Wednesday, September 13, 2006
More about "The Path to 9/11"
The ADB docu-drama "Path to 9/11", written by Cyrus Nowrasteh and broadcast on September 10 & 11, 2006, created some interesting commentary about the obligations to "tell the truth."
ABC originally billed the drama as an objective re-telling of the story, based on the 9/11 Commission Report -- a "dramatization," it said, with "fictional scenes." Several times during the show itself, ABC ran acautio us disclaimer that the show was indeed a docu-drama, based on a variety of sources, including the 9/11 Commission Report. The network even made a few last-minute re-edits, but not enough to calm the storm.
For example, the Think Progress blog received 522 comments within days of its original message about the docu-drama. On the day before the broadcast, Washington Post film reviewer Tom Shales wrote that the mini-series "falls clumsily into traps that await all those who make fictional films claiming to be factual. Except this time, the event being dramatized is one of the most tragic and monstrous in the nation's history, not something to be trifled with."
ABC originally billed the drama as an objective re-telling of the story, based on the 9/11 Commission Report -- a "dramatization," it said, with "fictional scenes." Several times during the show itself, ABC ran acautio us disclaimer that the show was indeed a docu-drama, based on a variety of sources, including the 9/11 Commission Report. The network even made a few last-minute re-edits, but not enough to calm the storm.
For example, the Think Progress blog received 522 comments within days of its original message about the docu-drama. On the day before the broadcast, Washington Post film reviewer Tom Shales wrote that the mini-series "falls clumsily into traps that await all those who make fictional films claiming to be factual. Except this time, the event being dramatized is one of the most tragic and monstrous in the nation's history, not something to be trifled with."
Sunday, September 10, 2006
The ABC 9/11 Docu-Drama Flap
The ABC docu-drama about the 9/11 attack hasn't aired yet, but it is getting lots of attention. The point of discussion is one of the points of major interest to this blog: how free can one be in "improving" history to make it better viewing -- or better reading?
I'm pleased to see that most commentators are almost outraged that ABC's original version has scenes that are absolutely inaccurate. The point these commentators are making is that this story is too important to trivialize by such tampering. Moreover, the scenes subject to criticism depict real people, in a real story -- and these scenes present a picture that is directly contrary to the facts on public record.
David Gurgen, in comments on CNN's Reliable Sources, made a distinction between writing about real people and fictional characters. Writers must, he suggested, be very careful about accuracy when dealing with real people. On the other hand, he suggested, writers have more freedom with fictional characters placed in the midst of real events. This distinction, in my view, is significant.
Gurgen did not, however, address one of the questions writers face: how free can one be in writing about real people when the facts are NOT known? Is one free then to make them up, in an effort to tell a good story, or maybe, to illuminate a real event with well-considered supposition?
I'm pleased to see that most commentators are almost outraged that ABC's original version has scenes that are absolutely inaccurate. The point these commentators are making is that this story is too important to trivialize by such tampering. Moreover, the scenes subject to criticism depict real people, in a real story -- and these scenes present a picture that is directly contrary to the facts on public record.
David Gurgen, in comments on CNN's Reliable Sources, made a distinction between writing about real people and fictional characters. Writers must, he suggested, be very careful about accuracy when dealing with real people. On the other hand, he suggested, writers have more freedom with fictional characters placed in the midst of real events. This distinction, in my view, is significant.
Gurgen did not, however, address one of the questions writers face: how free can one be in writing about real people when the facts are NOT known? Is one free then to make them up, in an effort to tell a good story, or maybe, to illuminate a real event with well-considered supposition?
