Path to 9/11 is an ABC miniseries airing tonight and tomorrow and billed as a docudrama based on the 9/11 Commission Report. The series has been reported to contain scenes that are inaccurate and misleading, and has prompted an outcry from liberal (and even some conservative) bloggers and commenters. Many prominent public figures have spoken out against the film, including Bill Clinton, Richard Clarke, and the film’s star Harvey Keitel. One former FBI agent refused to work on the film as an advisor once he had read the script, and another quit when the producers failed to correct a list of inaccuracies.
The program was written and directed by a pair with strong ties to the right wing. ABC has actively reached out to the right wing in order to drum up support for the program. The movie will be shown around the world, and ABC had made a deal with Scholastic, Inc., to distribute the series to schools along with a companion guide pointing up the supposed documentary aspects of the movie (Scholastic has since altered the guide to focus on media literacy).
Although ABC has made review copies of the series available only to right-wing bloggers and commentators, AmericaBlog has obtained a preview and has found that:
- The movie falsely identifies American Airlines as the carrier that let Mohamed Atta on board despite a security warning. The movie also puts the event at the wrong airport. The airport was in Portland, Maine, and Atta boarded a US Airways flight (facts contained on Page 1 of the 9/11 Commission Report!).
- The movie contains a scene of a Talibani firing bullets at the projected image of President Clinton’s head.
- The movie contains a scene where Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger refuses to give the CIA permission to kill Usama bin Laden, even though an agent has bin Laden in his crosshairs. This event never happened.
- The movie even misspells Madeleine Albright’s name.
ABC has steadfastly refused to pull or alter the series, despite mounting pressure on the network, its affiliates, the show’s advertisers, and ABC’s parent company, Disney. The widowed husband of a former Disney Vice President wrote a letter pleading with Disney chief Robert Iger not to air the series. Blogger Matt Stoller has pointed out the serious political ramifications this could have on Disney’s attempt to get favorable legislation passed in Congress.
As several have pointed out, conservatives raised similar arguments and used similar pressure to get CBS to pull a biopic about Ronald Reagan which contained inaccuracies and fake scenes. Disney’s refusal to pull the movie stands in stark contrast to their attempts to block the release of the movie Farenheit 9/11 in 2004.
While I haven’t seen the movie yet… and I’m not sure if I’ll watch it…the broadcast of this series is sure to be a black eye for ABC and an embarrasment to Disney. Path to 9/11 appears to be a sop to right-wing fantasies, slanderous to members of the Clinton administration, and inordinately supportive of the Bush administration. If it is as inaccurate and misleading as has been reported, it is an absolutely despicable, calculated, and morally reprehensible choice for ABC to air it.
Full disclosure: I own stock in and am a former employee of Disney, ABC’s parent company.
UPDATE: I’ve just watched several clips of the movie, available here. (Note that these clips are superimposed with commentary from the Livejournal poster.) Things are worse than I imagined. Not only is this representative of the worst kind of television writing and acting, there appear to be a series of attacks on American laws and on due process coming out of the mouths of the characters on screen. The whole thing smacks of cheap propaganda. It is absolutely chilling.
I think it might be time to sell that Disney stock.
UPDATE 2: Okay, so I watched the whole first part of the mini-series. My attitude remains basically unchanged: this series is manipulative and propagandistic. I’m puzzled as to why the filmmakers chose to “dramatize” some scenes in the way they did, when the reality that has been reported by the people who lived through the events could have been just as dramatic. It is puzzling to me, too, why ABC would choose to run this movie without advertisements, and also without providing some context for the movie other than the disclaimer slides. Why not have Richard Clarke, who’s on the ABC payroll, and Stephen Root (who plays Clarke in the movie) record an introduction where they emphasize to viewers that this movie is a fictional account based on real events? Why not have an ABC News anchor host a post-show discussion with the director and writer about why they chose to portray certain scenes the way they did?
The movie focuses heavily on the combat and crime aspects of the terrorism events in its purview, and almost not at all on the impact of these events on the victims. That feels exploitative to me. This is not a movie that honors the dead, or calls us to unite in a higher purpose, but which picks at the scab covering our collective wounds from 9/11. It doesn’t make us feel compassion, or identify with any of the characters. It keeps the wider range of human emotion at a distance, and only asks us to fear and distrust. This is poor storytelling; I don’t know who any of these characters really are. I know their politics. I know many of them seem to have a healthy disdain for American laws and due process, but I am no more illuminated about their condition than I was before I started watching the broadcast.
Finally, as a former actor myself, I’d like to say a word to the players in this film, many of whom I respect greatly: you have a duty to your craft, to your profession, to your country, and to yourselves to tell the truth. You have a duty not to allow yourself to be used to manipulate an audience. Your purpose as a storyteller is to illuminate. Many of you associated with this program have failed in that respect. Now, I have a great deal of sympathy for the struggling actor who needs to put food on the table, but those of you with the luxury of picking your projects have no excuse for agreeing to be a part of this.
MORE LINKS:
- This article by Joe Conason at Slate offers an excellent overview of the movie’s most egregious errors. As Atrios says, just click on the damn ad.
- Media Matters for America breaks down the movie’s fabrications around the planned Tarnak Farms operation. Also, falsehoods in scenes involving Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright and a range of others from night two of the broadcast.
- Richard Clarke statement slams PT9/11. It begins: “As someone who was directly involved in almost every event depicted in the fictionalized docudrama, ‘The Path to 9-11,’ I believe it is an egregious distortion that does a deep disservice both to history and to those in both the Clinton and Bush administrations who are depicted.” Read the full thing here.
- A letter to Bob Iger from President Clinton’s office.
- American Airlines condemns the movie.
- Article at The Nation chronicling the “Docudrama’s Right Wing Roots.”
- Digby notes another stupid error and an equally stupid attempt to correct it.
