The Path To 9/11
Will watch the docudrama tomorrow night, if it's on, as it appears it will be.
I'm only interested in it as a drama. After five years of my own reading on this matter there will be no new facts that will necessitate a substantial rethinking of my understanding, but if it is in accord with that understanding, the vivification, which is the intent of drama, might be personally of use to me. I don't know how it is that literature can place meaning in my mind that I can't find with my brain, but I know it happens. This is the whole glory of arts, of poetry, music, the novel. So I hope it is a good and a true drama.
If it's not true, but skillful, and thus powerful? Still then, it will have value. It will vivify for me a particular point of view. Again, this is presuming it's done as something that can be called art.
Of course, the whole brouhaha over it so far is politics. The Democrats, who've learned nothing from 9/11, don't want to see the Clinton administration expressing the same attitudes towards this war as they continue to express now. It will make them look "soft". They are soft. So in that respect it appears the portrayal will be true. But I will have to watch it.
As to the "inaccuracies" that make it a "lie". As a criticism of a docudrama I see that as nonsense. It's true that for reasons of compression an individual will sometimes be portrayed in an act not committed. That's because in the drama their function is not individual but thematic; they express not individual will but a social force. Admittedly, that may unfairly make one individual the bogeyman when he's actually only one bogeyman of many; but when one stands for all it is not an untruth in terms of the history. --I'm referring primarily to Sandy. I actually don't much care if he hung up on the phone or not. That whole administration hung-up on the whole concept of duty. They understood no goal at all other than to last for eight years.
But I will have to watch it.
(1:41 AM)
....................
Just watched the first part. Worst camera work since man was no longer monkey. With a 40 million dollar budget you'd think somebody could have sprung twenty bucks for a tripod. Jiggle jiggle. Exhausting. And way too many facial close ups. The face up close, unless a context has been established, is both boring and oppressive. The artistic set apparently decided that jiggle and nostril-to-brow was intense. Really dull. This will not stay in my mind as a vivification.
The writing? Not enough dialogue. I doubt it could have been followed if the story were not already known, as such I don't know how effective it was for many. (ABC now doing a Clinton Cover-Your-Butt Nightline news cast, saying that the Northern Alliance scheme to get Bin Laden was harebrained and wouldn't have worked anyway...)
As to what was cut? Sandy Burger didn't hang up the phone but he wouldn't give the go ahead either. Madeline Albright didn't warn the Pakistanis of the cruise missile over-flight but did say they had to be warned. Sandy does come across as weak and unable to make decisions, Madeline as having no interest at all in getting Binny but much concern with "regional issues". In general, the higher echelons (except Louie Free) are all cover-your-butt bureaucrats.
As drama it's failure because of the bad camera work and because of the lack of enough expository dialogue. I'll see how it sits in my mind over the next hours but I don't think it's made an impression. (The bad guys are bad guys, that does come across.)
As to why the Democrats and Clinton were so upset? I don't know. The only criticism that's communicated is that there was ineptitude among the higher ups. So who's surprised? 9/11 happened, of course there was ineptitude. How can stating a universal presumption be an additional, current damage? Bubba may not have liked the Monica reference, may not have liked the "gutless" reference --that if Osama were killed he didn't know about it-- and may just have disliked being left out of the story: he's never shown taking any interest in pursing terrorism, and it's clear he'd not delegated that vigorous pursuit to anyone under him either.
I can see how he and Sandy and Madeline might not like it for reasons of personal vanity ("legacy", as they say) but why should the present Democrat leadership care? Right now they're the ones saying it's George Bush who's dropped the ball in pursuing Bin Laden, and this movie makes no reference at all to Iraq. I don't see how this movie implicates the present Democrats? Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe what offended them has been cut and I just don't know about it, but I just don't see why Harry Ried should be upset. The Clinton Administration was incompetent. So...? Or maybe they just don't like seeing the bad guys portrayed as really bad guys...?
In a few hours I'll read what the blogs have to say. There'll be a thousand posts up by then.
(11:20 PM)
I'm only interested in it as a drama. After five years of my own reading on this matter there will be no new facts that will necessitate a substantial rethinking of my understanding, but if it is in accord with that understanding, the vivification, which is the intent of drama, might be personally of use to me. I don't know how it is that literature can place meaning in my mind that I can't find with my brain, but I know it happens. This is the whole glory of arts, of poetry, music, the novel. So I hope it is a good and a true drama.
If it's not true, but skillful, and thus powerful? Still then, it will have value. It will vivify for me a particular point of view. Again, this is presuming it's done as something that can be called art.
Of course, the whole brouhaha over it so far is politics. The Democrats, who've learned nothing from 9/11, don't want to see the Clinton administration expressing the same attitudes towards this war as they continue to express now. It will make them look "soft". They are soft. So in that respect it appears the portrayal will be true. But I will have to watch it.
As to the "inaccuracies" that make it a "lie". As a criticism of a docudrama I see that as nonsense. It's true that for reasons of compression an individual will sometimes be portrayed in an act not committed. That's because in the drama their function is not individual but thematic; they express not individual will but a social force. Admittedly, that may unfairly make one individual the bogeyman when he's actually only one bogeyman of many; but when one stands for all it is not an untruth in terms of the history. --I'm referring primarily to Sandy. I actually don't much care if he hung up on the phone or not. That whole administration hung-up on the whole concept of duty. They understood no goal at all other than to last for eight years.
But I will have to watch it.
(1:41 AM)
....................
Just watched the first part. Worst camera work since man was no longer monkey. With a 40 million dollar budget you'd think somebody could have sprung twenty bucks for a tripod. Jiggle jiggle. Exhausting. And way too many facial close ups. The face up close, unless a context has been established, is both boring and oppressive. The artistic set apparently decided that jiggle and nostril-to-brow was intense. Really dull. This will not stay in my mind as a vivification.
The writing? Not enough dialogue. I doubt it could have been followed if the story were not already known, as such I don't know how effective it was for many. (ABC now doing a Clinton Cover-Your-Butt Nightline news cast, saying that the Northern Alliance scheme to get Bin Laden was harebrained and wouldn't have worked anyway...)
As to what was cut? Sandy Burger didn't hang up the phone but he wouldn't give the go ahead either. Madeline Albright didn't warn the Pakistanis of the cruise missile over-flight but did say they had to be warned. Sandy does come across as weak and unable to make decisions, Madeline as having no interest at all in getting Binny but much concern with "regional issues". In general, the higher echelons (except Louie Free) are all cover-your-butt bureaucrats.
As drama it's failure because of the bad camera work and because of the lack of enough expository dialogue. I'll see how it sits in my mind over the next hours but I don't think it's made an impression. (The bad guys are bad guys, that does come across.)
As to why the Democrats and Clinton were so upset? I don't know. The only criticism that's communicated is that there was ineptitude among the higher ups. So who's surprised? 9/11 happened, of course there was ineptitude. How can stating a universal presumption be an additional, current damage? Bubba may not have liked the Monica reference, may not have liked the "gutless" reference --that if Osama were killed he didn't know about it-- and may just have disliked being left out of the story: he's never shown taking any interest in pursing terrorism, and it's clear he'd not delegated that vigorous pursuit to anyone under him either.
I can see how he and Sandy and Madeline might not like it for reasons of personal vanity ("legacy", as they say) but why should the present Democrat leadership care? Right now they're the ones saying it's George Bush who's dropped the ball in pursuing Bin Laden, and this movie makes no reference at all to Iraq. I don't see how this movie implicates the present Democrats? Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe what offended them has been cut and I just don't know about it, but I just don't see why Harry Ried should be upset. The Clinton Administration was incompetent. So...? Or maybe they just don't like seeing the bad guys portrayed as really bad guys...?
In a few hours I'll read what the blogs have to say. There'll be a thousand posts up by then.
(11:20 PM)
posted by mouse at 11:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home