Which 9/11 Film Will Oscar Love More?

On the night of September 11, 2001, I got online and shared a few conversations with pals from around the world. I'm sure those discussions were a lot like the ones you had with your friends and family: The shock, the fury, the overwhelming helplessness, the heart-wrenching sympathy for the victims and their families. But since I'll often use humor as a defense mechanism (yes, even in the very bleakest moments), I remember asking a few of my film critic colleagues: "Hey, how long do you think it'll be before Hollywood decides to make a few biopics about what happened today?"

And now here we are, just over five years later, and 2006 has yielded not one but two rather distinctive takes on what went down during the blackest day in our nation's history. Universal's United 93 was the first one out of the gate, focusing on the final hours of some stunningly heroic "average Joes" who chose to fight back -- even as they knew it was probably the last thing they'd ever do. Fortunately, it was every bit the sobering and respectful film we all hoped it would be. A few months later came Paramount's World Trade Center, which told the tale from the perspective of two NYC Port Authority police officers who became trapped under tons of concrete rubble. Again, the filmmakers took a heartfelt and admirably sincere approach to the story, giving us a look at a massive tragedy through the eyes of two normal American families.

Aside from the events that inspired their creation, the two films couldn't possibly be more different -- and now that Oscar season has rolled around yet again, the experts are extra-busy handicapping which movie should win what and which movie doesn't deserve squat. So I thought it might be interesting to do a little "compare & contrast" on the films, focusing mainly on which sections might be considered most Oscar-worthy ...

Best Director?

United 93 comes from Paul Greengrass, who most likely earned the difficult gig because of his superlative work on 2002's Bloody Sunday, a film that also took a documentary-style approach to a true-life tragedy. Choosing to use "real-life" people as actors might have seemed a dicey proposition, but by using some of the folks who were actually there on 9/11, the film gains an urgency and sense of reality that most "based on actual events" movies are sorely lacking. Greengrass does an excellent job of setting up some early everyday banality before giving way to some truly harrowing horrors ... and that last 15 minutes feature some seriously bravura filmmaking, even if it's almost too painful to watch.

World Trade Center, on the other hand, comes from well-known conspiracy theorist and semi-rabble-rouser Oliver Stone, a filmmaker best known for the excesses of Natural Born Killers, the poetic violence of Platoon, or the austere intensity of JFK -- but in World Trade Center the guy seems to be playing softball with the issues. Ostensibly a "human interest" story in Disaster Flick clothes, Stone's WTC is a technically impressive and periodically intense film, but it's also one that suffers from a meandering narrative and perhaps too many trips to the hand-wringing wives and tight-lipped well-wishers. I never thought I'd see the day that Oliver Stone directed a "TV-movie" style film, but here it is all the same. Points are due for approaching the subject in warm and respectful fashion, but the director seems to pull every punch and soften every blow.

Best Screenplay?

The United 93 screenplay comes from its director, and it does a quietly impressive job of lulling you into the average morning of 9/11 that slowly spiraled into a nation-wide nightmare. Aside from perhaps one or two bits near the end, the dialogue is refreshingly free of sappy sentimentalism or push-button rah-rah heroism.

First-time screenwriter Andrea Berloff was the one who collated the tough memories of the World Trade Center survivors and smoothed them out into a movie blueprint, but while the "subterranean" material with Nicolas Cage is entirely claustrophobic and effectively moving, the flick switches over to the Lifetime Channel whenever Stone ventures above ground.

Best Actor & Actress?

While United 93 is way too much of an ensemble piece to yield a "best lead performance," Nicolas Cage's work in World Trade Center is actually some of the actor's best stuff in years. The only other "big" role in WTC would probably belong to Maria Bello, an actress who's usually quite stellar ... but her work in this particular flick did nothing for me at all. Basically, it seems pretty unlikely that either film would earn any actor's nominations. (Although it wouldn't stun me to see one of the "non-actors" get a supporting actor nom for U93; the Academy's gimmicky that way.)

Best Picture?

2006 is shaping up to look like one of the skimpiest Best Picture years in quite some time, so anything's possible. And while it's been a few months since I've seen either of the 9/11 movies, my general sense is that United 93 is most definitely the more respected and/or prestigious of the two films. So if either of the movies ends up nominated for Best Picture, my money's definitely on the Greengrass one. Then again, if it were up to me Borat, Pan's Labyrinth and Children of Men would be nominated for Best Picture, so perhaps I'm not the best expert on "dramatic films" where Oscar is concerned.

In any case, I am not even almost an "Oscar expert," but I thought the comparisons were interesting enough to warrant some award-season discussion. For what it's worth the Oscar Gurus over at Movie City News have done their handicapping, and it looks like United 93 ranks 11th on the "Potential Best Pic Nom" list, while World Trade Center clocks in at #9 -- neither of which are all that great when you consider that only five films can be nominated for Best Picture.

(But which film did YOU like best?)