September 12, 2006
The closing scene of "Path to 9/11", which depicts the collapse of the World Trade Center, was one of the most moving and riveting movie scenes I've had the opportunity to view in recent years.
My hat's off to writer Cyrus Nowrasteh and director David Cunningham for the quality of this production. And I thank ABC and Disney for sticking by their guns and showing the film largely intact, despite a full-court press by the Democrat leadership, who spent most of last week whining that the film wasn't fair to the Clinton legacy. What a bunch of babies. I'd have preferred that the Dems not have the ammunition to knock the production, but despite taking certain liberties with the details, Nowrasteh's script definitely gets the important things right. And he doesn't pull any punches when it comes to the performance of the Clinton or Bush administrations in fighting terror. To be fair to both presidents, 99% of us didn't take Osama bin Laden seriously before 9-11. What a difference one day can make.
As FBI agent John O'Neill, Harvey Keitel put in the excellent performance we've long since come to expect from him, while Donnie Wahlberg kicked some serious ass as CIA agent "Kirk." Quite a different character from Carwood Lipton, the quiet soldier he played in Band of Brothers. I hope to see a lot more from him. It takes some serious talent to be able to play both Milton "red stapler" Waddams and Richard Clarke, but the chronically-underappreciated Stephen Root clearly has the talent to knock both roles out of the park. Finally, a pissed-off Patricia Heaton on a rampage is pretty much the sexiest thing I've seen this year. Wow.
If you didn't catch it on ABC, find someone who TiVo'd it, or grab it on DVD when it comes out. It's worth watching.
Cross-posted to The Sammenhold Blog.
Posted by: Ragnar at
04:18 PM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Allah at September 12, 2006 04:31 PM (3+if1)
If you guys never saw Frontline's "The Man Who Knew" you've missed out. BUT, you can catch it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/
Richard Clarke is all over it, but it was long before the '04 election so he's bearable. But you gotta love Fran Townsend. Glad to see she stuck around for the Bush admin.
Posted by: Editor at September 12, 2006 04:48 PM (adpJH)
Patricia Heaton. Jeesh - Hot, just hot. No matter what.
Posted by: EricInTexas at September 12, 2006 04:55 PM (huu6c)
Posted by: SeeMonk at September 12, 2006 05:01 PM (n4VvM)
Posted by: EricInTexas at September 12, 2006 05:08 PM (huu6c)
Letter
P.S. I've heard many of the right wing blogs are being funded by right-wing sources. Is that true?
I guess my answer will lie and whether or not my comment here is posted.
Posted by: MountainMan at September 12, 2006 05:12 PM (+MdpN)
Posted by: SeeMonk at September 12, 2006 05:13 PM (n4VvM)
About this movie, I do think it was a mistake for the right to support it. Look at how hated Bush is amongst many media types. Now just wait for the movie where he and Cheney are shown feasting on children (or something far more mundane but just as false) because the writers wanted to "exercise their creative license."
Encouraging this kind of "docudrama" will come back to bite you one day. All sides should fight rewriting history whether they agree with the intent or not.
Posted by: Rich at September 12, 2006 05:17 PM (89Rw1)
Posted by: Anachronda at September 12, 2006 05:23 PM (ppO1W)
Donnie Walberg has always been a good actor, far better than his brother, but he was very good in this role and as Lipton. Patricia Heaton . . . wow.
And by the way MountainMan, that letter is wrong. The mini-series took shots at everyone and the overall message was, sadly, truthful. There were numerous missteps leading up to 9/11 and no one can deny that, but the people who were leading the charge threatening to cancel ABC's license are the ones who politicized the mini-series. That's shameful and your failure to recognize that is as ridiculous as your question.
Posted by: Chad Evans at September 12, 2006 05:42 PM (pBuFi)
Donnie Walberg has always been a good actor, far better than his brother, but he was very good in this role and as Lipton. Patricia Heaton . . . wow.
And by the way MountainMan, that letter is wrong. The mini-series took shots at everyone and the overall message was, sadly, truthful. There were numerous missteps leading up to 9/11 and no one can deny that, but the people who were leading the charge threatening to cancel ABC's license are the ones who politicized the mini-series. That's shameful and your failure to recognize that is as ridiculous as your question.
Posted by: Chad Evans at September 12, 2006 05:53 PM (pBuFi)
I agree, to a point. For the record, quite a few right-wing bloggers expressed the sentiment that the movie should've been revised to conform to the known facts where possible. As I've said before in comments here & elsewhere--why hand your opponents ammunition when you don't have to? If you have the facts on your side, just go with the facts. I, for one, would love to see that be the rule.
On the other hand, we generally don't have transcripts of the actual conversations that took place in cabinet meetings. If you're going to dramatize dialogue like that at all, a certain amount of "creative license" is necessary.
Here's an idea: how about we make a guideline that characters in movies are generally limited to words the real individuals actually said or wrote? If you need Sandy Berger or Madeline Albright to say something controversial in a movie, find the words in a speech or memo. Even then, there's always the claim that words were "taken out of context" or whatever, but that would allow the writers some creative license while keeping them close to the facts.
Posted by: The All-Seeing Pirate Ragnar at September 12, 2006 06:03 PM (c/4ax)
My problem is the complete fabrication of events. There's one scene in particular I can cite. The basics of the scene is that CIA personel are looking at Bin Laden asking for further instruction from Washington and the Clinton admin balks and says a presentation needs to be made to Clinton.
This scene is compilation of a few separate actual events as well as some creative license. The particular confluence of events that would conveniently put the CIA in a position to visually identify and kill or capture Bin Laden simply did not happen.
That's not to say I think the Clinton admin would have pulled the trigger given that chance, sadly, I doubt it. The fact remains though, no one knows for sure because it never happened.
Posted by: Rich at September 12, 2006 06:19 PM (89Rw1)
Posted by: Editor at September 12, 2006 06:30 PM (adpJH)
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/controlled_demolition_expert_and_wtc_7.htm
A Dutch expert on controlled demolition is shown video footage of the collapse of WTC Building 7 — without being told what it is! (He was unaware there was a THIRD tower that collapsed on 9/11).
As he’s shown the freefall collapse (6.6 seconds) from multiple angles, the reporter repeatedly asks the demolition professional whether or not it’s a controlled demolition.
His answer: Absolutely...without a doubt.
He’s then told this was one of the WTC towers, and that it was pulled on 9/11/01, eight hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers...
You’ve got to see the man’s look of utter disbelief...
Posted by: Greg at September 12, 2006 06:35 PM (PnoGS)
As you may know, ABC re-edited the scene in question to take out the footage of the CIA agents in position on the ground to take out bin Laden.
ABC kept the DC end of the teleconference in, but without the footage of the CIA agents on the ground, it's not clear what's going on in Afghanistan. Could be an air raid--which would be pretty close to at least one actual situation.
I had a problem with the original scene. I had much less problem with the revised scene.
For the most controversial points in a docudrama, I'll agree with you that staying close to the facts is ideal and should be encouraged.
Posted by: The All-Seeing Pirate Ragnar at September 12, 2006 06:46 PM (c/4ax)
This means nothing now in respect to foreign terrorists but, prior to 9/11 there was no authority for something like gitmo. Even now, that authority is in question. So no president, republican or democrat would have been able to hold him prior to 9/11.
I'll go one further just so I don't get flamed for defending Clinton (even though I thought he was an ok president). There was an opportunity to kill him. It was a wedding party in Afghanastan if I remember correctly. We were fairly certain (not 100% though) he was there and were prepared to launch missles at the site. It was decided we couldn't do it unless we were 100% sure he was there since it would result in over a hundred causalities.
I think Clinton should have gone for it. He discusses it in his book as his biggest regret of his presidency.
Posted by: Rich at September 12, 2006 06:52 PM (89Rw1)
Posted by: SeeMonk at September 12, 2006 06:53 PM (n4VvM)
I think I even discussed in my prior post the actual event you mentioned as being similar to an air raid.
Posted by: Rich at September 12, 2006 06:56 PM (89Rw1)
Greg,
Why didn't they ask him whether the Twin Towers were pulled down, and film his reaction to that (the reason is obvious).
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 12, 2006 06:57 PM (paKD6)
BTW, Rich, you really think using an individual's actual sentiments and arguments from published comtemporaneous speeches and writings wouldn't be an improvement over making dialogue up from scratch?
Suppose "Alternate line 1" is based on actual statements made by Powell, and "Alternate line 2" is fabricated. Even though the content is similar, I think Powell would have much less reason to complain about the first line.
Scene: Cabinet meeting, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell
POWELL, Alternate line 1: I'm concerned that there has not been a sufficiently thorough investigation done, here. There seems to be an incentive to provide intelligence that meets certain preconceived notions held by top level players. If I'm gonna present this argument to the U.N., I need solid information. And suppose we go in. Then what? All this is not even to mention the casualties that are likely to be incurred in a full-scale ground invasion. This is like Pottery Barn, Don--you break it, you bought it.
POWELL, Alternate line 2: Don, you soulless neocon sonofabitch, your DIA boys aren't doing a thorough investigation here because you WANT this to be true, you NEED this to be true. You want me to stand up there at that podium in some faggity blue UN helmet and tell the good people of the world that Saddam Hussein has a million-jizillion thermonuclear warheads and he's ready to drop every last one of those fuckers on a nursery school in Poughkeepsie! You know that's a DAMN LIE, Don!!! HOW MANY DAMN GOOD PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE BEFORE YOU TELL THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!?!?!?!? [POWELL JUMPS ACROSS THE CONFERENCE TABLE AND STRANGLES RUMSFELD]
Posted by: The All-Seeing Pirate Ragnar at September 12, 2006 07:13 PM (c/4ax)
Posted by: Greg at September 12, 2006 07:38 PM (PnoGS)
Clinton: "I did... have sexual relations with... Osama Bin Laden"
Posted by: Rich at September 12, 2006 07:57 PM (89Rw1)
Posted by: jesusland joe at September 12, 2006 08:14 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Greg at September 12, 2006 08:28 PM (PnoGS)
I don't think I ever said it hadn't been done by the left. If that's the way you read it, sorry, that's not what I meant. What I said was we shouldn't encourage it from either side.
Posted by: Rich at September 12, 2006 08:30 PM (89Rw1)
Posted by: Howie at September 12, 2006 08:39 PM (D3+20)
Posted by: jesusland joe at September 12, 2006 08:57 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: greyrooster at September 12, 2006 11:46 PM (ozuY+)
Greg,
I love how you "truthers" brandish the word "admit" all the time, as if giving an opinion is an "admission", as if my opinion "proves" your kooky illuminati theories.
I don't "admit" shyte, but I do think tower 7 was pulled. The NYFP commander apparently said tower 7 was beyond salvaging and should be pulled. That's all the info we have on it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 13, 2006 07:44 AM (paKD6)
Posted by: Howie at September 13, 2006 01:00 PM (D3+20)
Posted by: Howie at September 13, 2006 02:00 PM (D3+20)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 14, 2006 01:17 PM (Dd86v)
Posted by: M. J. at September 17, 2006 07:36 AM (/KqNW)
34 queries taking 0.0309 seconds, 189 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
