‘The Path To 9/11′ Chaos
The blogosphere has recently exploded with news about the upcoming ABC mini-series “The Path To 9/11″. Decrying it as shameless Conservative propoganda, where outrageous accounts of Clinton’s culpability for 9/11 (as a result of his affair) were so blatant that ABC has now called it a fictionalization, people are livid with the network for allowing it to go forward.
To add fuel to the fire, people cite the film’s director as proof of its hidden agenda. Director David L. Cunningham is the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the Christian missionary organization Youth With A Mission (YWAM) International, of which I am a part. While it is enough for the critics that the dominate expression of YWAM is a fairly strong Evangelical American voice, they go farther by digging up every real and perceived fault of YWAM’s throughout its 46 year history (and the accurate ones are enough to get many YWAMer’s concerned). It is a blood bath.
Let me start by clearing away any assumptions. While I am a memeber of YWAM International, that does not mean that I agree with everything it does or has done, just as I don’t agree with everything that is and has been done in the name of Christianity. However, I identify with both regardless. Neither does my affiliation with YWAM or acquaintanceship with David Cunningham mean that I will agree with everything he represents or suggests in his film. I haven’t seen it, but having heard a great deal through people who were on the cast and set of the film, I suspect I will be frustrated by some of the takes. It won’t be the first time either. After the initial emotional impact, I found the highly partisan and imbalanced portrayal of events of the film “United 93″ somewhat offensive.
That being said, I am frustrated by the responses I am reading online. First, few of the harshest critics have even seen the film. I have little doubt that many of their criticisms will be valid, but there is a tacit assumption that the political leanings are part of some nefarious conspiracy. This is a a ridiculous claim, one that anyone who knows David Cunningham would reject. You may disagree with him (as I do in some areas), but his intentions are genuine and upfront. If he is guilty of misrepresentation, it is of no greater degree than the creative, but clearly imbalances perspectives of Michael Moore.
Further, the portrayal of YWAM has been completely unfair. I can’t help but see the irony of the critics accusing the film of representing an exaggerated and falsified version of the truth, bolstering their arguement by- you guessed it- representing an exagerrated and falsified version of the truth about YWAM. YWAM is a big organization that has been around for almost a half century. It is a decentralized organization with centres all over the world. The fact is we have made mistakes- big ones. There are things that happen still that make me uncomfortable. However, dragging YWAM through the mud to pump up an already extreme attack is petty and asinine.
I plan on watching “The Path To 9/11″ this weekend and will review it then. I am nervous about what will actually be in the film, as I know there will be fall out one way or the other. I’ll keep you posted.
Let’s not forget: <i>Path to 9/11</i> is not the only inaccurate and misleading docudrama.
The movie <i>United 93</i> is described as “meticulously researched” and “based on fact”, but there is <b>not</b> any indication that the German passenger Christian Adams was indeed a coward and appeaser and tried to stop the American heroes from storming the cockpit as the movie shows. My take on this in the Atlantic Review: <b>German 9/11 Victim Defamed in “United 93″ Movie</b>.
Thanks.
Hey “friend from Europe”,
Well put. I was extremely offended on how Adams was represented in the film (as I mentioned above). If the film is taken as fact, the only brave people were the white American men. I happen to be a white male born in the USA, but found it an audacious representation of events. I can only hope that “The Path To 9/11″ isn’t that extreme. From what I hear, ABC has cut some questionable scenes. Here’s hoping.
Peace,
Jamie
I think I picked up that it criticizes both Bush adminstrations, as well as President Reagan. So really don’t know what to think about its critics. Plus it was subjected to a final critique by, I believe, the 9/11 Commission. So there may be changes in the final cut.
I doubt seriously that it could begin to rival the spin of Michael Moore. George Stephanopoulos took him to task, I read recently. The United States is a highly charged political sphere (and really, battlefield). So this kind of complaining to me, is merely routine. And I speak as one who is a registered independent, and would not want to sign on the line of either party, finding plenty of problems, along with good, in both.
Just my thoughts. Thanks Jamie.
One other thing: I understand that due to the nature of it, it is rendered as a drama and not a documentary, it is based on what they consider to be true, but has fictional elements in it, as to how such and such may have happened, though such and such did happen.
As I understand it, anyhow….
Ted,
I think I take it more personally due to YWAM being dragged through the mud. I also know David Cunningham well enough to know that he does, likely, lean right. That isn’t a problem, just should be acknowledged. It is hard for anyone not to have leanings on this issue.
I wasn’t suggesting the degree of spin was equivelant to Moore, just that spin is nothing new. No matter WHO portrayed it or how they did so, it would have to be, on some level, a fictional version. The fact that they have not been as open about that fact is also par for the Hollywood course (i.e. Braveheart).
At any rate, I’ll weigh in on Tuesday or Wednesday after seeing both parts of the film.
Peace,
Jamie
Being a YWAMer myself I have been following this all with quite a bit of interest and wrote my own post about it as well.
I also wonder how YWAM has been labeled in a lot of these conversations as a “right-wing evangelical group” since at our YWAM centre we have people from many different Christian and political affiliations.
Hey Bill,
The big challenge is that YWAM is still largely measured by its American incarnation, which is fairly accurate. Alas! I’ll check out your post.
Peace,
Jamie
Here’s the thing, though: If it’s inaccurate and wrong-headed, I don’t WANT to see it. I don’t plan to sit through every possible 9/11 rehash propaganda job in search of one that’s not terrible and vile. I would rather just avoid all of them. The world needs fewer “dramatizations” in general, anyway. Plenty of real-time drama everywhere we look.
Veal,
But that is just the point, isn’t it. All productions, even the most thoroughly researched documentary CANNOT be free of bias. What is at question is a matter of degree: Is this film propoganda? Until we view it, we can’t say for sure. Surely those who lean in the opposite direction of the film maker will disagree with some of the content, but calling it propoganda might be too easy of a rejection without a fair appraisal.
In the end, however, if you don’t want to watch it, then you don’t have to. Just be careful not to cast judgment without all the facts, or in fact, you become guilty of what you are suggesting of this film. Just a thought.
Peace,
Jamie
As an ex-YWAMer I wanted to send out some support for those who are currently involved. There’s no Christian organization that has ever existed that hasn’t had people who’ve made some mistakes.
There’s a lot that parachurch organizations like YWAM have to teach the wider church.
John,
Thanks for your kind and balanced words. This is, indeed, the point I hope other will grasp. Thanks again!
Peace,
Jamie
Hi Jamie,
You got a special mention on Cannon Fire.
You can check out the article about you here:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/09/i-wasnt-expecting-to-see-this.html
I would have sent this to you personally, but I can’t find a contact form on your site.
Cheers.
Bill
Hey Bill,
Thanks. I responded to him, for all the good it will do. Alas!
Peace,
Jamie