At the Movies

Odd how yesterday an alignment of planets must have occurred and there was suddenly an uproar over a bunch of movies all on political themes. I'll start with the linked article on the ABC movie The Path to 9/11. I understand it's another "Docu-Drama" designating two film styles that can't possibly exist together without becoming a complete cluster fuck. The part I find most humorous is the number of Liberal heads exploding over the whole thing. (sorry about the obscenities, but this political discussion just doesn't carry as well without them.)

Amid pressure from Democrats, Scholastic Corp. yesterday backed off its plans to distribute learning guides to schools in conjunction with a controversial "docudrama" that is set to air on ABC this weekend.

The made-for-TV movie, "The Path to 9/11," has prompted howls from Democrats who argue that ABC is engaging in a partisan attack by airing a film that fictionalizes events to portray President Bill Clinton and his top aides failing to take action to eliminate Osama bin Laden during the 1990s.

I'm not sure why Scholatic Corp ever considered this as being scholastically viable, but some of the things provided in schools today reach the same level of worth as far as I'm concerned.

Congressional Democrats reiterated calls for ABC yesterday to pull the broadcast or include a continual on-screen disclaimer labeling the work as fiction.

"This is obviously aimed at influencing the midterm elections," said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a New York Democrat. "Saying upfront that it's not true is not good enough. It's got to be in every frame: 'This is not true.' "

The film purports to be based on the 9/11 Commission report, although it includes a disclaimer at the beginning calling it a "dramatization" and not a documentary. Clinton and some of his top administration officials -- including Madeleine K. Albright, former secretary of state, and Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, former national security adviser -- have objected to their portrayals and have demanded changes.

In the film, Berger is seen refusing to authorize a 1998 raid designed to capture bin Laden, events that were contradicted by the 9/11 Commission. The film also suggests that Clinton was distracted from antiterrorism efforts by the Monica Lewinsky affair and impeachment proceedings, another point on which the 9/11 Commission differed.

ABC plans to air the film in two three-hour segments Sunday and Monday evenings, with no commercials. Network officials did not return calls for comment.

I suppose I wouldn't have given this a second look, but since the democratic caucus seems to be closely skating on the edge of politically censoring the film, I suppose it should get some considerations.

With that said, I'm not going to quote the usual suspects of ass-hats on the topic. I'll link instead to Michael F. Scheuer. Here's a discription of him:

In response to an article published at NewsBusters and The American Thinker, I have received two e-mail messages from Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA that used to head up "Alec Station," the Counterterrorist CenterÂ’s Osama bin Laden unit. (Update: Scheuer is the individual regularly referred to in the 9/11 Commission report as "Mike".) His name might ring a bell as the previously anonymous author of the books Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America. In his writing as well as his interviews, Scheuer is an outspoken critic of the current Administration's prosecution of the war on terror, as well as an opponent of the war in Iraq. As such, he is not considered to be a friend of the presidentÂ’s.

Scheuer wrote an Op-Ed for the Washington Times back on July 5th. He mentions the ABC docudrama and Richard Clarke's new book:

With one credible September 11 movie, "United 93," under our belts, it will be interesting to see whether ABC-TV will complete the September 11 Commission's whitewashing of the pre-September 11 failure of U.S. intelligence-community leaders in its forthcoming mini-series based on Richard Clarke's memoir, "Against All Enemies."
Media teasers about the mini-series have said that Mr. Clarke -- the former "terrorism czar" -- and a senior FBI officer, the late John O'Neill, will be the heroes of the saga. If true, and if ABC's fact-checkers are not diligent in verifying Mr. Clarke's stories and claims, the mini-series will be the September 11 commission's dream come true: The Bush administration will be blamed for September 11, the feckless moral cowardice of the Clinton administration will be disguised and Mr. Clarke and Mr. O'Neill -- in my view, two principal authors of September 11 -- will be beatified.

Hmm. I wonder why his conjecture looks so very different from the present analysis. He goes on to eviscerate Clarke in the article, so it's quite informative.

I'm going to take a precarious position and guess that maybe Mr. Clarke is trying to blow smoke up the collective political ass of the country, and Mr. Scheuer is throwing the bull-shit flag. Go and read it, it's quite interesting. You can also read the Harper's article interviewing Scheuer. And just a pet peeve of mine there, they discuss "vulnerability" and then show they don't really understand what the word means. They speak to vulnerability as if they are discussing risk, and they aren't the same thing.

Then we have the Bush assassination film. Haven't heard much political wailing on this one. Though I have heard commentary stating how disgraceful it is that they are going to air it on Sept. 10th at the Toronto Film Festival. Funny how the CNN article neglects to be that specific on the date.

"It's a pointed political examination of what the war on terror is doing to the American body politic," said More4 boss Peter Dale at a press conference on Thursday.

Promotional materials described the program as "a thought-provoking critique of the contemporary U.S. political landscape."

Dale acknowledged that the program will be controversial, but maintained that it was a sophisticated work meant to spur debate.

"I'm sure there will be people upset by it," he said. "I hope people will see the intention as a good one."

Yeah. Sorry, I have no stomach for people who claim innocence over what appears to be a clearly political statement. They certainly couldn't just make a film showing various methods of assassinating Bush, though that would probably be a blockbuster on returns. If the intention was solely to delve into the politics of the US, they could have fictionalized the scenario, but they actually use doctored footage of the President making it appear that he is indeed assassinated. Dale tries to vale his actions in innocence, but that gives it all that much more of a foul odor.

I have caught commentary at Fox and the like that conjecture that this will empower the whacko set to try an assassination, but that doesn't carry. Those that are that close to committing that type of act are already a risk and if this movie pushes them over the edge, it will be now versus when they next have a spasm of BDS.

There is a Blair assassination movie as well, but I guess I'd rank it in the same place as the above.

Lastly there is All the King's Men. (No not the 1949 version.) I read the Robert Penn Warren book back in the 80's and enjoyed it thoroughly. I was a bit disconcerted to see Sean Penn as the lead Willie Stark, but on reflection, he may be able to pull it off. Going to be hard to watch though, since I pretty much loathe Penn in real life. Jude Law as Jack Burden strikes me as great casting.

I'm also a bit disconcerted that Wikipedia has an entry for this movie already. This is definitely another reason to find issue with Wikipedia. Now it appears that it's a marketing device and not really a repository of encylopedic information. I suppose it's showing that it has no boundaries, but I don't see that as a good thing. How much of the information is being watered down with these advertisements? And when will it become available in a nice easy to use hand-held device with a smiley face on the front and the words "Don't Panic."

UPDATE:
Appears that I missed the threats from the Democrats against Disney:

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Here's the original letter. Doesn't look like a threat to me. Nope. Not a threat at all. Just a good ole honest case of CENSORSHIP.