In his film, “World Trade Center,” director and screenwriter Oliver Stone said he wanted to focus on the heroism of the event, and not necessarily social issues or political theories which he explores in past films such as “JFK,” “Nixon” or “Natural Born Killers.”

Stone shared his views on the film in a phone interview with the Clarion.

What was the most difficult aspect of making this film?

The most difficult aspect was the technical nightmare of going into the whole thing. Very smoky, very dark, hard work.

One of the critics brought up that “World Trade Center” is not one of your typical films. It’s a different style. Do you agree?

Not really. I think it was shot in a simpler style perhaps.

The men are fighting for life, fighting for survival. It is a quiet film.

I think survival is based on metaphysical reasons – security and peace.

My films have generally been attacked and admired for combination of power and intensity.

There is quite a bit of intensity, but at the same time I think it’s manageable and you can watch it. It doesn’t go over the edge of the page.

If someone was really dramatized by the 9/11 events would you caution them to see the film?

You get into areas of legislation there. Our whole country already has all these disclaimers on every box.

I think people know if they can handle a movie or not.

You can’t warn anybody. I think anyway who is really traumatized should be in care somewhere.

You use a lot of flashback, memories of nostalgia and religious images. How did you approach these scenes?

That goes to the heart of the movie. People from all over the world can relate to this movie.

John and Will – it wasn’t only physical, but it’s the metaphysical that keeps them alive – their love for their families, and especially for their wives.

In Will’s case, when he saw Jesus with a water bottle, it helped reverse his decline.

He started to get stronger. I followed what he said and I tried to show it.

With John, he certainly prayed a lot, but his family really kept him alive.

The rescuers all risked their own lives. They didn’t have to go in there, but they tried to get them out.

I’m interested in what you chose to show and what you didn’t show. You didn’t show the image of the planes crashing into the building.

The movie is based in 24 hours and the events of the two men, the two wives and the rescuers.

It stays very chronological. Never the men nor the women saw the plane hit the tower.

We based it on what they felt and saw.

What’s your take on creating these real-life incidents?

I worked very closely with the people that survived this event which is the reason this is extraordinarily miraculous that they survived.

They pulled them out barely alive after 22 hours and that’s enough of a story to me.

There’s no reason to go to a fictional text. It was such an extraordinary story that just has to be told.

A lot of your past films focus on political theories. What made you want to just tell a story without exploring theories you may have?

This is a miraculous story from beginning to end.

It called for telling it. It’s a process film.

In the other films, there were other reasons for them. Every film has different content.

How would you respond to people who might say that telling one of the few uplifting stories of 9/11 is terribly misrepresentative of what took place that day.

It’s valid. It’s a fair accusation.

It may be right, but the fact is that they were at the epicenter of the World Trade Center.

They were Port Authority. They worked there and they went through the whole thing.

It would be like the Titanic, but you would focus on two minutes of surviving the Titanic, and it doesn’t mean most people didn’t die, but there were still some survivors and they are the only witnesses we have.

So, for those two men for the rest of their lives, the World Trade Center will be at the center of their lives.

In making a film with strong social implications, you probably realize you would be criticized for not only the quality of the film itself, but how you portrayed the event. What made you want to tackle something of this magnitude and what kind of challenge did this pose for you?

Who would want to go there, right? To be chased down by the culture police.

We had a big responsibility. Someone asked me earlier what the hardest part and I said technically to shoot it, but I think equally hard was this responsibility to get it technically correct.

We were always rushing ourselves, going back, getting details. It was exhausting.

Because it’s fresh and it’s a contemporary event, we get much more input and sometimes you get conflicting input. It was frankly a bitch.