As a documentary, this is a very good film. It succeeds in displaying its subject, tightrope walker Philippe Petit's well-publicized stunt of walking a wire between the two World Trade Center buildings in 1974. The film explains how Petit and his comrades plotted the stunt and how they pulled it off. Since we know he performed the stunt and survived it, director James Marsh (Wisconsin Death Trip) has to work to keep things tense enough to hold the audience's attention. He manages to build the needed tension and holds it throughout the film. If you're interested in a well structured documentary, this is a good pick.

I should mention that the film is good enough to overcome a number of issues I had with the film from the start. First, I have a huge bias against European artsy types. I find Europeans involved in the arts to be completely insufferable. The crowd displayed in this film is no different. The people in the film likewise fall into that distinctly European nonsense of taking the commonplace and describing it as if it were the grandest example of existence. They talk in heightened terms about Petit's tightrope walking as an art form. Its not art - its spectacle. There is a difference. To prattle on about his performance as "art" is ludicrous. The act of wire walking between the buildings has no more artistic statement than if he had hand glided from one rooftop to the other. In addition to all of this, his act was illegal from its conception onward. The idea came to Petit when he was in a dentist office waiting room. He saw a picture in a magazine of the towers being built. He knew then and there that he was going to try to walk between them. What does he do? He steals the page from the dentist's office. So the guy is a thief. His crimes begin there and continue throughout his journey. Marsh clearly takes the side of the criminal act, rarely questioning the morality of committing these crimes simply because a performer wants to do a stunt. There is no consideration that all of this trouble, all of the potential danger to Petit and everyone around him is caused simply to satisfy what amounts to a childish demand by the performer. This is the film's biggest flaw, its lack of criticising its subject.

Despite the flaws, the film does entertain and succeeds on its own terms. When watching it, it would be best to remember that what you're watching is an incredible act of selfishness. Seeing how Marsh avoids the subject makes the film somewhat more interesting.


Caution: There is nudity in the film and one scene of sexual activity. The fact that its two French people makes it all just that much worse.




Related Reviews:
Documentaries
Murderball (2005)
The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Combustible Celluloid
Roger Ebert

Labels: documentary, film, movie review