Dracula
12-28-2008, 01:58 AM
Man on Wire(12/23/2008)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/roadshell/12-23-2008ManonWire.jpg
Like any other type of cinema, there are many different varieties of documentary. Michael Moore’s brand of first person issue exploration is one brand that’s pretty popular, another important variety are those that are filmed on the spot from beginning to end, and finally there’s the historical documentary; one’s made many years after the event and told through archival footage, new interviews, and reenactments. James Marsh’s new documentary Man on Wire is of the later variety.
The film tells the story of Philippe Petit, a French acrobat who made headlines in 1974 when he illegally tightrope walked between the towers of the World Trade Center. I’m not spoiling anything when I say that he succeeds at his stunt, he’s alive and well today and modern interviews from him are featured throughout the film. The film recounts Petit’s obsession with the building, one that predates even the construction of the structure. It shows the meticulous plan constructed by Petit and his co-conspirators to break into the building, sneak to the roof, shoot an arrow to the other tower, and finally string a rope across for his daring stunt.
The documentary in many ways plays out like a heist movie, one that ends with Petit’s stunt instead of a score. Marsh acknowledges the similarities and gives the interview subjects nicknames like “The Inside Man” or “The Australian.” Later the participants flat out say that part of the fun of the endeavor was that it was like a bank robbery. The comparison is apt. Petit had to “case the joint” to plan out the stunt, acquire disguises, make fake IDs, and finally sneak in undetected. Among their most brazen acts involved getting a tour of the building while claiming to be from a French architecture journal.
Oddly, Petit’s stunt was never caught on videotape. We see older footage of him walking across the Notre Dame and an Australian bridge, but the World Trade Center crossing was captured only with still pictures. Ultimately, this might only make Petit’s act seem all the more outrageous because the stills give the impression of what was going on while still leaving a lot to the imagination. The sight of him walking slowly in amateur video footage might have been a much more anticlimactic conclusion had such footage ever been shot. Really, the thought of crossing the wire is a lot more grand than footage of him actually doing it.
I can’t help but wonder how this documentary would have played out if Petit hadn’t made it across that wire, if he had fallen to his death midway through his feat. It might have played out an awful lot like Werner Herzog’s 2005 documentary Grizzly Man, a story of a man tragically killed by his seemingly insane obsession. Of course history is always told by the winners, and unlike the aforementioned Timothy Treadwell, Petit is alive to defend himself. One does wonder about his mentality though, would it not have been just as difficult to cross that length of wire if it were a safe distance from the ground? If risking his life was the source of his thrill couldn’t he have just as easily played a game of Russian Roulette?
I can’t say that a lot of these questions were really answered. Petit never quite explains what drove him, he simply says that the idea just popped into his head; when asked about his motivations by the press he copped out and said he had no reason. Frankly, I can’t quite believe that Petit is shallow enough to risk his life without any reason, and if he did he’s a really shallow person. Ultimately the film works better as a heist story then as a character study, and this is disappointing. It says something when the most critically acclaimed documentary of the year is basically a very well crafted heist film. Filmmakers working outside of the documentary field who make simple well crafted heist films don’t get half the praise that this documentarian has. Does this say something about the standards people have for documentaries? Perhaps, or maybe this one is simply overrated. I don’t want to sound too negative though, I like a well crafted heist film as much as the next guy.
***1/2 out of four
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/roadshell/12-23-2008ManonWire.jpg
Like any other type of cinema, there are many different varieties of documentary. Michael Moore’s brand of first person issue exploration is one brand that’s pretty popular, another important variety are those that are filmed on the spot from beginning to end, and finally there’s the historical documentary; one’s made many years after the event and told through archival footage, new interviews, and reenactments. James Marsh’s new documentary Man on Wire is of the later variety.
The film tells the story of Philippe Petit, a French acrobat who made headlines in 1974 when he illegally tightrope walked between the towers of the World Trade Center. I’m not spoiling anything when I say that he succeeds at his stunt, he’s alive and well today and modern interviews from him are featured throughout the film. The film recounts Petit’s obsession with the building, one that predates even the construction of the structure. It shows the meticulous plan constructed by Petit and his co-conspirators to break into the building, sneak to the roof, shoot an arrow to the other tower, and finally string a rope across for his daring stunt.
The documentary in many ways plays out like a heist movie, one that ends with Petit’s stunt instead of a score. Marsh acknowledges the similarities and gives the interview subjects nicknames like “The Inside Man” or “The Australian.” Later the participants flat out say that part of the fun of the endeavor was that it was like a bank robbery. The comparison is apt. Petit had to “case the joint” to plan out the stunt, acquire disguises, make fake IDs, and finally sneak in undetected. Among their most brazen acts involved getting a tour of the building while claiming to be from a French architecture journal.
Oddly, Petit’s stunt was never caught on videotape. We see older footage of him walking across the Notre Dame and an Australian bridge, but the World Trade Center crossing was captured only with still pictures. Ultimately, this might only make Petit’s act seem all the more outrageous because the stills give the impression of what was going on while still leaving a lot to the imagination. The sight of him walking slowly in amateur video footage might have been a much more anticlimactic conclusion had such footage ever been shot. Really, the thought of crossing the wire is a lot more grand than footage of him actually doing it.
I can’t help but wonder how this documentary would have played out if Petit hadn’t made it across that wire, if he had fallen to his death midway through his feat. It might have played out an awful lot like Werner Herzog’s 2005 documentary Grizzly Man, a story of a man tragically killed by his seemingly insane obsession. Of course history is always told by the winners, and unlike the aforementioned Timothy Treadwell, Petit is alive to defend himself. One does wonder about his mentality though, would it not have been just as difficult to cross that length of wire if it were a safe distance from the ground? If risking his life was the source of his thrill couldn’t he have just as easily played a game of Russian Roulette?
I can’t say that a lot of these questions were really answered. Petit never quite explains what drove him, he simply says that the idea just popped into his head; when asked about his motivations by the press he copped out and said he had no reason. Frankly, I can’t quite believe that Petit is shallow enough to risk his life without any reason, and if he did he’s a really shallow person. Ultimately the film works better as a heist story then as a character study, and this is disappointing. It says something when the most critically acclaimed documentary of the year is basically a very well crafted heist film. Filmmakers working outside of the documentary field who make simple well crafted heist films don’t get half the praise that this documentarian has. Does this say something about the standards people have for documentaries? Perhaps, or maybe this one is simply overrated. I don’t want to sound too negative though, I like a well crafted heist film as much as the next guy.
***1/2 out of four