WTC: The first 24 hours

 

Story:

This short film is a purely observational perspective of lower Manhattan during the 24 hours following the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in September 2001. Broken into four sections (day, night, early hours, and sunrise) the film documents the happenings at “ground zero” without the aid of verbal narration or interviews.

Review:

Consider that the only clearly audible words in the entire film are those overheard from a newscast playing on a miraculously still-functional television set in a lower Manhattan eatery. Consider then the deafeningly silent images of “ground zero”, with shots that linger over places that were once used daily and probably taken for granted: a pizza place, a row of treadmills at a gym, a deli, all now covered with ashes and completely deserted (save for the firemen that are shown sleeping within their still-standing walls).

The goal of this piece seems to be that of conveying a profound and pervasive sense of lack or emptiness, and in it’s minimalism, that it does. The images are fascinating to look at (as is the case with almost any disaster of this scale) but the film is constructed to allow the viewer to project his or her own sentiments on to the footage. Without narration or clear storyline (other than a simple chronology of footage taken), this film is possibly the least biased of all those surrounding the event; it does not provoke strong feelings of compassion for the victims, or pride in the city, it simply documents the wreckage.

WTC: The First 24 Hours seems to be shot by an amateur photographer on amateur equipment, as the image shakes while the camera operator moves haphazardly through the rubble. Furthermore, the shots are clearly unplanned and unorganized. While this might take away from a documentary on almost any other subject, in this case it seems to add to the authenticity of the experience. That is, as viewers, we are reminded that there is an actual human being behind the camera who, because of the nature of the situation, has not had months to plan but is just doing it on the fly. It is for this that Sauret’s work is extremely compelling.

However, the structure and short running time make this film more of a historical document than a night at the movies, especially because it doesn’t present us with images that we haven’t already seen a hundred times on the news. In this way, it doesn’t present us with a subject or idea that is new and earth-shattering, but rather one that deserves to be remembered, and remembered accurately.

Reviewed by Emily Comisar for Documentary Film Online on March 04, 2008

In Conclusion: