On August 7, 1974, Frenchman Philippe Petit decided "hell, you only live once," and strung a cable between the two towers of the World Trade Centre in New York City. He then proceeded to walk from one tower to the other, back and forth eight times, doing tricks along the way. 'Man on Wire (2008)' interviews those involved in Petit's audacious high-wire stunt, blending together testimonies, archival footage and re-enactments into a narrative structure that more closely resembles a heist film than a documentary. Months of preparation took place in France and New York, in which every detail had to be predetermined: how would they dodge security? How would they get a 200kg cable and other bulky equipment to the top of the towers? How would they string a cable across the 60-metre abyss?
The story is itself so enthralling, and the illegal stunt so daring, that 'Man on Wire' sweeps you along for 90 minutes, and only afterwards do you realise that the tightrope-walk itself is depicted only by still photographs (apparently the intended cameraman was too exhausted to remember to film, leaving director James Marsh with no choice but to emanate Chris Marker's 'La Jetee (1962)'). Alas, I think the film, which won the Oscar for best feature documentary, did so mostly on the merits of its story, which itself received an emotional boost from the events of September 11, 2001. Marsh's approach is, for the most part, pedestrian, and the dramatised re-enactments tend to cheapen the film. Why not just let the force of the participants' words keep us interested?
The story is itself so enthralling, and the illegal stunt so daring, that 'Man on Wire' sweeps you along for 90 minutes, and only afterwards do you realise that the tightrope-walk itself is depicted only by still photographs (apparently the intended cameraman was too exhausted to remember to film, leaving director James Marsh with no choice but to emanate Chris Marker's 'La Jetee (1962)'). Alas, I think the film, which won the Oscar for best feature documentary, did so mostly on the merits of its story, which itself received an emotional boost from the events of September 11, 2001. Marsh's approach is, for the most part, pedestrian, and the dramatised re-enactments tend to cheapen the film. Why not just let the force of the participants' words keep us interested?