BUT ADDED DISCLAIMER CLAIMS CREATIVE LIBERTIES HAVE BEEN TAKEN
It's easily the most controversial television show of recent years, and it's just gone to air in Sydney, watching it right now as I type this.
Despite the fact that it was advertised, on television and newspapers and radio, as being the story of “exactly how it happened” and “this is the true story of how 9/11 became a reality”, the show just started with the LONGEST DISCLAIMER I’ve ever seen at the start of any doco, drama or docudrama.
It basically said, “this is not a documentary”, this is a “dramatic recreation” and that it was based on “oral histories” and the “9/11 Commission Report”.
Here's a bit of it :
"The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report and other published materials, and from personal interviews. The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression."
The disclaimer also used a few paragraphs on screen to declare that that not all characters are represented as they are in real life, etc.
In other words, the disclaimer is a last-minute effort of extraordinary arse-covering.
Interesting to note that the white-writing-on-black-background disclaimer had a pixelly quality to it, like it had been downloaded from the internet? Sent to Australia at the last minute as an e-mail attachment?
There’s already been a few moments that seem completely absurd. The terrorists fleeing the first attacks on the World Trade Centre in 1993 shot out of the underground parking lot like the Terminator was in hot pursuit, and they were laughing, of course.
Nice big slide across the road with the obligatory NYC yellow cab screeching to a halt as they make their escape. The explosion in the underground parking lot went off like the producers went shopping for leftover exploding fireball footage from Hollywood effects houses.
It already seems to be overdone, and considering it was made by rightists who once claimed they were going to "take back Hollywood", 'Path To 9/11' is as excessive and overblown as any ultra-hyped Hollywood action movie you've seen in the past decade.More in a while....
Why lie like this?
Why distort history?
Why create fiction when the facts are so incredible and the true story so compelling?
That the makers would approach this mini-series with such a blatant 'Blame Clinton For Getting A Blowjob' agenda is beyond disgusting.
And no, they shouldn't be blaming Bush either.
The point is this story doesn't need to pumped up with fabrication to make it something worth watching.
The complete and utter politicisation of 9/11 has well and truly begun.
How foul.
Hours and hours and hours of this crud still to go. Hope tomorrow night is better than Part One.
More to come....
Here's some background stories on the controversy surrounding 'Path To 9/11' :
Clinton Lawyers Demand ABC (America) Pull Screening Of Controversial Mini-Series
European Broadcast Of 'Path To 9/11' Claims It Tells "The Official True Story"
Director Rob Reiner Declared ABC (America) Should Cancel 'Path To 9/11'
Don't Airbrush 9/11 - The Ultimate 'Path To 9/11' Protest Site
Road To Surfdom : Strike A Blow For Accurate History (2)
AmericaBlog Tracks The Action And Reaction And Protests
