9/11 films approach tender subject
differently Andrew Prince
/ Reviewer
“World Trade Center” is not your typical Oliver
Stone film. On the contrary, it is so conventional,
conservative and without risk that it’s almost
depressing knowing who is behind the camera.
Having said that, I’m kind of glad Stone handled the
material the way that he did. His most controversial movies
are famous for the wild conspiracy theories they contain.
“JFK” and, maybe to a lesser extent,
“Nixon” come to mind. But those movies were made
decades after the fact, allowing Stone to have some
fun.
From what I have read, there is more focus on the
conspiracies themselves than on the characters in those
movies. To make a movie about 9/11 with a similar attitude as
those mentioned before would be inappropriate this soon after
the tragedy.
What “United 93,” recently released on DVD, did
so well was really focus on the characters and how they
reacted to their situation, thus honoring their
memory.
“World Trade Center” is weird because it does
not focus on the more than 3,000 individuals who perished
that day, but on two who didn’t. Further, on an
observation by critic David Denby, the two policemen (who are
supposed to be the heroes on 9/11) we meet don’t rescue
anyone but need to be rescued themselves.
The two men we meet are John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and
William Jimeno (Michael Peña). They are two Port Authority
cops called to handle the emergency at the World Trade
Center.
Unfortunately, they are in one of the buildings as it falls
and they are trapped under tons of rubble.
Next come some very memorable scenes of McLoughlin and
Jimeno trying to comfort each other through
conversation.
Peña’s performance is fine, but nothing special.
Almost any Cage performance is unlike any other
actor’s, but in this movie, Cage performs as
we’ve never seen Cage before. He talks slowly and
clearly and his physical performance is consistent with a
calm, competent police sergeant. Both actors give great
performances of men who are trapped with little chance of
survival and yet still have hope.
The best summary of this movie comes from syndicated
columnist Cal Thomas: “It is one of the greatest,
pro-American, pro-family, pro-faith, pro-male, flag-waving,
God Bless America films you will ever see.”
And that may be true, although I cannot think of another
film that meets all of those criteria. But this movie
certainly is all of that.
The bottom line is that “World Trade Center” is
a competent, moving, cookie-cutter movie made to please a
mass audience.
“United 93” is a gritty, thoughtful,
rough-around-the-edges film that is too harrowing for many
people.
I prefer “United 93” because of its realism and
the attention it gives to its characters. It really shook
audiences up. “World Trade Center” is merely a
well done, feel-good movie.
Contact Andrew Prince at pendulum@elon.edu or
278-7247. | 
