Ray Richmond, the longtime entertainment/media columnist for
The Hollywood Reporter, was sent a screening copy of
The Path to 9/11, and his blogcolumn on the miniseries,
Five Years Later, 9/11 Is Reduced To Just Another Edition of 'Artistic License Theater', is the most thorough, stinging exegesis of the project that I've read to date.
Remember when 9/11 happened? In the rush of hyperbole, we were all convinced it represented the one cataclysmic occurrence that was utterly sacred. It would be forevermore depicted with the proper reverence and respect or not at all. This was hallowed historical territory, after all. Well, it took a mere five years for TV to render that ideal obsolete. We always hear protestations of, "It's too soon!" Well, in that spirit, allow me to chime in that it's too soon to be tampering with this truth as we would an urban legend.
His review - of the miniseries, of the dustup, of ABC/Cap Cities' motivation for producing PT 9/11 - deserves to be read in its entirety, but these bits demanded a wider forum:
On Thursday, ABC actually released a statement that read in part, "No one has seen the final version of the film because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticism of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."
Huh? Now that's kind of interesting. If this is the case, then I wonder what the network expected me to do with that "Path to 9/11" review copy it supplied me with a few weeks back. Was I not supposed to review it? Nothing on the DVD said it was incomplete or something less than critique quality. Yet somehow, if I level criticism based on viewing said screener, I'm doing something that's "irresponsible"? I've been a TV critic for the better part of 22 years, and that's a new one on me.
Richmond got his copy weeks ago. It probably went out in the same mailbag as Hewitt's copy, and Medved's copy, and Limbaugh's copy. Obviously they were encouraged to talk about it, but when Richmond attempts to review it, suddenly he's irresponsible.
He's right to be outraged at that. The question is why other critics aren't similarly outraged at Disney's double standard and highhandedness. (Hi there, New York Times!)
And, unlike The New York Times, Richmond is ready, willing, and able to connect the dots:
Here is one thing no one has bothered to ask: why does a network spend $40 million on a high-profile project and then not only air it outside of ratings sweeps but do so sans conventional advertising? What's in this for ABC and its parent Disney if not money? Goodwill? Well, I think we can effectively scrap that one. Where this tracks more logically is in the alleged symbiotic relationship between Disney and the current administration....
OK. That's about all I can quote here and be within fair-use parameters. But if you like what Richmond says and the way he says it, I urge you to go to his blog and read his entire review.
You can comment there as well...and if you'd like him to continue connecting these dots, and report on the financing and the money trail behind this shady project, you can urge him to do that too. He doesn't seem to be afraid of ruffling a few mousefeathers or doing some actual investigative spadework.