Mow review

Home

About

Search

"I just wanted to let you know, lately, I've been making themost perfect rice."

Feeds:

Posts

Comments

« Someone Call Dick Jones…

Notes from NFL Sunday: Week 1 »

Dueling Film Review: Man on Wire

September 8, 2008 by Eric Marsh

Ted and Eric provide a delayed but lengthy response to the James Marsh documentary Man on Wire,

which recounts tightrope walker Philippe Petit’s death defying and illegal walk between the World

Trade Center towers in 1974.

We open with an interview between two old friends: Werner Herzog, the great German filmmaker, and

Philippe Petit, the great French wire walker. (Published August 15, 2008, in Esquire.)

Werner Herzog: Film is beautiful to invent. And truth is not found in facts per se. In Philippe’s case,

there’s a deeper truth in what he’s doing–an ecstasy of truth. And he’s discovering, of course, walking

in the sky, in the clouds, means a form of ecstasy–a quintessential metaphor of an ecstatic moment.

There’s a truth in it that we can somehow function beyond our limitations. He can walk in the skies.

Dueling Film Review: Man on Wire « http://runningdownhill.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/dueling-film...

1 of 8 5/3/11 18:59

Philippe Petit: Truth deserves more than being factually recorded.

TH: I think what’s interesting about the film is that it never really gets into the mechanics of the

actual business of walking on the wire. Petit explains a little about rigging, but there’s no talk about

balance. It is as if the film assumes that walking on a wire, at least for Petit, is the most natural thing

in the world. And it probably is. And that, I think, it partly where what Herzog and Petit call the

“truth” lies: it lies in the fact that what he does is almost beyond description, beyond words. There is

only the Act, and it happens, and it is.

EM: That’s exactly what I was — the truth, in this case, as regards to Petit’s walking across the WTC,

doesn’t lie in the details, but the spectacle. The stunt itself is the truth. The stills that remain, the

shaky film footage from the bottom of the buildings in which you can barely make him out, the smile

across his face, standing over 1,300 feet in the air. Which makes it all the more enjoyable, in my

opinion, that James Marsh styled Man on Wire not only in the vein of crime and heist films that Petit

watched, but that the film is certainly cast out of the Werner Herzog and Errol Morris mold: stylized

recreations, exaggerations, eccentric characters (often staring directly into the camera), etc., and

what’s probably the most important — the pure beauty of the act, which can only speak for itself.*

TH: Right. Dramatization has, of course, long been a contentious topic within the Documentary area

of film, and many others (e.g. Errol Morris on his New York Times blog) have written extensively

about different modes of documentary/ation. If one compares, for instance, the way that Robert

Flaherty recreates Nanook’s hunt with the way that Errol Morris recreates the events of A Thin Blue

Line, it is clear that there are different cognitive impulses coming out there. To recreate the wire

walking itself would be a lie on multiple fronts, to be sure, and besides, how could the recreation be

more compelling than the historical documents that exist already? I’d much rather listen to Petit

describe the moment than watch a re-enactment.

I think it is telling, perhaps, that Herzog’s documentary work avoids re-enactment, preferring to

record the stark truth of the moment (I’m thinking of the shots of empty streets in La Soufrière, or the

shots of undersea creatures in Encounters at the End of the World.)

EM: I’m not sure how constructive this tangent might be, but nevertheless, one shouldn’t overlook

the fact that many of Herzog’s documentary moments may not be ‘recreations’ per se**, but they are

blatant fabrications and staging. In The Great Ecstasy of Woodcarver Steiner Herzog attributes a


2 of 8 5/3/11 18:59

quote to Steiner, which he of course never said, and has Steiner tell a story he made up. In Little

Deiter Needs to Fly, Deiter Dengler is shown going through a series of odd, OCD and neurotic

behaviors in his home, which were entirely made up by Herzog. The point being, of course, that the

actions by Dengler are “how he really feels” and the for Steiner it’s “something he could have said”,

and so on. So what can we conclude, if anything? I’m not entirely sure, since I haven’t seen any other

films by James Marsh (which includes a documentary about John Cale and the cult film Wisconsin

Death Trip! Count me in!). But glancing at his page on The Database, his work includes both

documentary AND narrative, which already puts him in a camp with Morris and Herzog, and not to

mention the ‘ecstatic truth’ style of Man on Wire.

TH: Your examples of Herzog’s stagings and outright fibs are enlightening, I think, because they

highlight the difference between two types of fibs. On the one hand, you have the re-enactment, which

is approximating (never replicating) an event already lost to history. On the other hand, you have a

creation, out of thin air, of something that never happened before, but wouldn’t happen without

Herzog there. The former has no hope of success in anything other than a quasi-educational aspect;

the latter can be successful in illustrating/revealing a hidden truth through the use of artifice (after all,

filming anything is inherently artificial, anyhow).

So when it comes to Man on Wire, we have re-enactments, but only of minor/inconsequential

moments. Furthermore, these dramatizations are deliberately artificial, that is, Marsh does not give

much thought to “historical accuracy” (e.g. the use of German Expressionist techniques). Despite this

accuracy, though, I think they speak to a deeper truth, not the surface truth of factual history. It’s sort

of like how journalistic “neutrality” is really just a cover for inevitable bias, bias that, if admitted, is

easier to filter out and ignore.

EM: I think we’ve done enough beating around the bush, for now. I’m going to put forth some

declaratives. Man on Wire is highly entertaining. It’s engaging as a criminal heist film and also

uplifting in its moments of beauty. It’s quirky and comedic, much in the debt of Petit’s collaborators:

odd Frenchmen, stoned NYC hippies, an Australian, etc., and of course the centerpiece, Petit himself

(who’s bizarre, to say the least, and a natural born storyteller, which makes sense given his sense for

adventure).

TH: The film is staggering. Having Petit himself is obviously a huge help, because he is gifted in so

many ways – really just a natural entertainer, perhaps as much so as Keaton or Chaplin or the like.

Everything you say is true.


3 of 8 5/3/11 18:59

That being said, I do wonder what the film would’ve been like as a purely experimental piece – and

maybe you don’t want to go here – but I feel like this film could’ve worked almost as well as just pure

visual images of all of his riggings and wire walks in Paris, in Sydney, and in NYC. Maybe if they

just showed it with no sound, just musical accompaniment.

EM: I’m not sure I do want to go there. But I’ll entertain the thought. Petit’s wirewalking as simply a

visual piece would say a lot, and I’d watch that shit any day. But so much of what is great about Man

on Wire really does rely on context, on Petit’s obsession, his drive, his friends and collaborators, and

the nature of the WTC walk as a tense, full blown heist. It’s treatment as a “crime” makes it all the

more intriguing. I’ve read elsewhere (the internet, reviews) that many have called Petit’s walking

between the twin towers the “artistic crime of the 21st century”. I can’t exactly think of any obvious

ones off the top of my head, but was wondering how you felt about that …

TH: Yeah, it’s probably best not to go there, for all the reasons you mention. It was just a thought.

The focus of the film isn’t the wire-walking, as ethereal, ephemeral, and unreal as that is. The focus,

the subject, is obsession, is the man’s obsession (which is why Herzog is such an admirer – they are

kindred souls, really).

As far as being the “artistic crime of the 20th century”, well, I think that’s probably true, only because

it’s hard to say what else there has been besides graffiti. And of course, it’s a crime with no victims –

he’s breaking laws that are there solely to protect people from themselves. But that’s the whole point

of his life, that’s his message: we need to stop worrying about dying and start with the real living,

right?

EM: Absolutely. I think one of the reasons I enjoyed the film so much was its uplifting, life-affirming

type of feel. It’s cheesy as hell, and I’m swallowing my cynical, hipster pride right now, but god

damn. And of course, we can’t write or talk about this film without mentioning the elephant in the

room — 9/11. On one hand, we have the World Trade Center towers, their birth christened by an act

of beauty, insanity, and joy, the illegal walking of the wire by Philippe Petit, made possible by

deception, fraud, etc. On the other hand we have September 11, the destruction of the towers, ended

by an act of ugliness, insanity, hate, made possible by (more or less) the same methods. So we have


4 of 8 5/3/11 18:59

International PaymentsSend International Payments Online from £100. No Fees & Great Rates.CaxtonFX.com/InternationalPayments

Like Be the first to like this post.

the two bookends, one the focus of Man on Wire, and the other not mentioned at all, though its ghost

dreadfully hangs in the theatre.

TH: It is quite amazing that Marsh managed to make a film about the WTC without even mentioning

9/11 one time. As a conscious choice, I couldn’t applaud it more. As you point out, the spectre of that

event hangs in the theatre the whole time, but left unsaid, it’s more powerful than if they mentioned it

at all. Had Petit mentioned it (and he’s obviously savvy enough not to), it would have pilloried what

he’s all about – energy, dynamicism, motion. Instead, it hangs there like a counterweight to the whole

project.

In a sense, this is part of what Herzog is getting at with his thoughts on Truth: what Petit does

probably comes as close as anything can to transcending mediation, transcending politics. It is as

close, probably, as a human can come to the Real. Asymptotically close. When Petit is on the wire,

everything disappears. It is just a man walking in the sky. There is no time for war or for emotion.

There is only action.

————–

*[Maybe interesting to note, that of all the recreations Marsh shot, it's very satisfying that it was

limited to background story, the build-up of the crime, and the painfully dramatic moments right

before the act -- but of course, not the act itself, which to recreate would be sacrilege. -EM]

**[Wings of Hope (2000) is entirely a recreation, but in present tense. Having been the sole survivor

of a plane crash in 1971, Juliane Koepcke, at the urging of Herzog, walks through her entire jungle

survival route post-crash. Shit's heavy, but I'm not so sure this could be considered a recreation as

much as a present-tense reliving. -EM]

Ads by Google

Posted in Cinema | Tagged ecstasy, heist film, herzog, james marsh, man on wire, philippe petit, truth,

wirewalking, world trade center | 3 Comments

3 Responses

on September 8, 2008 at 5:56 pm | Reply james1.


5 of 8 5/3/11 18:59

excellent points re: the WTC/9-11. i had similar thoughts upon walking out of the theatre but

that shit is just so heavy i couldn’t even begin to articulate it.

also interesting to consider – as you have – what james marsh didn’t do, w/r/t the dramatization.

the scant actualities – the mid-air photos and sea-level video – were indeed powerful enough on

their own, and re-creating petit’s wire walk would indeed have been the worst kind of suck.

on the whole, the unspoken “balance” really becomes apparent when taking into account all

these different aspects of the film. thanks, dudes!

on December 11, 2008 at 5:49 pm | Reply tysdaddy

You mentioned how, in the film, Petit doesn’t get too much into the discipline of wirewalking.

Do yourself a favor and read his book. There, he dwells on this in some detail. Fascinating stuff

. . .

2.

on February 24, 2010 at 1:54 pm | Reply R.ABILESH

please specify the pictures or movies related to this.

give the contents brieflyand clearly without hideng anything

3.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website


6 of 8 5/3/11 18:59

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronymtitle=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q

cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Post Comment

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Recent Posts

For Election Day

The e-Maggedon That Isn’t; How e-Books Aren’t That Scary

Singled Out: The Unbearable Lightness of Cameron Crowe’s Singles

Appendix to “Music for Industrial Night Driving”

Pere Ubu’s “Breath” and the epic sweep of the everyday

Categories

Chicago

Cinema

Fashion

Hamiltons

How You Know We're Fucked

Leisure

Literature

Music

News

Reviews Haikus

Sports

Television

The Internet

Travel

Uncategorized

Blog at WordPress.com.


7 of 8 5/3/11 18:59

Theme: MistyLook by Sadish.


8 of 8 5/3/11 18:59

Mow review

Documents

Transcript of Mow review