The Guys

As a fire service chaplain and critical incident stress management provider, I worked with FDNY at Ground Zero, starting four days after 9/11. Rotating on night, evening and day shifts, I wandered along the edges of the WTC debris field and nearby side streets to check in with resting firefighters. I met an FDNY captain that lost nine "brothers," an FDNY lieutenant that lost his firefighter son-in-law. One FDNY member said: "We all lost somebody in 'The Pile.'" One conversation stands out. Seeing the small cross on my lapel and asking for a blessing, a lone firefighter operating a pumper vented for at least 15 minutes. "Do you realize how many Little League coaches we've lost, how many kids in this city lost their coaches, mentors and neighbors, how many husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, uncles and cousins we've lost?" That's the point of the film: the human side of such a great loss, beyond and beneath all the heroism hype.

Anthony LaPaglia brilliantly portrays an FDNY fire captain for what he was at heart: an ordinary guy; thus, the film's name: "The Guys." The eight eulogies LaPaglia's character had to deliver at eight funerals on behalf of his fire company were much more about ordinary people that served and died in extraordinary circumstances: "guys" that went to church picnics, to their kids' ball games, that fixed just about anything, that could (or couldn't) cook, etc. LaPaglia's portrayal captured the essence of so many firefighters: paramilitary, loyal, straightfoward, problem solvers, action (versus reflection) oriented people that love "The Job;" people generally not given to wordsmithing or "being in touch with their feelings." Yet, given the right encouragement (as from Weaver's character), we discover the deeper nuances and sensitivities of their humanity. They are indeed very ordinary people called upon to perform extraordinary deeds.

It's a subtle film that invites the viewer to ponder the immense human loss we suffered on 9/11/01 -- the loss of some three thousand souls, each with a life story worth telling beyond and beneath whatever they may have done for a living. Even more, the film invites us to reflect upon our own reactions and responses to 9/11 as "ordinary people affected by extraordinary circumstances," seeking to find a "new normal" after a day that will live forever, with other days like it, in infamy.

My thanks to all that had a part in the writing and making of this little gem of a film.

There would definitely be certain ways to "celebrate" the heroism of the firemen of the NY fire department in the events of 9/11. However, this is not the approach this film has chosen, it is merely a stage drama transferred to movies with very subtle means, certainly resting on dialog between Weaver as a supporting journalist and La Paglia, a fire commander literally fighting for words to tell the unspeakable for the eulogies of his men lost in WTC. This is by all means well told, just letting in a little "air" of movie means by showing video of what is told, opening the angles of events for the viewer, but never going to real action. This fits well and makes this movie a highly recommendable piece of work, worth to be watched and discussed about. I have trouble understanding, how an average of only 6.3 could be reached so far. This is definitely 8/10.

I didn't know what to expect either.

I kept wondering about the black/white tape at the beginning, wondering if some kind of crime would happen. Just before the show the title of the movie they go back and show the whole picture, then I finally see the date beside the time. Then I realize what it would be about.

Still my imagination was not as "real" as the movie would be.

It is not about the characters, it is about people. How the firefighter captain speaks the words that are in his heart, the author just types into a machine. Words that catch the people as easily as the events had. Good words can ease the suffering. Nobody will ever forget the day Rambo, Superman, Batmann, yet the whole League of Justice, Wonderman and all the other superheros were on a sponsored company pick nick and here many people died. It was a reality check for everybody.

Although I like Bill Murray, who did the theatric play with SW, I think Anthony LaPaglia did a good job. Maybe he got the role because he is starring in the TV show Without a trace which is about missing persons.

I never doubted Signourney Weaver.

Don't watch the movie totally unaware what will happen. The events will overwhelm you and when you think you made it through the movie without crying, wait for the end. Watch it and remember where you were and how you felt. And remember the people you love and tell them.

I was biased when I got to around seeing this film. The film is based on a play (a two person play also starring Weaver with different actors portraying the fire captain, including for a time, Bill Murray), which I saw in early 2002 in lower Manhattan -- not too far from the events discussed. I do not think where I live add too much to the viewing in most ways, but the locale, time period, and coziness of the medium did. The play felt just right. The movie was a bit off.

The material does transfer pretty well. It's simple story that takes place soon after the tragedy, a writer/resident of Manhattan trying to deal with the events like everyone else, a writer who is asked by a fire captain to help him write eight eulogies for his men that died that day. The leads are excellent. The core material powerful.

The medium, however, was film. This is dangerous sometimes when the source material comes from somewhere else, be it television or the stage. And, we saw this here -- a desire to use film, and not just have a filmed stage play. Part of this works -- collages of the writer on the train with her kids, walking, and so forth. All the same, some of it does not -- it is filler, her talking to a counterman, two fireman (truly extraneous, given the story), and so forth.

In fact, I think the movie is actually a bit shorter than the play ... it is only 87min with the opening, closing, and that filler material. I was perfectly fine with just the two actors, including a touching eulogy scene. And, the material felt a bit fresher on the stage as well. I was somewhat disappointed actually, though I still enjoyed it overall.

Maybe, it's like reading the book first ... but still, I think something is missing here.

The film is good. It's thoughtful and poignant. The acting was well done and the directing made it as interesting as possible given the material (i.e. two people talking). Be warned that this movie is not your average mass-consumption media fare, and if your IQ is hovering around 100 or less you are better off renting an Adam Sandler or Jerry Bruckheimer movie.

The backdrop is 9/11 but you could take the two characters out of NY 2001 and dropped them into any similar tragedy in history. It is not a "US Propaganda" film as someone tried to state below. It is a film about two people having to cope with tragedy. One who was directly touched and one who was sitting on the sidelines wishing to be able to help out. On that level, on telling the brief story of two people who should never have met, it works very well.

Finally, to the person who said "If I were director, I would have ... had someone write a better script..." >>THE FILM IS BASED ON A TWO-PERSON PLAY!!!<< The above statement is as ignorant and mind-numbingly stupid as someone saying "I wish the director of Hamlet had someone write a better script with more fight scenes."