Paths

In an effort to act more like a real blogger (you know: peripatetic, short-attention-spanned, unable to entertain complex thoughts and possessed of a mile-deep stash of weirdly inappropriate, semi-articulate bile), I am following yesterday's micro-post with another.

If you haven't clued in to the kerfuffle over ABC's upcoming "docudrama" (a nicely dodgy neologism that nudges aside tired old "fiction"), here are two relevant visits you should make:

> The "Path to 9/11" blog

> A NYT story on irked former Clinton administration officials.

The contention is that said "docudrama" makes the Fox-like move of -- how to put it? -- lying about the former Prez's core position on bin Laden. The filmmakers suggest, it's said, that he refused to sign the "kill orders" (or whatever they're called) with which the CIA presented him for bin Laden. This apparently contradicts the historical record (thus putting the "drama" in "docudrama" -- and you have to admit, it's way more, well, dramatic).

The Rachel Maddow Show today made the additional announcement that certain former Clinton administration officials, including the ex-Prez, may be contemplating defamation suits based on the number of, uh, dramatic depictions that conflict with the record, and on the character-assassinating (anyone up for "revisionist historian"?) implications of said depictions. Curiously, Maddow says, ABC has thus far refused to supply Clinton, Albright, or Sandy Berger with copies of the film -- though they've been quick to send them off to right-wing bloggers.

A final note: I tried to make a comment on the "Path to 9/11" blog last night. It was entirely civil and G-rated, not even directed at ABC but at other posters who'd made spurious comparisons between Michael Moore's last film and the upcoming one.* Strangely, the comment has yet to appear. Maybe it just wasn't dramatic enough.

Thus endeth the post. More later on 9/11 films in general, and "docudramas" in particular.

* My point in the comment was, essentially, that there's a big difference between, on the one hand, a film that is produced by a single, named author and that one must pay to see in theaters or on DVD, and, on the other hand, a presentation by an infotainment conglomerate with a substantial news reputation to be broadcast over public airwaves. The expectations audiences reasonably bring to each are very different. A number of posters seemed to be cheering on factual inaccuracy (er, I mean dramatization) in the new film as not only justified but necessary by way of some kind of vengeance for Farenheit 9/11. Leaving aside the painting of Moore's film as inaccurate (which I don't accept, since I've never once heard a single cogent and credible assault on its specific facts), the two are different beasts altogether.