Nowrasteh admits Path to 9/11 scene was based on nothing at all

[kurth]

Path to 9/11 Writer Admits Controversial Scene Was ‘Improvised,’ ‘Accidents Occur’

ABC is marketing its docudrama, The Path to 9/11, as “based on the 9/11 Commission Report.” It is defending the films multiple inaccuracies by claiming some scenes were “drawn from a variety of sources.”

But yesterday, writer and avowed conservative Cyrus Nowrasteh admitted that the films most controversial scene was based on nothing at all. Nowrasteh told a right-wing radio station that the scene was “improvised.” From the New York Times:

Mr. Berger’s character is also seen abruptly hanging up during a conversation with a C.I.A. officer at a critical moment of a military operation. In an interview yesterday with KRLA-AM in Los Angeles, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the mini-series’ screenwriter and one of its producers, said that moment had been improvised.

“Sandy Berger did not slam down the phone,” Mr. Nowrasteh said. “That is not in the report. That was not scripted. But you know when you’re making a movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place. It’s the job of the filmmaker to say, ‘You know, maybe we can use that.’ ”

Nowrasteh’s attitude appears completely inconsistent with ABC Entertainment President Steve McPherson. In promotional materials accompanying the film, McPherson said, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/accidents-occur/

[City Lights]

1. "Accidents occur."

Up yours, Cyrus.

:nuke:

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. Wow!

You're much more polite than I'm feeling right now.

[City Lights]

8. I'm actually fuming.

Smoke coming outta the ears and rising from the keyboard. If I typed what I was thinking, it would surely be deleted. :evilgrin:

[karlrschneider]

10. Is that something like "shit happens"?

:grr: :grr:

[samsingh]

2. how does this help the debate if there are blatant lies in the film

why is abc giving free time to a movie packed with lies

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Because it's a "dramatization."

I got the ridiculous drivel response from my local ABC affiliate this morning. Blech!

[ellenfl]

7. if it is a dramatization, then the principals portrayed

in it should have fake names. i would think that all of the real persons could sue for defamation.

ellen fl

[Justice Is Comin]

4. They thought they were going to start a small little republican bonfire

but they're right in the middle of a raging inferno and they're throwing water on it like hell already.

Wait 'til it airs if they think they got problems now. :popcorn:

[Julius Civitatus]

6. That weasel is BLAMING his actors. That's cowardly and dishonest!

From my experience in the field, this is what I can say:

1. Nowrasteh is the producer. There is a director, David Cunningham. They make executive decisions about what goes in the can. They can ask the actor to do it as scripted, or they can choose to cut out that scene altogether. As they say in the business, "if it ain't in the script, it ain't in the scene."
   
   
2. Most actors are real professionals that do a fine job with the material they are given. Very few professional actors act like pampered and spoiled divas that can do whatever they want with the script. It may happen with highly paid, spoiled Hollywood superstars, but it doesn't happen with your average working actor. Most working actors are professional, obsessed with getting work, and they try to do the best interpretation of the script they are given, becuase it may affect their ability to get another gig.
   
   
3. Even if the actors went off a limb and improvised some actions and attitudes, they certainly did NOT rewrite those scenes, or came up with ways to consistently make the Clinton administration look bad. Is he trying to blame the actor for scenes involving elaborated locations and dialogs about the CIA catching Bin Laden? Impossible. Doesn't even make sense.

Nowrasteh is a WEASEL for trying to blame his manipulation of facts on the actors. He should be ashamed, and his actors should PROTEST this backstabbing from their producer. They should never work with this idiot again.

[pa28]

9. If wonder if he told ABC events in this movie were fact checked?

We've gone from 'based on the 911 report' to 'fictionalized dramatization' to 'essence of truth' and now 'just made up'.

[FredStembottom]

11. "Mistakes were made"

But, folks.....this is a crack - a beginning! This docu-drivel is becoming more discredited by the minute!

Just remind everyone you talk with or write to that this guy is saying that he let actors "improvise" the single most important point of the film: that the Clinton admin. was "chicken" to kill Bin Laden.

The #1 point in their "absolutely critical that you get it right" documentary was allowed to be kicked around the set like a microphone placement decision?

I - don't - think - so.

Whether it was "an accident" or deliberate the final decision to put it in the movie was his.

Expect even more dissembling as the day goes on.

And keep those cards and letters pouring in!

:popcorn:

[Warren DeMontague]

12. If they put in a scene of Bush eating Poo as NORAD is trying to call him

I'll forgive 'em.



You know, artistic license- it could have happened that way!

[rman]

13. "maybe we can use that" - even though it ain't true

Sure - if the point is to make propaganda.

[Straight Shooter]

14. "Accidents occur."

Sure. Uh-huh. Whatever you say, Nowrasteh, you squirming worm. Just like any so-called conservative, you're denying responsibility for your actions.

[ComerPerro]

15. "A variety of sources", like FreeRepublic, Rush Limbaugh,

the OReiley Factor, Hannity, etc...

Those kinda sources?