MovieChat Forums > Man on Wire (2008) Discussion > No discussion of September 11th?

No discussion of September 11th?

posted 15 years ago by purplepirate-1
21 replies | jump to latest

How could a movie of today which uses the world trade center as a main focal point NOT at least MENTION 9/11? I saw it as this huge elephant in the room. Yes, I know that the film is about Philippe and his tightrope walk, and I respect that. Still, I think it was in bad taste that they didn't even mention the attacks in passing. They should have acknowleged that the two biggest objects of his life were now gone.

The penniless writer and the most beautiful courtesan in all the world...<3
How about a shave?

[–] Lidocaineus 15 years ago

Uh, because it's unnecessary? Because the director has a brain and respects the audience enough to understand how 9/11 and the events portrayed in the film are easily reconciled between one another by anyone with some brain cells, and that by calling attention to it is actually insulting to people's intelligence and making things completely heavy handed?

There's a beautiful move based based in Tehran called "Baran" (which I recommend everyone watch). A number of the characters are referenced to be refugees from Afghanistan. The equivalent of what you're saying is that Baran should've also said, "There's a terrible conflict occurring in Afghanistan at the moment and Iran is also embroiled in political international turmoil."

Of course it didn't. That's beside the point. It's background info that makes the movie more nuanced and tinged the scenes with a bit more poignancy. But outright stating it would completely remove the subtlety and ruined the delicate nature of many of the sections of the film. Such is the case with "Man On Wire".

[–] Goofy_Elfman 15 years ago

Well said, Lidocaineus.

And in a sense, this film wasn't about the World Trade Center and what those towers meant to America. It was what they meant to Philippe Petit. And it wasn't the towers so much as the concept of it being his dream, something that he and his group of people came together to do, and the rest of the world responded to. It isn't our story, it's his. It just inspires us.

I think there's been a rape up there!

[–] jsr1984 15 years ago

Not wishing to undermine Petit and his achievement, I actually think the real protagonist of the film is, in fact, the World Trade Center. I felt the "elephant in the room" quite a bit, but think that they - both the film and Petit's "Coup" - were a beautiful homage to the Twin Towers and the people who built it without throwing into the audience's face "They got destroyed some decades later... you know?" - of course we know! The film is not about destruction, but about celebrating those human achievements, and I think it's far more powerful, if the audience has to add their knowledge that both - Petit's balancing act as well as the Towers - are something of the past on their own.

PS. I actually think the film does reference 9/11 "in passing" with the picture of the balancing act with the airplane in the background. I'm sure this image isn't lost on anyone who heard the news of that day in September couple of years back.

[–] donstuie 15 years ago

I actually found the descriptions of how they got in and their research on the buildings a bit unsettleing too, given that we hear those stories so often now about people with other goals in mind.

There's also a subtle hint when they're interviewing one of the construction crew (posing as reporters) and they ask him if the buildings are safe and whether they'll just come down and the guy laughs it off and says "No, they won't come down"

[–] cinbud 14 years ago

I lived in NYC from the late '70s into the mid-'80s, and had a strong happy impression of the towers that sort of got obliterated by the events of 9/11... it's nice to remember the towers, not just as something that was catastrophically destroyed, but as they were 'in life'. And Philippe appreciated them more than anyone!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] emo_ville2002 15 years ago

The film was about the past not the present. It basically had very little to doing with the 9/11 tragedy.

Actually 9/11 was referenced, when PP's friend was being interviewed, he cried, IIRC, he cried twice.

Does anyone know why that plane was so close to one of the towers? Were NYC police checking PP's stunt from a plane!? That doesn't sound feasible. A news station reporting the walk? I would think news stations used helicopters back then as they do today..

If it was a plane en-route from the local airports, I didn't think planes flew anywhere near the WTC.

[–] loveDetroit 15 years ago

emo_ville2002....

My guess, is that when the WTC opened in the early 70s, airplanes and air travel close to the towers were not really considered a threat. As the years and decades went on, I would imagine airplanes had to change their flight routes/patterns to avoid the WTC, as the govt became aware of the possible threat. But yes, that was an excellent, excellent photo. Very haunting.

[–] nunstampede 14 years ago

First off, this argument is absolutely stupid. If anything, I was pleasantly surprised that they didn't spend a great deal of time on the subject, whereas most anything made in the last 9 years would, no matter how irrelevant.

The documentary itself was edited really well, and the dramatizations were a lot more convincing than I expected. I wish they would have used interviews with Philippe's team to hype the event more during the rising action section of this movie, because it made the guy seem to be tooting his own horn. Not that I, or anyone else could comprehend the magnitude of the event itself, but it really didn't do much for his humility.

There are some really memorable images in this. The one with the airplane in the background, definitely. also the one where it pans up and shows two police officers waiting to arrest him. And there are a lot of photos that are really beautiful from a relativity sense.

[–] Faye-9 15 years ago

You might have a VERY different idea of most things. It didn't occur to most people to bring up something so horrible during this wonderful documentary. Your message makes as much sense as it would to question why the city counsel doesn't mention Nov 22, 1963, every time they have a city wide function that honors Dallas.

[–] Armablanca 15 years ago

Awesome.

[–] dgates64 15 years ago

I remember him discussing the towers not being there on talk shows when promoting the film. When I first watched the documentary, I too was wondering what his thoughts would be.

But his walk was done 25 years before 9/11. In some ways, it's nice not to always bring up their destruction, and focus on other aspects of the towers. Not to be in denial, but to celebrate the events prior.

[–] bethbh123 12 years ago

I too found myself wondering what he felt when the towers came down. I imagined that he must have been devastated beyond belief, but that's just my projection.

I really enjoyed the movie, and agree with most posters here that no overt mention of the tragedy was necessary. I would have liked to see a long ending shot of the towers, perhaps, but maybe that would have caused an emotional response that the director didn't want.

Lovely movie.

[–] dgates64 12 years ago

Well said.

[–] craighan 9 years ago

From an article in The Guardian (UK):

What did seeing the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11 mean to you?

What I felt, I cannot really share with the outside world. It was an intimate relationship. How can I talk about losing those towers when that day, thousands of lives were lost? I cannot compare it. But those towers were human for me.

[–] elganyan 14 years ago

Nice try, Rudy Giuliani. Don't you have a 9/11 fanboy club meeting to attend or something?

[–] Merely 12 years ago

I was also expecting SOME kind of discussion how the towers were now gone.
Perhaps that was why the Frenchman was crying near the end. He knew the reality and it just wasn't spoken about on the film.

Would have been a nice epilogue, in any case.

[–] joseph-wyatt-677-63838 11 years ago

I believe it's actually mentioned in the making-of that the director deliberately didn't mention 9/11 because it would overshadow the rest of the story, which would be inappropriate for a film that wasn't about those events.

The shadow of the attacks is looming over the film enough as it is.

If you think old movies are boring or modern movies suck, you haven't seen enough of either.

[–] Rizzyay 10 years ago

Because the movie would be less beautiful and truthful that way. And because there is no need to tell us what we already know.