shake out.
Hey, Jeff - That Anthony Mann reference...um...which
films of his were you thinking of in terms of "I
really have to hand it again to Stone for doing
an excellent job of "getting out of the way" and
just directing it like a no-nonsense pro -- as if
the spirit of Anthony Mann swirled up from the
grave and took over."??????
Posted by Patrick at August 1, 2006 4:30 AM
comment #5
Patrick says ...
P.S. - Michael Pena is HOT AS FUCK! YUMMY!
Ok, I just had to say that.
Posted by Patrick at August 1, 2006 4:32 AM
comment #6
sprofessor says ...
I think its very unfair to suggest that Stone has "lost it" because he's not making a more controversial film. As even Stone has admitted, his political films came to an end with Nixon. No studio will ever greenlight another film with the kind of balls Stone showed in JFK, Nixon, NBK etc.
The media destroyed Stone's reputation and made him into some sort of caricature/joke. But hopefully this film will do well and let Stone do that "sunset" movie he once talked about. Stone has one more great film left in him, but WTC isn't it.
Posted by sprofessor at August 1, 2006 5:28 AM
comment #7
princessofpeace says ...
I think that sprofessor is correct. The big studios are afraid of controversy and would never bankroll a 9/11 conspiracy film. Perhaps one day someone will have the cajones to make one but it will have only a very limited release.
Most film companies seem to be more interested in making money than making intelligent films. I can't say much about WTC because I haven't seen it but I have a feeling that Stone has lost his edge.
Posted by princessofpeace at August 1, 2006 6:02 AM
comment #8
Anonymous says ...
Stone could have made a film that explores any potential conspiracy with the Weinsteins. Hollywood is not the place to make daring statements.
I think taking the World Trade Center story and making it the Poseidon Adventure is an embarrassing sell out move on Srones part. This is akin to perpetuating the lone gunman theory as an aside in a Jackie and JFK tragic love story.
Posted by Anonymous at August 1, 2006 6:04 AM
comment #9
Pedro says ...
I think it's unfair to criticize Stone for having 'lost his edge' without having seen the film. I'd love to see him back in his JFK/Nixon mode... but everyone seems to forget that he hasn't made an outwardly political film SINCE Nixon... U-Turn, Any Given Sunday, Alexander... those aren't political films either. But now all of a sudden he's lost his edge.
I'm not dying to see any 9/11 film, be it WTC or a movie about George Bush colluding with Osama Bin Laden. But Stone deserves respect one way or another, and I think it should be paid by judging this film on its own merits instead of complaining that it's something that it's not, and probably wouldn't be even if he had just won three Oscars in a row.
Posted by Pedro at August 1, 2006 7:04 AM
comment #10
Mike Gebert says ...
Maybe the reason they didn't bankroll a Loose Change movie is because it's total bullshit you'd have to be an idiot to buy into.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
Just a theory.
Posted by Mike Gebert at August 1, 2006 7:04 AM
comment #11
Sean Richardson says ...
When Jeff started talking about "Ron Howard's picture", before he eventually identified that he meant 'Apollo 13', I thought he meant 'Backdraft'.
"I think history will prove this film to be the biggest missed opportunity in Stone's career."
Because he doesn't believe the nuttiest conspiracy theory this side of 'JFK'?
Posted by Sean Richardson at August 1, 2006 7:15 AM
comment #12
NYCBusybody says ...
It's not that people who buy into Loose Change are "total idiots". In fact, I think some of them are quite intelligent and clever, which is what makes it so deeply frightening.
It's a politically and ideologically-driven theory, not intellectually or factually, or even scientifically. I'm sure it does warm the cockles of anti-Semitic or anti-Western hearts to believe that the Neo-Con/Jewish cabal/Bush Admin. set all this in motion and planned the attacks themselves, but that doesn't make it so.
I find it unfortunate that the Bush Administration's response to 9/11 terrorism was to go into Iraq, based on unsubstantiated evidence of a serious WMD program that needed to taken out. There were bigger fights, including in Afghanistan, where we were right to go in.
I also find it unfortunate that 2 days after 9/11, anti-Western, far-left elements in Europe, America, and hell, everywhere, used 9/11 to also push their own agenda. To say that the right are the only ones to politicize 9/11 is preposterous. They just do it better.
The U.S. government has done some stupid things. All governments have, and our foreign policy has been less than decently motivated in the past. To deny this is ridiculous, and one of the worst things about the far-right in this country. But the idea that 9/11 would never have happened if only America wasn't so damn evil is insane, and only leads to things like Loose Change.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 7:52 AM
comment #13
Dave at Garfield Ridge says ...
You know why Loose Change is bullshit? Because the people who made the movie aren't dead.
These are the folks who believe that the Bush Administration is so incompetent as to fuck up Iraq and Katrina and everything else, yet is so incredibly brilliant as to have masterminded the cold-blooded murder of 3,000 American citizens in plain view of the entire world without getting caught. A conspiracy with a countless moving parts and participants, yet in five years not a single person has come forward and said "The guilt was too much, I was involved in this."
And yet, the makers of Loose Change are so smart, they've discovered the entire BushHitler plot, uncovered the greatest crime in American history. . . and yet, they still live.
Riiiight.
Some people would rather believe their own demented creativity then listen to Occam.
Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge
Posted by Dave at Garfield Ridge at August 1, 2006 7:53 AM
comment #14
Mike Gebert says ...
Good points, both of you. There's a religious need to believe in something like Loose Change, despite the fact that 9/11 could hardly be more obviously the work of exactly who it looks like the work of, for exactly the reasons they state. (Interesting factoid I've rarely seen mentioned, by the way-- remember that when Osama picked the WTC as a target, he was picking a building whose architect had worked extensively with his own father. The kid had issues, I guess.)
It all reminds of something I said not long after 9-11; "A left wing kook is someone who believes our kind, benevolent government should run everything, except foreign policy which we're too evil to even have. A right wing kook is someone who believes government is too stupid to do anything well, except perfectly coordinate a 5000-person conspiracy to murder its own people without one participant leaking to the press."
Posted by Mike Gebert at August 1, 2006 8:12 AM
comment #15
MAGGA says ...
I mentioned before that I don?t think loose change is accurate, but the reason it s so easy for so many people, including very smart and historically knowledgable people, to believe that the gouvernment is not telling the truth is because they have lied consistently since being elected. I?ve checked every conspiracy theory I?ve come over to research a fictional project I?m trying to make, including Waco, JFK, Ruby Ridge, the Illuminati etc, and clearly a lot of it is ridiculous. But some of it makes sense, too (hell, even the official US investigation in the 70s ruled the JFK murder a "probable conspiracy"), and a lot of the believers are very bright people. In the months before 9/11 there was a lot of discussion that something like that was imminent, due to the fact that papers suggested development of the patriot act and preparations for war. So the concept of foreknowledge is not so out-there, and the people who claim that those ideas are crazy generally offer no reason beyond "conspiracy nutjobs", "anti-americanism" etc. One could say that the reason Loose change is not a bigger problem is that it is easily sismissable, and therefore makes it easier to paint everyone who has questions with that brush. But World Trade Center is not the movie for those discussions, and the reason I feel Stone has lost his touch is because his last three films were about nothing.
Posted by MAGGA at August 1, 2006 8:35 AM
comment #16
D.R. Atkinson says ...
Thankyou for giving us your views on World Trade Center. As a Newsweek subscriber I'm not looking forward to my favorite news magazine's cover story. I appreciate the advance warning that this "grim up and pay attention 9/11 movie" resembles Ron Howard's Apollo 13--only Apollo 13 has a more interesting story and a much stronger second act. My copy usually does not arrive in the mail until Thursday or Friday. I respect David Ansen but after sitting through the real event on CNN and watching Stone try to sell "Alexander" on Charlie Rose, I'm not ready to climb on any summer doldrums hype bandwagons.
Posted by D.R. Atkinson at August 1, 2006 8:47 AM
comment #17
NYCBusybody says ...
It's so easy for people to believe because they are automatically biased against the American government, particularly Republicans, in favor of minority cultures, especially as represented by socialist leaders and terrorist organizations, and will believe propaganda spread by those factions without any individual, independent thought of their own. To automatically side with Hezbollah, or Chavez, or Castro, or Ahmenijad, or Bin Laden, or socialist Europe, is to view things through a prism that tolerates no dissent of any views that don't fit a narrow worldview. This is what many right-wingers in this country do. It amazes me that lefties don't realize how long they've been doing the exact same thing.
I'd respect those who issue blanket anti-American condemnation a lot more if they'd just admit to it.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 8:47 AM
comment #18
David Kelly says ...
NYCBusyBody,
Those were VERY intelligent remarks. I was sincerely moved.
Posted by David Kelly at August 1, 2006 8:49 AM
comment #19
NYCBusybody says ...
Thanks, David. But I've made my share of unintelligent remarks as well, so I think I'm running even right now.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 8:54 AM
comment #20
BL says ...
IMHO, Stone has been an up and down director his entire career - I for one can't STAND Platoon, but sporadically have liked some of his movies a lot over the years. With the train wreck of "Alexander" behind him though, how can this film be ANYTHING but a step up?
As for 9/11 conspiracy theories - there is so much circumstantial evidence that this COULD be true its not even funny - but I don't see any point in getting worked up about it because the 'system' is so fixed right now that a genuine investigation is a COMPLETE and TOTAL impossibility.
I will say this though, if all those ridiculing all this as all tin foil hat BS really believed it was whacko and groundless - they would be DELIGHTED to see a decent, bi-partisan investigation launched into the matter. The fact that they don't just shows they not only suspect it is true but do not in theory object to the possibility that it might be.
Posted by BL at August 1, 2006 9:02 AM
comment #21
NYCBusybody says ...
I'd love to see decent, bi-partisan investigations into a lot of the whacko things the far-left believes. Examination of ridiculous claims, bringing them into the light would be wonderful.
The people who would object to such a committee would be Democrats much more than Republicans, because they know the Loose Change theory would make them look bad.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 9:07 AM
comment #22
Mike Gebert says ...
Nice try at mind-reading, BL, but there was a decent, bi-partisan investigation, which folks like you reject because it doesn't support the conclusions you want it to reach, and no, I don't suspect it might be true, because "it's" bonkers.
Posted by Mike Gebert at August 1, 2006 9:24 AM
comment #23
BL says ...
Busybody:
It's not as if I read every single thread on this website - but do you EVER just post about movies as pure cinema WITHOUT pushing a specific political agenda?
I don't know if you're just an individual who feels they have a 'mission' or have been hired by some kind of politically based orgainzation to infiltrate arts-based discussions to subliminally promote your political viewpoints - but all I can say is I see very little evidence of your actually being interested in movies per se.
I can only hope the discussions on this website aren't debased to the extent those at 'aint it cool' are. I swear the neo-cons have totally hijjacked the level of discourse over there.
Posted by BL at August 1, 2006 9:25 AM
comment #24
Anonymous says ...
I agree. All the people in power would have to do, and probably will do if this movement ever gains enough momentum, is to show the security videos of that plane hitting the pentagon, and everyone who believes anything other than the official story will look bad. However, this left/right, republican/democrat argument makes little sense. I am from Norway and would consider both American parties far-right. As such I would love a clarification on what socialist-Europe is supposed to mean. Is it the old communist coutries, or social-democratic countries like the Scandinavian ones, or even countries leaning right, in the parlance of their own political debates, like France? If that is the case, then most of the world would fit that description.
Posted by Anonymous at August 1, 2006 9:26 AM
comment #25
MAGGA says ...
Forgot to put my name in there. And the question was for NYCBussybody, although I would love an answer from anybody, as these terms seem to me to be thrown around carelessly.
Posted by MAGGA at August 1, 2006 9:27 AM
comment #26
BL says ...
Hey Mike!
If the Bush administration can TOTALLY ignore the findings of that 9/11 commission, why can't the rest of us?
As for me specifically, I am on the fence about the conspiracy theories, and I'm sure you'll be delighted to know I get in plenty of arguments with that side of things as well. Let's just say that as of now I do not think the Bush Administration planned 9/11, but neither would I be shocked if it had turned out that they had.
I DO have doubts about the 9/11 commission. Just because they were 'bi-partisan', doesn't mean they didn't seem to sidestep investigating a lot of obviously critical issues.
In any case, in the grand scheme of things, I think this issue should be put on the back burner and people should concentrate on protecting democracy via safeguards against election fraud.
Posted by BL at August 1, 2006 9:36 AM
comment #27
NYCBusybody says ...
Anyone who thinks Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Al Gore, and John Kerry (representatives of U.S. Democrats) are "far-right" isn't really someone I feel I can argue with. We're just far too separated in our worldviews.
I suspect what you mean is - anyone who is pro-capitalism is far-right. Your mindset is unable to differentiate people like Ken Lay, Enron, and REAL far-right economists from others who truly believe capitalism, with proper, limited governmental oversight (which isn't too strong right now in the U.S.)
If someone disagrees with socialized healthcare, or disagrees with the premise that Western society is responsible for all the poverty and ills of the world, then they're far right. That simply isn't the case. There are shades to things, nuances, that cannot be tolerated by far-left or far-right worldviews. Things aren't black and white, no matter what the Bushes or Michael Moores of the world wish to believe.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 9:36 AM
comment #28
NYCBusybody says ...
BL, I resent your call for democratized elections. I think you should be focusing on movies, not politics.
Or was it just because you disagree with my politics that you think I should focus on movies?
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 9:39 AM
comment #29
FunkDaddy J says ...
There will always be wackos on both sides of the political spectrum. Propaganda and hysteria are not the exclusive rights of the far left or the far right. There will always be rabid righties biased against Democratic government, and there will always be rapid lefties biases against Republican government. I think we all realize this.
The danger, evidenced by NYCB's discouraging us-or-them simplifications, is whiplash dismissal of the notion of thinking from different perspectives, trying to look at the world from varying points of view. You might not agree with certain conclusions, but it's worth listening to arguments with an open mind.
To imply that someone who questions certain pieces of evidence in the wake of 9/11 has "automatically sided with bin Laden" is absurd. You can still be a patriotic American and question your government. I doubt very many people in this country are "automatically siding" with the aforementioned leaders/regions, but I think we would do well to at least understand them. We make little effort at that.
Posted by FunkDaddy J at August 1, 2006 9:40 AM
comment #30
NYCBusybody says ...
Funkdaddy, I did NOT imply that. That was NOT a blanket statement linking all those groups together; I was merely listing out far-left and/or terrorist figures that CERTAIN groups in this world identify with and support. I do NOT think that questioning government, or questioning the Bush Administration means one is "un-American" or pro-Bin Laden. Hell, I'm as anti-government as they come, and I reserve the harshest criticisms of Bush and his religious-whacko nutjob policies as anyone.
I was referring to those who actually do support Bin Laden and his ideas.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 9:43 AM
comment #31
NYCBusybody says ...
My point being, listing all those groups together did NOT imply that I think they agree with each other on everything. I don't think socialists in Europe, or Chavez supports, or Cuban socialists "support" Bin Laden's terrorism, no matter how much they may "support" some of his ideas.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 9:47 AM
comment #32
BL says ...
Busybody
For all I know, as much as we disagree on politics, we MIGHT agree on some movies - but I have NEVER seen you post about 'just movies'.
Mostly you seem to trawl Jeff's columns for some kind of politcal angle, your first posts use the column as a springboard for your agenda, and then - as in this thread, you throw ANY pretext of talking about the movie out the window and just turn the thread into a political discussion.
I mean holy crap, do me a favor and at least go through the motions of trying to act interested in movies once in awhile. Especially if you're gonna seemingly be spending 12 hours a day here.
Posted by BL at August 1, 2006 9:48 AM
comment #33
Dave at Garfield Ridge says ...
There's a difference between "questioning our government's conclusion when it comes to technical details of 9/11" and "questioning whether our government attacked America."
The first is legitimate, and indeed, encouraged. I'm sure there are countless loose threads in the 9/11 report, weird things. mysteries and coincidences that pop out here and there. Reality is not some easily digested and labeled paperback novel.
That said, those who look at the strange outliers of 9/11 and immediately believe "conspiracy!" are not absorbing the evidence, they're cherry-picking to support their own confirmation bias.
Good luck with that, guys.
Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge
Posted by Dave at Garfield Ridge at August 1, 2006 9:50 AM
comment #34
NYCBusybody says ...
I dunno, Jeff's the one with the "Blue State pride til I die" ribbon sitting right over there to the left of our discussion forum. Which is fine, I actually agree with a lot of "Blue State" ideas. But it seems to me that Jeff's a very political guy too, so I post politics on his site as well.
And let's not forget, I'm the one who first suggested Rachel McAdams should have been Lois Lane in one of these threads, which prompted Jeffrey to make a whole post devoted to that idea. I don't make many movie observations, but when I do, I make 'em count!
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 9:51 AM
comment #35
Dave at Garfield Ridge says ...
BTW, as long as we're going "back to movies," I can't wait to see WTC, I enjoy many (not all) of Oliver Stone's movies even though I personally think the man is a quack.
But hey, if I can compromise for Mel Gibson, I can compromise for Oliver Stone, right?
Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge
Posted by Dave at Garfield Ridge at August 1, 2006 9:53 AM
comment #36
BL says ...
Busybody:
Jeff's 'Blue State Pride" ribbon is a lame excuse to use this site as a soapbox for your crackpot political ideas.
And sorry - bragging on your taste in women does not constitute a legitimate interest in 'cinema'.
What are your 10 favorite movies?
Posted by BL at August 1, 2006 9:55 AM
comment #37
Anonymous says ...
My intention in linking to Loose change was merely to illustrate that 9-11 has more potential as a story than a lame Apollo 13/Poseidon Adventure rehash.
Sure some of Loose Change seems crazy. Hell, part of its theory resembles Die hard with a vengeance!
Also, I think the those litle explosions that lead the collapse are very troubling and they arent faked for the movie. Close-up footage of the building from all over shows that happening.
I think our administration is incapable of planning and carrying this out. But, "New American Century" with the CIA could.
There is alot about 9-11 that we dont know.
Posted by Anonymous at August 1, 2006 10:03 AM
comment #38
Linden says ...
You categorize an entire continent as socialist and then lecture about how other people have no understanding of nuance? Seriously?
And if you didn't mean to categorize and entire continent, why not simply explain what you mean.
You criticize others for only seeing black and white yet that seems to be exactly how you reason. You seem to assume that someone fails to see the difference between unrestricted capitalism and capitalism with government oversight, yet that is exactly what you have done with your categorization of Europe. There are different levels of restrictions.
Posted by Linden at August 1, 2006 10:07 AM
comment #39
MAGGA says ...
By saying that I see both American parties as far-right, I guess I oversimplified things. If they were running in Norway, thay would be further right than any mainstream parties, and so even if I see us as social democratic, capitalist but with high taxes and almost exclusively public schools, hospitals, doctors, gouvernmental support for the arts, I would not consider myself a socialist. I guess I am straying from the subject, but I am genuinely curious about what you mean by European socialists, because I keep hearing that reference popping up, not just by you, NYCB. After all, you seemed to me to be lumping Europe in with Hizbollah, but I probably misread you.
Posted by MAGGA at August 1, 2006 10:27 AM
comment #40
NYCBusybody says ...
If you don't see high taxes and "governmental support for the arts" as socialism, I don't know what to tell ya.
I wonder if you'd be so happy to support tax-funded art if that money was suddenly going to neo-Nazi art, or Christian fundamentalist art. That's the problem with socialism. It uses the state to inherently and intrinsically decide what people's money should pay for, in all areas.
My ten favorite movies:
City Lights
Rushmore
Schindler's List
Ikiru
Mary Poppins
Do the Right Thing
The Third Man
The Red Shoes
Topsy-Turvy
Godfather Part II
In no particular order.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 10:52 AM
comment #41
NYCBusybody says ...
Do I think a lot of socialist Europe (and no, by that phrase I don't mean all of Europe is socialist, just referring to the part that is)supports Hezbollah? That depends on whether you separate supporting actions from supporting ideas.
I think a lot of socialist Europe is implicitly involved in what happens with Islamic terrorism, yes, because of their contributions to supporting the ideas that forment it. The same way the U.S. isn't "directly" supportive of, but can be implicitly at fault for much of Saddam Hussein's actions because we put him in power.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 10:58 AM
comment #42
L.B. says ...
There may be another reason Stone didn't make a 9-11 conspiracy film that has nothing to do with him losing his edge or Hollywood being afraid of controversy. Weeks after the event, Stone gave public statements saying he believed the attacks were the result of Arab men rejecting the pop culture we force down the world's throat.
So, I guess the great lost Stone 9-11 movie so many people are wailing for would show 19 men catching a late afternoon screening of Burton's PLANET OF THE APES, saying "That fucking does it", and then shopping for box cutters.
On the political front, I believe the attacks were acts of terrorism. I believe our government lies and used the events to create whole new lies to pursue its agenda. I don't believe that just because a government has lied before that it lies about everything. And I believe that all people are capable of unfurling the greatest horrors upon mankind whether they fit into a demonized demographic or not.
Lastly, what's the big deal about Stone telling this story. Regardless of what you think brought those buildings down, at least we can agree that this story actually happened. So, he stuck with something 100% verifiable. Sue him.
Posted by L.B. at August 1, 2006 11:13 AM
comment #43
NYCBusybody says ...
Pat Buchanan also said this, that he thinks Hezbollah and all Islamic fundamentalists are, indeed, correct to be anti-American because of our ungodly popular culture.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 11:18 AM
comment #44
BL says ...
Busybody:
What is it you particularly like about "The Red Shoes"?
Posted by BL at August 1, 2006 11:18 AM
comment #45
NYCBusybody says ...
The Levertov character, really. Beautifully acted and written...subtle, psychological acting is my favorite kind, and I think his character was a perfect example of it. I actually don't particularly care for the ballet, but it's my favorite Powell-Pressburger movie, for all of their many talents, so goes in my top. Top tens are pretty arbitrary, anyway, though.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 11:20 AM
comment #46
MAGGA says ...
Cool, at least I know the definition now, and it?s nice to see we share two of the same favourite movies (Schindlers, Godfather 2). I should have said state-sponsored art and not gouvernment sponsored. The reason for the support being, of course, that small populations means small markets, so without taxes being spent on this there would be no films. As for supporting certain ideas, that?s what freedom of speech is for. Of course you are right that cencorship could theoretically occur if the wrong people are elected, but that also happens when large corporations decide the content of films. Alright, I´ll try to get back on topic.
Posted by MAGGA at August 1, 2006 11:20 AM
comment #47
NYCBusybody says ...
I never said I agree with large corporations deciding content of films.
But you do bring up a good point in market size. Socialist ideas are easier to implement in more culturally-homogenous, lesser population countries like Scandinavia.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 11:23 AM
comment #48
BL says ...
You think of the acting in the "Red Shoes" as subtle and psychological? I would call the acting in, oh, the "Apu Trilogy" as that, but the acting in "Red Shoes" is over the top and pure camp.
And you like the "Red Shoes" for the ACTING and not the Ballet?That is just weird - I have to wonder if you just pulled the name of that film out of thin air.
Personally, while I think the "Red Shoes" is OK, I think "Peeping Tom" is a much better film - though pretty campy as well.
And BTW, you do know Chaplain was a socialist of sorts (more in belief than in practice, obviously).
Posted by BL at August 1, 2006 12:47 PM
comment #49
NYCBusybody says ...
Yep, I'm well aware of Chaplin's political beliefs. I don't need to agree with what he thought to love his art.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 12:56 PM
comment #50
Mel Gibson says ...
Well, at least we all agree on hating the fucking Jews! Right, Sugar-tits?
Posted by Mel Gibson at August 1, 2006 1:37 PM
comment #51
Kristopher Tapley says ...
First, if a simple piano note exudes that much contempt out of you, it says more about the viewer than the film. Really, there are other things worth discussion.
Second, don't put all of your woes regarding Karnes's depiction on Stone's "choices." None of the instances you mention are in Berloff's script to begin with, and in any case, to be thoroughly hoest, who gives a shit about seeing the guy speeding toward Manhattan in a 911? Not really the point.
Anyway, I'd have liked your review a little more if it wasn't such an obvious reaction to other, positive assessments rather than your own untainted view of things. I personally thought the film was nearly flawless, and sure, in many ways, very "safe," but by no means lacking in capabilities or even impact. This is a straight-forward story that deserved to be told in a straight-forward manner, and Stone did it like a champ. It's the best work he's done in a decade, I'd say.
Posted by Kristopher Tapley at August 1, 2006 5:31 PM
comment #52
Rich S. says ...
Jeffrey,
I saw the movie last night. There is a scene where you see a Porsche driving up to Ground Zero. I thought it was weirdly out of place, but in light of your explanation, it now makes sense.
I agree completely with your review. I went in dreading the emotions the movie was going to stir about 9/11 and found that it's really not that kind of movie at all. You could make almost the exact same movie about the WV mine disasters. It's Stone's most conventional film since Platoon (thank god after Alexander). And, boy, does it drag in the middle. I would have preferred more about the rescue.
Plus, I didn't even recognize Dorff until you pointed it out.
Posted by Rich S. at August 3, 2006 5:27 AM