The Path to 9/11

BrettB · 09-12-2006, 12:36 PM

Looking forward to seeing the dvd. We had weather Sunday night and missed probably 15 to 20 minutes due to weather interruptions (not to mention the ever-present map of OK upper right with live radar that takes up nearly a 1/4 of the screen). Then last night the President's speech right in the middle sort of destoyed the flow.

Overall I thought it was well done. I'm not a big fan of the filmmaking style. (Is there a name for this? It sure would be helpful. I've seen the term shaky-cam but I'm not sure if that covers the funky edits, zooms and all the rest?) Anyway I survived it but it was about at the limits of what I can tolerate.

As for the content, I haven't read the entire 9/11 commission report but I've done some reseach and read much of the pertinent parts and I would say that they pretty much got it right. It is so very sad that there were so many missed opportunities to possibly avert or diminish the carnage.

Did they not show the 2nd tower fall?

Patrick_S · 09-12-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

As for the content, I haven't read the entire 9/11 commission report but I've done some reseach and read much of the pertinent parts and I would say that they pretty much got it right.

I have read the entire report and have to agree with the committee members who found it unacceptable for the screenwriter fictionalized key scenes. I know they trimmed some of the scenes after the individuals involved complained but the scenes still were misleading fictionalizations that appear to have been included to do nothing more then prompt the political agenda of the screen writer.

As for the production qualities, the cinematography, "shaky cam" is a good description of it, was poorly done. I wish more film makers would use steadicam instead but shaky cam seems to be all the rage right now.

Also I'm not certain if it was done on purpose or just another example of poor production qualities but I'm fairly certain that they spelled Albright’s first name incorrectly.

What's really sad is that many people will view this as history when it was really nothing more then a drama with had some historical events depicted.

TravisR · 09-12-2006, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrettB

I'm not a big fan of the filmmaking style. (Is there a name for this? It sure would be helpful. I've seen the term shaky-cam but I'm not sure if that covers the funky edits, zooms and all the rest?)

I usually call it 'crap'.

I guess the idea is to put the audience 'there' but it's a recreation so trying to act like it's a documentary is just fake.

Chris Lockwood · 09-12-2006, 03:05 PM

Yes, too bad they bowed to threats and made last-minute cuts.

Whoever played Cheney looked nothing like him.

Ken Chan · 09-12-2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

bowed to threats

Hardly. Most of the lies were still in it; both the fantasies they put in, and the uncomfortable truths they left out.

**HTF Ads**

Dennis Nicholls · 09-12-2006, 07:48 PM

I watched part of Sunday night's portion. I turned it off as it was giving me a headache. All of those fuzzy-jerky closeups....on a small TV it would be OK but it was terrible on my 56" RPTV.

This was the first "TV" show that I had watched in many years...all I generally watch are PBS nature shows and the like. Are most TV shows still using excessive close-ups on the assumption that most viewers watch on a 13" television?

Todd Stout · 09-13-2006, 01:35 AM

I must be getting used to the "shaky cam" since I didn't really notice it while watching The Path to 9/11 on my 46" RPTV. The only time I really notice that camera technique lately is while flipping channels and running across an NYPD Blue rerun. Man... that show makes me sea sick.

As for The Path to 9/11, I found it to be quite an interesting film. The production values appeared to be quite high for a television feature. As with all docudramas I take what I saw with a grain of salt but I certainly was glued to the TV for the nearly 5 hours that this ran.

LarryDavenport · 09-13-2006, 11:26 AM

I pretty much stayed away until the hijackings began then watched it until the end. What I saw was good television, but I feel watching reruns of this will be like when I catch reruns of Pearl Harbor on TV. I time watching it from when the Japanese pilots take off from the aircraft carrier, then change the channel when the battle is over.

Mike Williams · 09-13-2006, 11:45 AM

Nevermind.

John_Graz · 09-13-2006, 02:25 PM

mistake -

Jon Martin · 09-14-2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Chan

Hardly. Most of the lies were still in it; both the fantasies they put in, and the uncomfortable truths they left out.

What lies and fantasies are you referring to?

And why did Moveon.org call the writer of this a "right wing activist"? Checking his filmography, he has made films for Oliver Stone and Spielberg, about Unions and other events. Nothing right wing in his filmography.

I found it to be balanced. I'm surprised Rush Limbaugh has been praising it so, as the Bush administration came off pretty badly in it.

As far as the filmmaking goes, rather poorly done. It was interesting in how it put everything together, but didn't work as a film.

And I think they cast Cheney's father as Cheney. He was about 20 years too old.

Jesse Skeen · 09-14-2006, 05:56 PM

Apparently ABC found this important enough to air with no commercials, but not important enough to keep their damn logo off the screen! I'll watch it on DVD if it comes out.