Introduction to What\'s the difference between a documentary and a docudrama? Does either one have to be true?
![]() Photo courtesy Copyright © 2005 ABC, Inc. Scene from ABC's "The Path to 9/11" |
So what exactly is the problem with "The Path to 9/11"? People are upset about the miniseries on a few levels. One area that has former members of the Clinton administration in a tizzy has to do with the perception of a truthful representation and the defamation that can result from that perception. Although a docudrama does not have to be true, if it is presented as being based on the facts, as ABC has done, then making up certain crucial incidents leads to some problems for the real people being portrayed as taking part in those incidents. One scene reportedly depicts one of Clinton's security advisors, Richard Clarke, refusing to let the CIA assassinate Osama bin Laden because he felt the potential fallout might be too politically damaging to Clinton, who was in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal that already threatened his presidency. According to both Clinton and Clarke, this never happened. While this scene may add to the drama of the movie, it also presents a crucial piece of evidence that, if fictional, cannot be chalked up to dramatic license. The interaction is central to the movie's argument: that politics consistently stood in the way of attempts to neutralize terrorists before the World Trade Center attack occurred. If ABC bills the movie as a docudrama based in historical fact, and people watching the movie believe the incident between Clarke and the CIA actually occurred, ABC may be guilty of character defamation.
This leads us to another area of concern surrounding the movie: People are extraordinarily sensitive about what happened on September 11, and fictionalizing the events leading up to that event may be an irresponsible act of broadcasting unless the fiction is clearly delineated from the nonfiction. In ABC's movie, there is no distinction. There are no rules governing docudramas, but some may argue that it is irresponsible to confuse fact and fiction when depicting crucial incidents surrounding such an important and traumatic event.
![]() Photo courtesy Cinematic Intelligence Agency Michael Moore in "Bowling for Columbine" |
Some say that Moore's editing of the speech -- and his addition of at least one clip from a speech that actually happened in North Carolina a year later -- results in a tone that seems disrespectful and callous toward the tragedy that had happened just a week and a half before, while the full transcript of Heston's speech reveals no disrespect or callousness. So the issue is not that Moore edited the speech, but that he edited it in a way that omitted key statements and spliced together pieces that did not in fact occur in succession, leading to a misrepresentation of the true tone and content of the speech.
While many documentary filmmakers and film critics take issue with what they perceive as the corruption of the documentary genre, others point out that the act of recording the "truth" on film is fictionalizing in and of itself. Filming something from a particular angle imparts a point of view to reality, they say. And in putting together a film, even documentary directors -- and even those documentary directors who still use the traditional point/counterpoint format in their documentaries, consistently presenting both sides of the issue -- must make choices about which facts to put in and which facts to leave out. As a result, some claim that there can be no film that is entirely "true" or "factual." Still, others note the difference between leaving out certain facts due to time constraints or to make for a more palatable film, and leaving out certain facts in order to deliberately mislead the audience. A documentary that employs techniques of deception or misrepresentation, they claim, is not a documentary at all.
For more information on documentaries, docudramas and related topics, check out the following links:


