|
|
September 8, 2006Path to 9/11 sounds a stinker, after all thatAt least according to this review. I’ll still argue that protesting a flic - particularly when it is a docuDRAMA, meaning a writers personal vision, much like Oliver Stone’s “JFK,” and not a docuMENTARY (which is supposed to be factual) - is one thing and threatening to pull a license is something else. And I’m arguing that Clinton would have, in the end, been much better off ignoring this flick, especially if it’s (as it sounds) a stiff. Ah, well. It has been interesting, though, noting how this issue overtook every other story in the news. Okie on the Lam reminds us that the Clintons always suck the oxygen out of a room…mostly because we and the press allow them to. Aside: For the record, because it’s been a long time since I said this, I don’t “blame” Clinton or Bush for 9/11. I “blame” the terrorists. But America was not dynamic in responding to terrorist attacks from the Middle East - had not been since as early as the 1970’s (Iran, anyone? Hostages? Deposed Shah?)…and every president and every administration has to be willing to acknowledge that they did not do enough. Blaming is useless. But feathers are easily ruffled due to the polarization of this nation and the tenor of the times. And that polarization did not begin on January 21, 2001. It started, really, with Vietnam, grew through the 80’s and 90’s and now it is very nearly consuming us. All that said, Flopping Aces has posted a video of a news account I’d forgotten all about. It’s from NBC, and quite balanced, I think. It’s worth watching and remembering, and thinking how far we have come from this sort of passionless, unprejudicial reportage in much of the MSM. http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/09/08/path-to-911-sounds-a-stinker-after-all-that/trackback/ 6 Responses to “Path to 9/11 sounds a stinker, after all that” |
September 9th, 2006 at 12:58 am
FYI, Michael Medved, a true history buff and respected film critic saw the whole mini series. He gave it a GLOWING review.
K
September 9th, 2006 at 7:59 am
There is a wider question to be answered, as well: Is it morally acceptable to write fiction about real persons who have occupied public office in the real past?
My opinion is that it is not.
September 9th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Francis, I don’t know if I agree. Does that mean it’s also morally unacceptable to write glowing fiction about such people? So, it’s also morally wrong to write, for example, a docudrama about the Kennedys, starring Martin Sheen, William Devane or Bill Paxton, with positive overtones? Public figures fascinate us and there will always be dramatizations about them.
September 10th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Anchoress, I don’t want to watch that miniseries. I’d rather curl up with a book, or even shut myself inside my bedroom and cry while I look at my copy of One Nation.
‘
But I’m going to make the effor to watch it, with the sig.other… to spite Bill Clinton and his friends, because of their blatant attempt at censorship. I don’t care if it’s a flimsy miniseries. I just care about the First Amendment rights of the people involved in this film… just as Dems cared so deeply about the First Amendment rights of Michale Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11.
September 10th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Oh come on. Let’s just let this movie play and then everyone can decide for themselves. I suspect in the end the democrats will believe the Bush stuff and not Clinton and vice versa.
September 10th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Oh come on. Let’s just let the movie play and everyone can make up their own mind about it. I suspect that the democrats will believe the Bush stuff and not the Clinton stuff and vice versa. Making a mountain out of a molehill.