Walking on the Edge of a Knife

A Review of the Animation 9-1-1 (not a 9/11 parody), Directed by Wilson & Michael Ogberefor and Sivan Shriki

Animated films can play an exceptionally powerful role in expressing the political and social positions of their creators. Unlike boring rigid texts or formal speeches, animation can convey complex ideas in an accessible and appealing language, while entertaining the audience—particularly because it is transmitted through the art of imagery, character development, and storytelling. Cartoon characters, exaggerations, and occasionally humorous situations make it possible to raise sensitive issues such as discrimination, corruption, or oppression in a unique way, without the need for dangerous confrontation. This quality allows animated films to carry heavy meanings and sometimes difficult concepts not only for adults but also for younger generations and children, concepts that might otherwise seem boring if presented directly in the form of a lecture. Animation can help shape political and social awareness from an early age. Through humor, metaphor, and symbolism, it can deliver sharp political critiques in an acceptable form while still engaging the audience’s emotions—or, conversely, remain detached from emotionalism and simply present what has occurred. Animated works that address social issues often go beyond geographical and linguistic boundaries. Animation is not merely a tool for entertainment; it is an effective medium for expressing social and political thought.

Three young filmmakers—Michael Ogberefor, Wilson Ogberefor, and Sivan Shriki—in their short animation 9-1-1 (not a 9/11 parody) address a very sensitive situation in the manner described above: through a visual language, metaphors, cartoon characters, and specific situations. They explain at the very beginning of the film that they do not mean September 11, 2001 yet the situation inevitably brings those terrorist attacks to mind. The filmmakers state right from the start that their work is a parody of a film called Inferno Tower. In reality, no such film with that title exists, and from this one can understand the role of the red disclaimer. The creators intend to place the audience in an ambiguous space from the outset: while distancing themselves from any direct connection to the events of September 11, they also make clear that their intention is not to insult or joke about the tragic and highly sensitive past. Nevertheless, the opening of the situation—and especially the ending of the work—strongly recalls the events surrounding September 11.

The animation is made in a simple two-dimensional style, mostly in black and white. The only notable colored element is the red and orange flames of the fire that appear in the building scenes and flare up while the two friends converse. This contrast, heightened by the stark difference in colors, presents the fire as the sole living and threatening element, while the characters and the surrounding environment remain lifeless and colorless. The design of the characters themselves is exaggerated and caricature-like: one has long hair, a headband, and tattoos; the other appears with a mustache, a protruding belly, and a hat. The firefighters, who look identical as if copied from one another, wear strange helmets that more closely resemble transparent plastic pulled over their heads. They look more like extraterrestrial beings than real rescuers, and they do little more than press the elevator button—while also forgetting to take the cat out of the building with them. This visual simplicity reinforces a sense of melancholy, non-seriousness, and a refusal to take matters seriously, which aligns with the black humor of the animation.

The film begins with a static scene—essentially a still image—of the moment just before an airplane collides with a tall tower. Time is frozen, and we are meant to see what was happening inside the building at the exact moment the plane was approaching. Inside we find the two characters described earlier, who do not appear to be in a normal state. From their speech it is clear that they seem stoned; they even chew and slur some of their words, rendering them vague and unclear. The situation is therefore highly absurd and strange: two apparently stoned individuals stand amid raging flames, talking about a craving for potatoes. Instead of fleeing, they use the flames to light their cigarettes and then discuss potatoes and other unrelated, abstract topics, without their answers necessarily being related to one another.

This conversation between the two friends in that apocalyptic and absurd space can, in fact, be read as the creators’ critique of those who always react unusually in emotional and serious situations—people who generally fail to grasp the degree of danger, ignore the serious threat to their lives from an external factor, and remain unaware of the approaching catastrophe even at the moment of disaster, to the point of lighting their cigarettes with the very fire that is about to destroy them. At the same time, it can be a critique of those who overreact emotionally to serious situations (as we later see everyone exiting the building via the elevator in a perfectly polite, orderly, and tidy manner). The nature of the animation and the ambiguity of its metaphorical language allow the creators to explore the various possible interpretations of such a situation.

Help then arrives: the firefighters, with their strange faces as noted earlier, show up and, after an unsuccessful attempt to rescue the cat, lead the two friends out of the building. The pair, who appear to have been saved, are next seen at the airport buying tickets to New York. Then, on the plane, we continue to follow the two characters’ seemingly meaningless discussion. There are incomprehensible remarks, references to the pilot being a woman, and in the background two armed figures are visible (one of them wearing a keffiyeh and carrying a weapon). This situation places the same two characters, with the same personalities and the same manner of speaking, into yet another dangerous position. Whether those in the building or those on the plane, both groups had their lives at risk, yet the conversations they hold reveal a distance between the content of their dialogue and the degree of danger that stands at the closest possible proximity.

The  film’s creators are clearly well-versed in black comedy, and in the animation itself these comic aspects are built primarily on discrepency: the catastrophic situation (the fire in the building, the imminent plane crash, the presence of armed individuals at the end of the corridor, or firefighters with the appearance of aliens) is set against the completely ordinary, natural, and cool-headed reactions of the characters. The strange disparity between the cool reactions and the terrifying circumstances makes the comic aspects of the work stand out. This is a classic technique of black comedy: where disaster does not provoke fear in the character or any heroic action from them, but instead becomes an excuse to talk about chips. Scattered, half-finished, and slurred dialogues such as “I’m hungry… for chips… potatoes” reinforce the sense of confusion and indifference of the characters in a critical situation. Place this paradoxical background alongside a layer of play with gender and cultural stereotypes that runs throughout the work. In the final conversation between the two friends, as they board a plane heading toward disaster, one says to the other, “Women can’t drive,” and the other, while confirming it, adds, “Especially under pressure.” Alongside the two figures standing at the back of the plane with a threatening and terrifying presence, the references to gender stereotypes suggest that, in the creators’ view, people remain incapable of recognizing the source of danger or identifying the reason for their fear even in situations that appear extremely critical.

Although the initial disclaimer states that this animation is not a parody of September 11 but a parody of a film called Inferno Tower, as we noted, no such film exists. The correct title of that film is The Towering Inferno (1974), directed by John Guillermin and starring two well-known and important actors, Steve McQueen and Paul Newman. Even though the title has been deliberately misspelled, the subject of the film is not entirely unrelated: the world’s tallest building in San Francisco, with 138 floors and faulty wiring, catches fire during its opening ceremony due to an electrical short, and firefighting teams and stations go into action. The film is not unrelated to the two friends trapped in the tower and the arrival of the two firefighters, so there are at least general references to it; however, in terms of theme it is not a parody of that work. This is especially true of the second part of the animation—the arrival of the plane and the armed individuals on board—which has no connection to that film. In this way the filmmakers both play with the subject under discussion and distance themselves from any direct association.

The most important feature of the film is the consistency of its cool, indifferent, and absurd tone. At no point does the animation attempt to become emotional, to evoke the viewer’s empathy, or to highlight the dramatic aspects of the story; everything remains at the level of indifference and foolishness. The voice acting, performed by the creators themselves, with the same listless, vague, and muffled tone, further contributes to this sense of coolness and neutrality. On the other hand, it tries to view the events from both sides: from the perspective of those in the tower and from that of those on the plane heading toward disaster. The narrative dispersion—and the movement from the burning building to the airport and then to an empty plane with two passengers and two armed individuals—helps the creators maintain this absurdity throughout the work.

9-1-1 (not a 9/11 parody), despite its short length, creates challenges for the viewer, prompting them to question their own stance on the nature of certain situations and events, and whether social critique can be extended into sensitive territory. In this respect, the filmmakers’ work is noteworthy as they present their own perspective on the individual’s indifference to the dangers of the modern world; how a person remains indifferent to clear and living threats; how someone is unable to see realities and, even in a painful situation—instead of thinking about the threat right beside them, starts a sexist discussion. The filmmakers have deliberately moved toward social critique, and social critique generally does not receive positive feedback in society. This is because many people prefer not to discuss certain subjects at all, let alone attempt to see critical situations comically or to use comedy to express ideas within a painful context. Even while trying to distance itself from September 11, the animation continues to walk a fine line, and its art lies in saying what it has to say without exaggeration. The creators have shown that they can joke about an extremely sensitive subject, examine it, and ultimately provide an opportunity for reflection.