BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

sildarmillion I'm a grad student at UT Austin. I went on the Tower Tour last week - on the very observation deck from where the sniper shot. The tour guides aren't supposed to make the tour about the shooting story, so they didn't go into it, but they told us about the documentary.It's a mix of archival footage and animation. The animation recreates the shooting. And it was riveting. It's probably riveting for anyone to watch, but watching a horror story unfold in so familiar a location - one that's part of my daily life - is something else altogether.Maybe I'll take a different route tomorrow, or maybe I'll figure out a way to put this story out of my mind. Also, it was August 1st just yesterday. 52 years to the date.FYI there is heavy security at the tower these days. You have to pass through a metal detector and everything to go on the tour.

backwardsiris As timely as ever (tragically so), TOWER recounts stories of a few individuals whose lives were forever changed by the fateful events of August 1st, 1966 on the campus of University of Texas, Austin. Narrated by some of the survivors of the first mass shooting on a U.S. college campus, the recreations are presented in beautifully animated rotoscoping. The animation brings a surreal dream-like quality, similar (I can only imagine) to how the survivors, heroes & bystanders must have felt on such a hot, nightmarish summer's day. Like a thunderclap out of the blue, the crack of the first bullet sent shockwaves through the audience, as it took down a pregnant Claire Wilson. 50 years later, you can still hear the heartache in her voice as she narrates not only being shot (which caused the loss of her unborn child), but also witnessing the death of her fiancé, who was fatally shot as he bent over to help her up. Throughout the movie, we are introduced to a handful of the players in the day's events & we are shown the terror as seen through their eyes. While many of the stories were about brave acts of heroism, there were also honest moments of fear, confusion, hesitation & self-preservation. As the story unfolds, you can't help but wonder how you'd react in a situation like this. Would you stand behind a pillar, waiting for it all to end? Would you run into the shooter's sight to comfort a bleeding pregnant woman, trying to keep her conscious until she can be moved to safety? Would you slink closer to the tower, attempting to remain unseen by the sniper & assist the police? I don't think anyone can know until they've been in this situation (something I hope none of us experience), so we certainly cannot judge the many who chose security over bravery that day. However, the truly brave are to be admired for their boldness, selflessness & quick-thinking. The movie does a good job focusing on the victims, survivors & heroes, instead of the story gravitating around the shooter, as is often played out in the media. This was a very deliberate choice on the part of director Keith Maitland, who said in the Q&A that there are plenty of websites, movies & articles devoted to the shooter, so he didn't feel that perspective was warranted in this film. Once the final stand-off comes to an end, the interviews shift from rotoscoped reenactments to live footage of the survivors, who still carry the weight of this heavy day on their countenances. Maitland said he couldn't speak directly on gun-control policy, and would leave that to those "smarter than him" who are expert in the area of policy-making, but he hoped it would spark important conversations with all who watch this film. A truly poignant & unique piece of documentary cinema.

billcr12 I have been a reader of true crime going back to 1981 beginning with Ann Rule's "The Stranger Beside Me." I was, therefore, familiar with Charles Whitman's shooting spree at the University of Texas in Austin on August 1, 1966. Writer-director Keith Maitland uses real archival footage with animation to show the bloodshed from the victims perspective. Even after fifty years, the story still resonates as the first of the many mass killings in the United States. The heroes are many, from a few people who risked their live to rescue a pregnant woman to the police officers who finally took Whitman down, this is one of the best animated films that I have ever seen. My one small criticism is not including more material on Charles Whitman's background as a marine and former alter boy from a typical all American family. No one can really know the private demons within Whitman, but I would have appreciated a more deep analysis of the killer. Even with that drawback, The Tower is well worth your time.

Lilcount WARNING! Major spoilers ahead.In 1968, Peter Bogdanovich based his film "Targets" on the mass shooting at the University of Texas-Austin on August 1, 1966. Bogdanovich focused on the shooter. Now, nearly half a century later, director Keith Maitland looks at the incident from the viewpoint of the victims in "Tower."After the MOMA screening on Nov. 26, 2016, the director answered questions about his film. The main purpose of this review is to preserve some of his responses.A big question was why "Clair de Lune" was the background music to the shooting of the sniper, Charles Whitman, by Austin police officer Ray Martinez. Maitland told the audience that a few weeks before the shootings, Whitman, a student at UT-Austin, had paid a late night visit to one of his professors. Whitman was clearly agitated. He said he was depressed, he had many issues in his personal life, and he needed an extension of time for his term project. Suddenly, the professor said, Whitman noticed the professor's piano and asked if he could play it. The professor agreed, and Whitman proceeded to play, according to the professor, "the most beautiful rendition of Clair de Lune he had ever heard." When Whitman was finished, all the anger had drained from him. As he left, Whitman said, "That's what I needed."Maitland explained that by using the piece just before Whitman's death, it was his way of acknowledging the humanity of the shooter. As his life ended, he was finally at peace.Of the eight people whose stories are told in this film, the most prominent is Claire Wilson, the first person shot, who lay next to her dead fiancé on concrete in 100 degree weather for nearly an hour before a couple of brave souls carried her to safety. Wilson, who also lost her unborn son, said at the end of the film that she had forgiven Whitman. The only depiction of the shooter in the entire film is a photograph of him as a child in a magazine article. Whitman is seen at age 3 standing between two rifles.Claire Wilson became a schoolteacher for thirty years and an adoptive mother. A lifelong activist, she dropped out of school at age 13 to volunteer to register voters in the deep South. She had received special dispensation to attend UT-Austin without a high school diploma.The film itself is superb. The rotoscopy is first rate, and the actors who play the subjects for most of the film are uniformly excellent. Highly recommended.