The Disaster Movie genre of cinema is one of its most revered. Delivering a hypothetical 'what if' premise to the big screen forces audiences to reflect on their own actions and beliefs, often becoming a catalyst for change. In World Trade Center (2006) - a catalyst for change in many respects - Director Oliver Stone poses a particularly outrageous but powerful 'what if' premise: What if planes flew into the World Trade Center killing thousands of people?
Before you turn your nose up at this far-fetched idea, consider that implausible premises are at the very heart of every disaster movie. Whether it's future-predicting alien-affiliated time capsules in Knowing (2009) or a lack of social order following the global spread of a dangerous contagious disease in Contagion (2011), the filmmaker’s goal is not to present a realistic scenario, but to present an exaggerated scenario realistically played out. It is this important distinction that underlies all disaster movies, and one of the main reasons why they are so widely consumed.
Now, when hearing of a disaster film set in New York, you might automatically think of The Day Before Yesterday (2004). As a commercial hit released two years prior to World Trade Center, many will think of it as the original New York-based disaster movie, perhaps even labelling World Trade Center an imitation of some kind. But the film's location is where the similarities end.
One of the things that sets World Trade Center apart from The Day Before Yesterday, and other disaster movies like it, is how it takes place in the past. Most disaster films are set in the present or future, often so they can portray their unravelling narratives as consequences of human behaviour. For example, in The Day Before Yesterday, the apocalyptic events are linked to global warming, a consequence of humankind’s harmful impact on the environment. This then acts as a warning, asking audiences to change their behaviour or face a similar fate.
Another reason disaster films are set in the present or future is to convince viewers the events being shown are actually possible. The powerful, often sublime images of death, mayhem and destruction are able to worm into the audience’s subconscious, planting thoughts like, “Hey, this could happen!” or, “Hey, this could be happening!” But director Oliver Stone rejects this norm. Instead, he's set World Trade Center on an unassuming September day in 2001, five years prior to the film’s release. Why did he do this? What effect does it have? I don’t know.
While I thoroughly enjoyed this very emotional movie, I want to quickly tackle its only fault. I started this review talking about implausibility as a tool for disaster filmmakers, but implausible - or in the case of World Trade Center, impossible - narrative premises are most effective with an explanation. In The Day Before Yesterday, global warming is the explanation given for the freak weather events, giving the film its moral focus; its meaning. In World Trade Center, the explanation for how or why the planes flew into the twin towers is lost in the story, with only uninformed speculation from some characters. It's almost as if it assumes we have prior knowledge of the events, like we are supposed to know what is going on. I can only assume an important expositional scene was cut out of the final edit.
The first theory the characters discuss is that it was an accident; a passenger plane mistakenly hitting one of the towers. This is incredibly unlikely when you think about it, and it gets immediately ruled out the moment the second tower is hit. Then there’s some mumblings about the Pentagon being hit and evacuated, so the theories turn towards terrorism; a series of deliberate malevolent acts designed to kill and injure as many innocent civilians as possible. But isn’t that even less likely? I mean, surely with the billions of dollars the American government affords its military and federal services - I.E. the very people who would have been in charge of preventing this kind of thing from happening - surely they'd be able to see a terrorist plot this large coming a mile off? I mean, were this to ever actually happen - God forbid - wouldn’t it be leadership incompetence and negligence on an unprecedented scale? Wouldn’t the politicians and leaders be held responsible? Wouldn’t the blood of the people that died be on the hands of those in power? I guess, in my opinion, the attacks just needed a more realistic explanation than terrorists, like maybe they were people with vertigo who wanted to spread awareness of their condition. Or perhaps it was an alien invasion or something. You know, something more believable.
Make no mistake, this is still a perfect film. Nicolas Cage is exceptional in his leading role. Both he and co-lead Michael Peña really bring the two fictional police officers to life. You can only watch them in amazement, absorbing their performances, admiring the vision of the filmmaker and thanking God the things you’re seeing on screen haven’t happened in real life.
Five stars.
Comments