Last weekend, two made-for-TV movies had partisan political pundits frothing at the mouth: The first, Death of a President, was screened at the Toronto Film Festival on Sunday at about the same time as the second, The Path to 9/11, was airing on TV in the United States.
In both cases, however, I think all the fuss over things said and/or depicted in these movies, respectively, amounts to much ado about nothing. And here’s why:
Death of a President depicts the Robert-Kennedyesque assassination of President George W. Bush. This political consummation – so devoutly to be wished by Bush haters at home and abroad – takes place on 19 October 2007. And viewers are led to believe that, by then, frustrations with his presidency (i.e. the war in Iraq) had reached such a point of delirium that violent and unruly mobs stalked his every move – making his assassination inevitable, if not justified.
But, to exploit as much raw emotion as possible, the filmmaker, Gabriel Range, pulled a race card from the deck of predictable war-on-terror scenes for the denouement to this movie. (A twist that was as politically contrived as Survivor producer, Mark Burnett, using a race card this season to lift sagging ratings under the fatuous pretext of fostering racial dialogue and understanding.) Although, I suppose it’s no coincidence that Range is an Englishman who probably wishes that one of his films had inspired last week’s political coups d’état against British PM Tony Blair (for being Bush’s “lapdog” ally in the Iraq war).
It’s also interesting to note that the only Americans who seem bothered by this depiction of Bush being assassinated are right-wing Republicans. And, that their political outrage is being vented, as it invariably is – through talking heads at FOX News.
But frankly, I’m such a freedom-of-expression libertarian that I am not bothered in the least by this movie. Moreover, it seems patently hypocritical that the people hurling moral indignation at this film are the very same self-righteous zealots who were promoting The Clinton Chronicles during Bill Clinton’s presidency. After all, the producer of this movie, Pat Matrisciana, used creative license to portray Clinton as everything from a drug smuggler to a serial murderer. And because Clinton is a “public figure”, Matrisciana could get away with peddling his fictionalized rubbish as “the shocking truth.”
Apropos the shocking truth, The Path to 9/11, was initially promoted as a movie based on well-documented facts about how cells of Islamic jihadists out-witted the most powerful and technologically-advanced law enforcement authorities in the world to perpetrate the most spectacular crime in U.S. history.
But the movie – as scripted – would have chronicled Clinton in such a disreputable manner that even he could not take it laying down. Therefore, in the days preceding Sunday night’s premier, he and his Clintonistas used any means necessary to force ABC to cancel the movie. To their credit, however, the suits at ABC refused to bend over and to let Clinton have his way.
(Of couse, it should be noted that the path to 9/11 has been well-trodden by partisans on both sides of the political aisle since that fateful day. But, in case you need a refresher, click here for an excellent synopsis of the 2-part mini-series, which ended last night.)
For the record, ABC deleted several scenes depicting Clinton as too preoccupied with his Monica Lewinsky scandal and a looming Congressional impeachment to deal with Osama bin Laden and the looming al-Qaeda threat. In addition, the network agreed to run periodic disclaimers informing viewers that this was not a documentary but a movie based on facts published by objective fact finders. But anyone watching – as I did – could not help but get the impression that the Lewinsky scandal coupled with bureaucratic narrow-mindedness, in-fighting and ass-covering amongst members of the Clinton Administration led inexorably to what happened on 9/11.
Still, the movie’s most intriguing and ironic portrayal was that of FBI agent John O’Neil. After all, he more than anyone else seemed to fully comprehend and appreciate the clear and present danger al-Qaeda posed to the U.S. Yet, after quitting the FBI in frustration over the refusal of Clinton Administration officials to seize any opportunity to take-out bin Laden, O’Neil moved to head-up security at the World Trade Center’s twin-towers, where he was killed when al-Qaeda terrorists attacked on 9/11….
Meanwhile, Clinton and his PR flaks seem only troubled by the fact that this movie has sullied his reputation ever further. Which is understandable given how assiduously they have worked to perfect his post-presidential character – focused as it seems more on alleviating poverty and fighting HIV/AIDS than on using his power to prey on impressionable young women.
But the truth of this movie is clearly in the eyes of the beholder – especially since Republican members of the purportedly non-partisan 9/11 Commission say it does “a pretty good job” of depicting what actually happened; whereas, Democrat members say “it is still utterly and completely false.” Nonetheless, I think there was enough truth depicted for the movie to have been worthwhile. However, I do not think for a moment that it depicted the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Indeed, I am resigned to the fact that we will never know the “truth” about the path to 9/11.
Ultimately, I just hope this movie serves as one more dramatic reminder to politicians, bureaucrats and law enforcement authorities of their monumental failures. And I pray that it compels them to finally put aside their partisan politics and turf battles and coordinate efforts to better serve and protect the American people….
Death of a President, Path to 9/11
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.