September 11 (2003) (AKA 11'09"01,
11 minutes, 9 seconds, one image)
September 11th, 2001, the day commercial
jets flew into the two towers of the World Trade Center
and into the Pentagon in the United States, is a day
that will be remembered throughout the world. Although
the main participants seemed to be our country and
the Middle East on first glance, we have come to realize
that this event affected the entire world, in one
way or another. George W. Bush's attitude that "you
are either with us or against us" not only furthered
alienation across the world but made it nearly impossible
for other countries to remain uninvolved.
A word about the title of this film.
It is called "11'9"01" in most of the world because
most of the world express the date in numerals in
this way, the day of the month first, then the month's
numerical value and finally the year. America is one
of the few countries to numeralize the date "backwards"
as 9/11/01. Going into the film "September 11th,"
as the film was finally named in the States, it is
hard not to know what it is all about. A title card
explains it in a roundabout way. Namely, 11 film directors
from around the globe were allowed to make a short
film on the subject of the World Trade Center tragedy.
They were allowed complete artistic freedom and the
only prerequisite seemed to be that the film run 11
minutes, 9 seconds and 1 frame. This is, of course,
a bit stupid. The title of the film should be 9/11
(or 9/11/01) and the films should run 9 minutes, 11
seconds and one frame. It should be this way not only
because this event took place in America and therefore
the American system of dates should be used but also
because the even took place on 9/11 partially because
911 is a U.S. code word for "Emergency."
Regardless, the 11 short films are
strung together and a variety of filmmakers are represented.
As one might expect, some of the films are quite good,
a few are mediocre and a couple are pretty dumb. Some
of the films are artistic, a couple are avant-garde
and a few are straight forward narratives. A couple
are political while others are simply story oriented.
It's hard to discuss them as a collective whole because
so many of them are vastly different. Sadly, one does
not walk away with any new feelings on the tragedy
nor is one overwhelmingly moved by the entire film.
Still, there are nuggets of greatness here and many
raw emotions are uncovered.
Note: Some spoilers will follow
At first, I didn't get the first
film by Samira Makhmalbaf of Iran. It's a bit noisy
and disjointed and really difficult to keep up with.
But after some time to think about it, I discovered
its message and found it quite interesting. It is
really the only one of the films I would like to see
again. In it, in a small village, a female teacher
gathers her class. The kids are working with the village
to build a brick bomb shelter because the adults think
America is going to attack them. We realize that this
must be taking place directly after 9/11.
The teacher tells the adults that
"bricks won't stop atomic bombs" and gathers her young
students. The teacher, who has a shrill, grating voice,
tries to explain to her class what has happened on
a level they might understand and then asks them to
be silent for one minute. They cannot. They would
rather discuss the nature of God and why he kills
people. She takes them outside near a large chimney,
which she has explained to them is "like a tower"
and then again tries to get them to have a minute
of silence for the victims. When one of the small
boys asks, "But what if we want to talk?" she tells
him to "Bite his lip" and he does as we pull back
to see the children, finally silent, under the immense
smoking "tower." The idea becomes clear upon reflection.
We should have at least had a moment of silence and
contemplation upon what has happened before we begin
to discuss "why" it has happened. The short film that
opens this collection is a plea for "thoughtfulness"
and one that is quite stunning in its metaphorical
beauty.
The second film is probably the
feature's most wonderful short. Directed by the French
filmmaker Claude Lelouch, the film is almost completely
silent. Lelouch presents a main character that is
deaf, so we see the world through her eyes. Only once
do we move away and actually "hear" for a moment what
she cannot. The short is a love story and it is told
perfectly. Lelouch maybe setting us up for an ending
we can see coming, but it doesn't matter because when
the end finally does arrive, it is poignant and beautiful.
This film is a reminder of what 9/11 taught all of
us: To take a moment to remember all that we have
and all that we have to be grateful for. It is a reminder
of how we, as humans, need one and other and how,
in times of crisis, petty problems simply melt away
to reveal the truth of love, compassion and human
needs underneath.
The next short that I enjoyed was
from Burkina Faso, one of the poorest countries in
the world. Made by Idrissa Oudraogo, the film tells
the tale of five young boys who think they see Osama
Bin Laden and want to capture him for the reward money
so that one of the boys' mother can have the medicine
she needs. Her son has had to stop going to school
and take a job as a newspaper boy to make money. When
the apparent Bin Laden gets on a bus headed out of
town, the boys, who have been filming him with one
of their fathers' camcorders, decide to sell the camcorder
("my dad has a newer one") for the money and celebrate
that if they do this their friend can come back to
school with them. This is a warm and wonderful film.
It is joyous, sweet, innocent and celebratory. One
of the best films here.
Two of the latter films are good
but not great. Sean Penn, the only U.S. director to
be represented here, mimics his not-so-successful
style in "The Pledge" and brings us an unsatisfying
and odd picture. Ernest Borgnine, looking as near
to death as possible without actually being a corpse
(his doctor will cringe when he sees him in this movie)
plays an elderly lunatic who babbles to himself and
lays out his (presumably) dead wife's dresses next
to him on what was their bed. (He acts as if she is
still around). This idea has been done many times
before and much better. But Penn's story's bent here
is that when the towers fall, sun suddenly shines
into the man's room, bringing some of his wife's dead
flowers to life. The man is ecstatic but the illumination
also causes him to suddenly realize that his wife
is indeed gone and he begins to sob.
It's not a horrible film and I like
what it is trying to express but John Stewart rendered
this film null and void when he stated, on September
12th, with eyes tearing, that from his apartment window
where he used to see the World Trade Center, he now
sees a clear view of the Statue of Liberty. That,
for me, was one of the most poignant moments after
the event, John Stewart's heartfelt and sadly hopeful
statement. Penn never reaches that level of emotion
here.
The other short of note towards
the end of the film is by Amos Gitai of Israel whose
one continuous shot of a mad street scene where a
bombing takes place is shown to be overshadowed by
the events in New York. As a television journalist
tries to cover the story live, dealing with police,
eye witnesses, civilians and her crew, she is told
that her story will not air because of the attacks
in New York. This moment once again reminds us that
we are not the first country ever to bit hit by terrorism
and that we should not allow our loss to overshadow
the numerous losses of others in other countries.
The only avant-garde film in the
entire piece that works is by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
(of "Amores Perros" fame). Inarritu mixes jumbled
audio from the day, often seemingly crazed and indiscernible,
to act as a soundtrack for his film which is mainly
composed of black screen. Very rarely, Inarritu allows
an image to slash across the screen. The image is
always one of people falling (jumping?) from the towers.
The quick cuts of light and image into the darkness
are jarring and make the quick images devastating
to see again. This harsh and jagged reminder of those
who lost their lives on 9/11 is perhaps the most moving
yet artistic expression of that theme since it occurred.
This is perhaps the most emotionally charged yet captivating
filmmaking in the avant-garde genre in years. Inarritu
also has one title card with a awe-inspiring message:
Does God's light guide us or blind us?
Wow!
As for the films that don't work,
they are a mixed bag. Two films concerned with soldiers,
one returning from the dead in Egyptian Youssef Chahine
short, and one returning from war damaged in the final
short by Shohei Imamura of Japan, simply seem to have
no real relation to the events of 9/11. They only
remind us that war is hell and wrong.
A film by Ken Loach of the U.K.
is a sharp and angry missive to Americans reminding
them that their leaders, like Nixon and Kissinger,
have been responsible for many bloody murders themselves
and seems to suggest that we deserved to have our
citizens killed. Far better use of this theme of bloody-
handed Americans was expressed in the feature documentary
"The Trials of Henry Kissinger." Loach comes across
as spiteful and mean. And in a film that should plead
for healing, his film simply seems to be angry and
bitter and act as retribution for harms he feels the
U.S. has put upon the rest of the world throughout
the 20th century. I'm not saying he doesn't have a
point. I'm just saying that perhaps this film is not
the proper place for it.
Mira Nair's ("Monsoon Wedding")
film, based on a true story, about a immigrant family
in New York whose son is missing and presumed a terrorist
on the lam is also a bit spiteful and angry. And,
again, it seems wrong-headed in this film. It is nowhere
near as vile as Loach's however.
In many ways "11'09"01" is an interesting
barometer of the world reaction to the events in America
on 9/11. Unfortunately, few of the films do anything
to make us think, make us pray or make us see the
importance of this event. The inclusion of Penn's
odd film is a sure sign that there is much more discussion
and reaction existing in the world that needs to be
shown artistically and cinematically.
Until things change in America,
and, for one thing - George W. Bush gets removed from
power, it's doubtful that any real dialogue can truly
begin across the world to help us solve the problems
that lead to 9/11. Until the politicians can resolve
their differences and begin to work together, we,
as humans and citizens of the world, may only have
the filmmakers and the artists to speak for us.
With this film, they have at least
begun to do just that.
Note:
In Nair's segment, you can see a
clip of her "Monsoon Wedding" on a TV.
Released in much of the world in
2002, the film began a limited run in the U.S. in
September 2003. Many felt the film would not find
a distributed in the U.S. because of Loach's segment.
It was finally picked up by a small NY distributor,
Empire Films.
Viewed on a screener provided by
the Dobie Theater in Austin in October 2003.
