N.Y. Journo Disses "WTC"

email this story
read comments (8)
post a comment

But hold on...Mr. Manhattan (i.e., a guy I know and trust) has also seen World Trade Center and he's not doing cartwheels like Friedman is.

"It's easily the most traditionally-shot film Stone has made in some time...no insane jump-cut editing, no bleached film stock," he begins. "But it's dull. The basic problem is that the two protagonists -- Port Authority policemen trapped in the rubble of the fallen towers -- are immobile for most of the film, which isn't exactly cinematic.

"Stone manages to give a fair sense of their terror and claustrophia, but he's also decided to make the middle of the film very schematic, cutting back and forth between the buried cops talking to each other, and then to their desperate families trying to get news of their whereabouts. It's not that intrinsically interesting, and borders on outright soap at times.

"The film only really picks up in the last third, with the rescue efforts, which are pretty detailed and excruciating. There's also an interesting subplot about an office worker in Connecticut, a former Marine, who puts on his military duds, bluffs his way onto Ground Zero, and is instrumental in rescuing the cops.

"But there are also some unintentional howlers. A short sequence in which one of the parched officers hallucinates Jesus offering him a bottle of water will definitely elicit embarrassed laughter from any audience.

"And a very minor subplot about some Wisconsin firefighters who volunteer their services has you wondering: why these guys? Hundreds of rescue workers came from all over the country. Why pick these guys if they didn't do anything special? (The only thing they're shown doing is handing out bratwurst to the rescue workers.)

"The film is sincerely made, well acted, and there's definitely some emotional catharsis at the end, but Greengrass' United 93 is far, far better, for, I think, two reasons: the semi-doc style makes it very immediate; and most of United 93 is about how a variety of people and agencies reacted to the day's events. This macro view seems to checkmate World Trade Center's micro viewpoint at every turn.

Downshifting C.W. Prods<< previous | next >>Friedman on "WTC"

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 11, 2006 at 4:56 PM

comment #1

Daniel Zelter says ...

" The basic problem is that the two protagonists -- Port Authority policemen trapped in the rubble of the fallen towers -- are immobile for most of the film, which isn't exactly cinematic."

I guess Mr. Manhattan's never seen any Warhol films.

"It's not that intrinsically interesting, and borders on outright soap at times."

I'm sorry that people's lives on the line aren't "interesting", but I don't see how it's like a soap opera, when it's a case of art imitating life.

"A short sequence in which one of the parched officers hallucinates Jesus offering him a bottle of water will definitely elicit embarrassed laughter from any audience."

Because a movie where a bunch of druggies hallucinating about a dead baby crawling on the ceiling is much more "intelligent".

"And a very minor subplot about some Wisconsin firefighters who volunteer their services has you wondering: why these guys? Hundreds of rescue workers came from all over the country. Why pick these guys if they didn't do anything special? (The only thing they're shown doing is handing out bratwurst to the rescue workers.)"

I'm guessing the point is about people doing what they can in a time of crisis. Stop being an asshole, and start evaluating it on its own merits.

"The film is sincerely made, well acted, and there's definitely some emotional catharsis at the end, but Greengrass' United 93 is far, far better, for, I think, two reasons: the semi-doc style makes it very immediate;"

Not to mention more exploitive.

" and most of United 93 is about how a variety of people and agencies reacted to the day's events."

But according to you, WTC is the same thing. So maybe you just have a double standard against Stone?

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 12, 2006 3:22 PM

comment #2

Patrick says ...

The only thing Stone has seen in twenty-years are
double standards and he hasn't seen " evaluating
it on its own merits" in about fifteen years!
Critics are scum! The End!

Posted by Patrick at July 12, 2006 9:47 PM

comment #3

Lewis Beale says ...

Daniel, didn't your mother tell you that personal attacks against people expressing an honest opinion are rude and childish? Time for you to grow up.

And get back to me when you've actually seen the film.

Posted by Lewis Beale at July 13, 2006 7:54 AM

comment #4

Daniel Zelter says ...

Lew: "Daniel, didn't your mother tell you that personal attacks against people expressing an honest opinion are rude and childish?"

I'm just expressing an honest opinion, too.

"Time for you to grow up."

I think it's time for the reviewer to grow up. Evaluating a real-life tragedy through its structure and presentation, rather than its effectiveness in telling the story, is just plain shallow and insensitive.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 14, 2006 1:45 AM

comment #5

Lewis Beale says ...

Daniel:
You called me an "asshole." You don't even know me. That's a personal attack. Or don't you know the difference?

And evaluating structure and presentation is part of what critiquing art is about. Or don't you know the difference there, either?

Your Friend.

Posted by Lewis Beale at July 14, 2006 2:33 PM

comment #6

Daniel Zelter says ...

Lew: "You called me an "asshole." You don't even know me. That's a personal attack."

No, I said you were "being an asshole" in regard to the review. Now I'll admit I don't know if you're an asshole in real life, but that's up to you to decide anyway. Until then, I'm just responding to your opinion with an opinion.

"And evaluating structure and presentation is part of what critiquing art is about."

But as you pointed out, it's only part of the critique. You have to look at the big picture.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 15, 2006 1:36 AM

comment #7