On September 10th and 11th, 2006, The Path to 9/11 aired to an audience of 28 million viewers gaining seven Emmy nominations. It was a major success for ABC and Disney. Everyone involved was proud of the unbiased portrayal they created about the lead up to 9/11 from the 1993 attack on the WTC to September 2001. However, the miniseries almost didn’t air when the leftists began to circle their wagons before even seeing the film.  It is eerily similar to when yellow journalist William Randolph Hearst rallied his troops in Hollywood to get all copies of Citizen Kane destroyed in 1941. Fortunately, you can still watch Orson Welles’ great film.

As chronicled in the great documentary, Blocking The Path to 9/11, the Clinton camp got wind of The Path to 9/11 after the first half of it aired for the National Press Club. Shortly thereafter, their machine began to chew away at the project. Pundits and policymakers who had not seen a frame of celluloid rallied against the film as some kind of right-wing propaganda. The silly accusations have been refuted on numerous occasions by people involved with the project. Cyrus Nowrasteh who wrote and produced The Path to 9/11 has commented about his approach to the film:

The tactics of these Washington lawmakers — and their supporters — are no less than modern McCarthyism, something historians are keen to study, as long as it’s fifty years ago. MoveOn.org sent out e–mails demanding the movie be “yanked,” and accusing me of being a “right-wing activist who fabricated key scenes to blame Democrats and defend Republicans.” Anyone who has seen the movie knows this last claim is ridiculous. We are just as hard on the Bush administration failures as we are on those of the Clinton administration.

First, anyone who actually took the time to watch the film knows it is the most accurate account about the pre-9/11 world to date (ABC had it fact checked extensively before airing). Second, anyone who has ever met Cyrus knows he is not only one of the nicest guys in Hollywood, but he is most certainly not driven primarily by any political party. He is a filmmaker first and foremost; his primary goal is always to make a truthful picture. Take a look at his track record of films; it’s hardly a canon of partisanship. Cyrus comments about his drive for honesty:

I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for “The Path to 9/11.” I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal–to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. Like all Americans, I wish it were not so. I wish there were no terrorists. I wish there had been no 9/11. I wish we could squabble among ourselves in assured security. But wishes avail nothing.

The spin surrounding this film continues to this day, we started a Facebook group (join here) dedicated to keeping people informed about the censorship around The Path to 9/11. On more than one occasion the group was flagged as “abusive” and was shut down. Of course, the page always goes back up because there is nothing abusive about it. Please join the page and sign the petition (provided here) and pass it along to anyone interested in stopping censorship in Hollywood. Our goal is to make sure people know why this successful film has been buried. When asked, Disney always uses the same cop out, “it’s a business decision.” Big Hollywood’s own Mark Tapson worked on The Path to 9/11 and commented about it earlier this year:

Tom Borelli, however, is not baffled by this business plan. Director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project and a Disney shareholder, Borelli knows that this has less to do with a “business decision” and more to do with an ABC television project that drove former President Bill Clinton to near-apoplexy in his infamous interview with Chris Wallace, and which by extension is perceived to be a threat to the political future of Mrs. Clinton. Borelli has pointed out that Iger has been a steady Clinton donor since before the former first lady was elected to the Senate, and has accused Iger of protecting Hillary’s presidential campaign at the expense of shareholders. (Path screenwriter/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh himself was told privately by an ABC executive that “If Hillary weren’t running for President, this wouldn’t be a problem.”)

There was nothing wrong with the film and ABC knows it. In fact, the network planned on airing it annually in memory of the victims on 9/11. Unfortunately, political intimidation and censorship is still alive and well in America. It is our job to let Washington know they cannot censor us or decide what films we can and cannot watch. We must keep fighting to get The Path to 9/11 out of its locked state so people who want to see it can. It is important that we don’t give up and let the Clinton’s Stalinist fist have the final say in Hollywood. For more information please see the documentary Blocking The Path to 9/11 before the Clinton’s make another Hearst-esque maneuver.

In a recent article entitled “Washington-Set Films May Fudge Facts, But Good Ones Speak To Larger Truths,” the Washington Post’s Ann Hornaday discusses how D.C. audiences composed of political insiders scrutinize Hollywood’s D.C.-based historical dramas for fidelity to the facts. “Myth or reality?” she asks. “That’s the question posed by movies based on true events, and it’s a conundrum that Washington officialdom seems to have a perennial problem in reconciling.” As examples, she references such films as Charlie Wilson’s War, Thirteen Days, All the President’s Men, and of course, Oliver Stone’s controversial oeuvre: JFK, Nixon, and W. (I can’t tell you how long I’ve been wanting to use the word “oeuvre” in one of my blogs).

History buffs and D.C. insiders may nitpick about such films, but as Ms. Hornaday writes, “You don’t have to support Stone’s signature brand of revisionism to agree that overweening literalism can sometimes obscure a larger truth.”

Actually, the problem isn’t that adhering to the facts obscures the truth. The problem is that “overweening literalism” bogs down the storytelling. Bringing a fact-based story to the screen necessitates all sorts of manipulation of messy and inconvenient facts in order to compose a compelling, well-ordered tale: compressing time and events, creating composite characters and/or omitting others, putting imagined dialogue in the mouths of historical figures, etc. The trick, and the goal, is to manage all these creative techniques in a way that might “fudge facts,” as Ms. Hornaday says, but stays faithful to the truth.

She quotes The West Wing screenwriter Aaron Sorkin as calling nonfiction drama “a tricky needle to thread. When an audience sits in a theater having been told that ‘The Following is a True Story,’ they should look at it the way they’d look at a painting and not a photograph.” Exactly so, and I believe most audiences do view nonfiction dramas, or docudramas, that way. I believe most people understand that what they’re seeing is not a documentary or an exact record of facts, but an “artist’s rendition” of historical reality. (Even documentaries are not strictly collections of facts, of course; they too are carefully pieced together and shaped to tell an entertaining story from a particular point of view).

About All the President’s Men, which Hornaday says is considered the masterpiece of political drama, she notes that “it barely matters that the film’s most iconic piece of dialogue – ‘Follow the money’ – was never spoken in real life”:

Contrast this with the Left’s response to the 2006 ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11, which dramatized the chain of events that led to the Islamic attacks of that terrible morning almost exactly nine years ago (a morning the Left would like us to “get over”). As I’ve written about before, and as John Ziegler’s documentary Blocking the Path to 9/11 brilliantly depicts, Democrats hallucinated that the $30+ million miniseries was a hit job on the Clinton administration, concocted by a cabal of conservative filmmakers and somehow financed by a non-profit, Christian (gasp!) relief mission.

Without having seen a frame of The Path to 9/11, Democrat pit bulls like Senators Harry Reid and Louise Slaughter went into pre-emptive attack mode to protect their legacy, claiming that the miniseries was a pack of libelous lies, and threatening to pull ABC’s license if the show aired. Meanwhile an internet-fueled smear campaign spearheaded by the unscrupulous character assassin, blogger Max Blumenthal, ramped up a mob mentality among the lonely and the impotent in the blogosphere. Ultimately, Bill Clinton himself boiled over about it in his infamous interview with Chris Wallace.

They pulled out all the stops not only to censor The Path to 9/11, but to bury it, because the Left knows how critical it is to control the “consensus history,” that “usable past” that Ann Hornaday mentioned. In the end, none of their threatened lawsuits materialized, because the miniseries was faithful to the larger truth and they knew it. But the damage had been done – the show aired only once, and it remains unavailable on DVD.

This is the third time I’ve written about Fair Game for Big Hollywood. Why bother to devote so much space to a movie that’s fated for box-office oblivion anyway? Because it’s important to call out the Left’s persistent efforts to establish their ideologically correct narrative when the historical evidence doesn’t conform to it. Facts may be stubborn things, to paraphrase John Adams, but they don’t stop the Hollywood Left from spinning a “larger truth” out of a lie.

That was the arrogant declaration of victory from the Organization of the Islamic Conference nearly two years ago, regarding the shrewdly orchestrated Muslim mayhem around the world protesting such infidel abominations as the Danish Muhammad cartoons and Geert Wilders’ short film Fitna.

“Red lines” indeed – a phrase chillingly reminiscent of Samuel Huntington’s famous observation that “Islam has bloody borders.” Except that the red lines the OIC is referring to aren’t geographical – they are the ever-tightening limits that Muslim fundamentalists are imposing to choke off our freedoms.

The influential OIC is the world’s largest Muslim assembly, consisting of 57 member states (you know, the same number of U.S. states candidate Obama campaigned in). Its primary aim is “conducting a large-scale worldwide effort to confront Islamophobia.” (As I’ve written here before, Islamophobia is a mythical beast that the OIC and collusive groups like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, use to intimidate us into craven appeasement.) Their goal is to abridge our free speech by making criticism of Islam an international crime; their strategy works because the West has been so emasculated by multiculturalism that we’d rather embrace cultural suicide than offend the tender sensibilities of such violent barbarians as the Danish cartoon rioters.

Everyone is aware by now that Comedy Central’s South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone were targeted by a not-so-subtle threat from Zachary “Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee” Chesser, the leader of a small New York-based group of fanatics at RevolutionMuslim.com. Chesser found the fearless South Park satirists guilty of an insulting depiction of Islam’s prophet Muhammad as someone who – wait for it – cannot be depicted without incurring death threats. To drive his point home, Chesser posted a picture of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh lying on an Amsterdam sidewalk, shot several times in broad daylight by an unrepentant Islamic fundamentalist, his throat cut, a machete stuck in his chest and a note calling for holy war pinned to him with a second knife. The message was clear – van Gogh had been executed for insulting Islam with his short film Submission, and now Parker and Stone can expect the same fate.

The site RevolutionMuslim.com is now down, but at the related RevolutionMuslim.blogspot.com is an exhaustingly wide-ranging, unapologetic declaration with the catchy title, “Clarifying the South Park Response and Calling on Others to Join in the Defense of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).” Far from backing off from the implied threat, the declaration’s poster – presumably Chesser – launches into an anti-American rant and a scholarly justification for Islam’s position that the punishment for blasphemy is death. He stresses that it is absolutely incumbent upon all Muslims to abide by sharia law, so any Muslim who “condones” South Park’s behavior does not possess “even the weakest of faith.” So much for moderate Islam.

But what about freedom of speech? “As Muslims we do not define speech which has no place in a moral society as ‘free speech.’” Indeed, free speech “is not a value that the Muslims share with America as a whole.” The declaration closes with an ominous quote from Chesser’s idol Osama bin Laden: “If there is no check in the freedom of your words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions.” Well there it is, then. We can either curb our speech, or cross that red line and deal with the consequences from Muslims who are commanded, by Islamic law, to execute us.

In reporting on this controversy, the media have, as usual, resorted to their fallback narrative of describing Islamic fundamentalists as “loners” and “crazy people” who have hijacked what would otherwise be the Religion of Peace. The danger in these dismissive labels is that we mistakenly view the terrorists as isolated nut jobs, when in fact they are united by a common goal – the capitulation of the West and the establishment of sharia worldwide – and they are perfectly capable of articulating and ideologically justifying it. Whether the dozen or so members of Revolution Muslim and the 57-member states of the OIC are officially linked or not, they are working toward the same end.

CAIR’s ubiquitous spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper calls Revolution Muslim “an extreme fringe group” that is smearing Islam with its “outrageous, irresponsible” statements. But CAIR hasn’t issued a formal statement about the affair, ostensibly because it doesn’t want to give South Park any more attention. Too bad, because amid all this uproar, CAIR is throwing away a golden opportunity to explain exactly how these “crazies” have “hijacked” the religion. This would be the perfect time to discredit their “outrageous, irresponsible” distortions, wouldn’t it? And to stand with the South Park creators in defense of free speech?

Instead, Hooper would rather move on because “people are pretty tired of this whole ‘Let’s insult the prophet Muhammad thing.’”  They are? I wasn’t aware that there even was a “whole ‘Let’s insult the prophet Muhammad thing.’” It’s not like it was ever a wildly popular fad, since anyone deemed to have insulted Muhammad ordinarily ends up dead or living under 24-hour guard.

Actually Mr. Hooper, what people are pretty tired of is Islamic violence and open intimidation, attacks on our freedoms and rights, and false charges of racism and Islamophobia. What people are pretty tired of, in short, is the whole, “Let’s behead those who insult Islam thing.”

The Los Angeles Times claims that such threats present a dilemma for media companies, who are “struggling to balance free speech with safety concerns and religious sensitivities.” This is giving them way too much credit. The media and the entertainment industry care absolutely nothing about religious sensitivities; if anything, they normally delight in mocking and sneering at faith, especially Christianity. But they treat Islam with kid gloves because, as Fox’s Bill O’Reilly said, “these people are killers and they will kill you.”

Nor do media companies care about free speech except when it suits them. They shut down politically inconvenient truths, such as Disney/ABC’s shameful suppression of The Path to 9/11 miniseries, which I have written about here. And they fold (like a Bedouin tent, as Mark Steyn hilariously put it) at the first hint of Muslim disapproval. No amount of Christian offense would compel Comedy Central to rein in South Park’s depiction of Jesus defecating on the American flag, but in the wake of the Revolution Muslim threat, Comedy Central decided to bleep over any subsequent reference to “Prophet Muhammad,” and his visual portrayal was replaced with a black “Censored” bar. There’s a reason Islam means “submission,” and Comedy Central has exemplified it.

And as for media companies’ “safety concerns”: every time they cave in to Islamist threats of violence, the terrorists win, as the corny saying goes. It quite simply encourages our enemy to ramp up the threats, which then endangers even more innocents.

The OIC boasted about “red lines that should not be crossed” – well, the time has come for Hollywood to stop placating these murderous zealots in its usual way, with knee-jerk self-censorship, and to draw a line in the sand of our own, against religious totalitarianism. In the absence of any government acknowledgement that fundamentalist Islam is a serious threat to our way of life, the entertainment industry must rally behind Parker and Stone, and take the lead in a cultural counteroffensive against the jihadists.

Unless Americans stand shoulder-to-shoulder against such assaults on our hard-won Western values, Islamic fundamentalists will continue to be more effective at importing sharia law than we are at exporting democracy. We must stand for our principles and freedoms with an even greater degree of unwavering fervor and cultural pride than the jihadists possess. Or make no mistake, we will all be witness to the slow, humiliating death of Western civilization.

But you will look in vain for a DVD of the extraordinary and controversial Disney/ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11. 

Disney President and CEO Robert Iger

A $30+ million project that aired without sponsors on two September nights in 2006, The Path to 9/11 dramatized the historical thread that connected the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Islamic attacks on American interests throughout the ‘90s, and the terrorism of that fateful morning in 2001. 

Prior to its premiere, the producers at ABC were so proud of the impending project that they had high hopes of airing Path every 9/11 anniversary and showing it in schools across this country as an engaging educational tool – until an accusation of “conservative bias” (horrors!) on the part of the filmmakers quickly spun into liberal hysteria that the project was actually a “well-honed propaganda operation” on the part of a secretive, right-wing network-within-a-network. 

(Honestly, how divorced from reality must one be to believe that a supposed stealth cabal of conservatives could conspire to get a $30+ million miniseries green-lit in Hollywood? That’s damn near impossible for liberals to achieve. The whole outrageous story is narrated in John Ziegler’s inimitable style in his riveting documentary Blocking the Path to 9/11.) 

Clinton administration alumni, fearing the miniseries would highlight their flaccid response to the growing threat of Islamic extremism and tarnish their political legacy, pulled out all the stops to suppress it. The show very nearly wasn’t aired at all – Robert Iger and Disney were pressured by the Senate Democratic leadership, led by Harry Reid – it hasn’t aired since, and today you cannot even obtain it on DVD.

And why not? Disney President and CEO Robert Iger explains without elaboration that it’s a “business decision.” Oh, well then, case closed. Not only does he refuse to re-air The Path to 9/11 or release a DVD, but he has no intention of even selling the DVD rights to another company. I’m no financial wizard, but I can recognize that, as business decisions go, willfully taking a $30+ million bath on your product when there is a vast audience hungry for it and distributors making offers, is not one of the more lucrative marketing strategies I’ve ever heard of. 

Tom Borelli, however, is not baffled by this business plan. Director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project and a Disney shareholder, Borelli knows that this has less to do with a “business decision” and more to do with an ABC television project that drove former President Bill Clinton to near-apoplexy in his infamous interview with Chris Wallace, and which by extension is perceived to be a threat to the political future of Mrs. Clinton. Borelli has pointed out that Iger has been a steady Clinton donor since before the former first lady was elected to the Senate, and has accused Iger of protecting Hillary’s presidential campaign at the expense of shareholders. (Path screenwriter/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh himself was told privately by an ABC executive that “If Hillary weren’t running for President, this wouldn’t be a problem.”)

Borelli has publicly pressured Iger at shareholders’ meetings and twice made formal offers to purchase the DVD rights, only to be ignored. He has become such a thorn in Iger’s side over this apparently touchy issue that, after Borelli finished a presentation at one shareholders’ meeting, the Disney chief responded to Borelli’s outstretched hand with an obscenity that would have set Mickey Mouse’s bow tie spinning. Borelli promptly returned to the podium and announced what had just happened, to the astonishment of the shareholders. A publicly cursing Disney head honcho more closely resembles a South Park parody than the squeaky-clean image Walt’s company has cultivated for many decades. 

And how has this corporate self-sabotage and political favoritism affected Mr. Iger’s standing in the industry? Well, this Saturday night, the Directors Guild of America will honor him with their Honorary Life Member Award at the 62nd Annual DGA Awards. The Award is given “in recognition of outstanding creative achievement, leadership in the industry, contribution to the DGA or to the profession of directing.” Past recipients have included Walt Disney, Darryl F. Zanuck, Barry Diller, and Jack Valenti. 

Tom Borelli

I can’t speak for how Mr. Iger has “contributed” to the DGA or to the profession of directing, but “leadership in the industry”? I would think that the most basic requirement of business leadership in the entertainment industry would be to ensure the highest possible profit for your company and its shareholders, not to suppress a product with significant market potential to protect your political friends. Above and beyond that, real leadership would be to stand behind one of the finest docudramas in television history, and to assert the primacy of free speech in the face of an hysterically politicized campaign for censorship. As Mr. Nowrasteh wrote in the Wall Street Journal: 

Corporate timidity is preventing millions of Americans from finding The Path to 9/11 on DVD – though other politically controversial movies are readily available, such as Loose Change, which argues that the Bush administration targeted American citizens for death in an elaborate and sinister plot; or Michael Moore’s unabashedly biased Fahrenheit 9/11. These highly-charged movies, which don’t even offer a pretense of balance, and others can be found online or in retail outlets and DVD rental stores across the country.

And so they should be – just as The Path to 9/11 should be.

“We will write our own future, and the future will be what we want it to be.” – Barack Obama

In a quiet and seemingly innocuous gesture, President Obama has designated 9/11 as “The National Day of Service and Remembrance.” Personally, I liked the ring of “Patriot Day,” and what does “service and remembrance” mean, precisely ? The idea is to get Americans to “engage in meaningful service to create change…in four key areas”: education, health, energy/environment and community renewal. None of these seems to have anything to do with honoring 9/11, but that seems to be the point: in the Huffington Post, Muslim-American playwright Wajahat Ali wrote, “In the US, we are trying to move away from focusing on 9/11 as a day of horror, and instead make it a day to recommit ourselves to national service.” An excellent Spectator article provides a blunter translation: “Nihilistic liberals are planning to drain 9/11 of all meaning.” Why? ”They think it needs to be taken back from the right.”

In other words, they resent the surge of patriotism and righteous outrage stirred up by the attacks, sentiments that empower the political Right. In order to advance the leftist agenda of dismantling American exceptionalism and recasting ourselves as the villain in our history books, they need Americans to put 9/11 behind us, forget the victims, forget that our enemy danced in the streets in celebration, forget that Islamic terror plots on our very shores continue to be disrupted, and forget that our rights and freedoms are under assault by a subversive civilizational jihad.

It seems impossible to believe that that morning could be forgotten – just as it was once impossible to believe that our government could erase “jihad” and “Islamic” and “terrorism” from our national lexicon, preventing us from even naming the enemy, or that an American President could proclaim us no longer a Christian nation, but rather one of the world’s largest Muslim countries. There was a time when screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh’s extraordinary 2006 ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11 was going to be shown in schools across this country and be aired every 9/11 anniversary – until the Clinton administration, wanting you to forget their flaccid response to the growing threat of Islamic extremism, and fearing the show would tarnish their political legacy, pulled out all the stops to suppress it; it very nearly wasn’t aired, and today you can’t even obtain it on DVD.  (This whole story has been related fascinatingly in John Ziegler’s must-see documentary Blocking the Path to 9/11). It’s impossible to forget that morning only if we fight to keep its memory alive.

Americans can commit themselves to public service any or every other day of the year; 9/11 should be reserved for solemn remembrance and renewed commitment to preserving American security, values and sovereignty. A day of greening your neighborhood? I’m all for planting trees, but what does “green” have to do with 9/11?  Only that it’s the color of Islam. But if the President insists, allow me to suggest some service appropriate to the day: 

Education? How about this: educate yourself and your children about 9/11 and about the continuing Islamist threat – not only of overt acts of terrorism, but the insidious dangers of “stealth jihad” and “creeping sharia.”

Environment and community renewal? Okay, beautify your block by flying the Stars and Stripes. It sends a simple but unmistakable message to the enemy and their useful idiots that, unlike our post-American President and his fawning media, you are proud to be American; you believe in American exceptionalism; you believe that making this day about installing fluorescent light bulbs trivializes the memory of 9/11’s victims; and you will never let their deaths be in vain or erased from history.

Eight years ago, nineteen fanatical Muslims turned hijacked aircraft carrying hundreds of terrified passengers into missiles targeting symbols of American might. Nearly 3000 innocents died horribly that day, including hundreds of courageous, selfless first responders making a superhuman effort to rescue their fellow citizens. The hijackers are regarded by their fellow Islamists as heroes and martyrs in the cosmic war against the Great Satan America. That war is by no means over, and thus, in the Faulknerian sense, neither is 9/11. We owe it to the victims to keep this day alive in our hearts and national consciousness - and not allow the Left to bury it.

The execution scene at the heart of “The Stoning of Soraya M.“ is all force and little subtlety. Some audiences might flinch at the visuals, while others may draw parallels to the violence at the core of “The Passion of the Christ.”

But director/co-screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh says a version of the film featuring a shortened stoning sequence didn’t test as well as the full-length movie.

“This movie is a ticking clock to an execution. That execution is a primitive rite we’re witnessing, and we need to go through each stage of it,” he says. ”It’s almost a catharsis.”

Not all audiences are ready to take the journey.

He says about five or so people typically leave the theater during test screenings once the execution starts – but roughly half return to watch the film’s finale.

Nowrasteh, who is of Iranian heritage, has been watching the news reports coming out of Iran in recent days as intensely as any viewer.

“The people inside who are twittering and communicating are doing an incredible job,” he says.

He understands the complex position President Barack Obama faces regarding the ongoing protests. If he had the president’s ear he’d advocate no direct action – for now.

“He can exert some moral influence and I think he can be a little more forceful. He’s a little too standoff-ish,” he says.

But if more violence breaks out, and more protesters die, then President Obama will look bad if he continues to deal with the current regime, he says.

“You can’t legitimize this kind of repression,” he says.

Nowrasteh may face opposition from advocates of Islam when “Stoning” hits theaters June 26, but the filmmaker is no stranger to controversy. He wrote the ABC miniseries “The Path to 9/11,” a project critical of President Bill Clinton’s policies toward terrorism.

The filmmaker says there’s nothing new to report on a possible DVD release of the 2006 miniseries. And he blames Bob Iger, president and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, for the miniseries remaining in creative limbo. Iger has supported the Clintons in the past, and critics contend that connection is the reason for the ABC film remaining on the shelf.

“As long as Bob Iger is running the company, they won’t release the DVD,” he says.

Christian Toto is a contributing reporter for The Washington Times, MovieMaker Magazine and boxoffice.com. He blogs about film at whatwouldtotowatch.com and at The Denver Examiner.

Directed by Cyrus Nowrasteh (The Path to 9/11) and written by Nowrasteh and his wife Besy Giffen-Nowrasteh, Soraya is based on the 1995 non-fiction book of the same name by Freidoune Sahebjam. Soraya takes place after the Islamic revolution in Iran and centers around Soraya (played by Mozhan Marnò), a woman whose husband, Ali (played by Navid Negahban), has tired of her after 20 years of marriage and wishes to discard her for a younger woman. Actually, “younger” is an understatement, as Ali lusts after a 14-year-old girl. Soraya knows about Ali’s plans, but won’t agree to a divorce because she knows she will be unable to provide for her two young daughters (the two sons will stay with Ali, of course). Ali must then come up with another scheme for getting rid of his uncooperative wife, and he uses guile, cunning and good old-fashioned blackmail to get the key players in place for what is passed off as a religious cleansing rite.

Intricately involved in the plan to rid Ali of his wife are the Mullah (played by Ali Pourtash), Ebrahim, the Mayor (played by David Diaan), and Hashem, the village mechanic (played by Parviz Sayyad). When writing the script, the Nowrastehs stayed true to the real-life characters, but felt they needed to add shading to the characters of the men in order to more broadly reflect how different people react under extreme peer pressure and mob rule. “Frankly, we humanized many of the male characters to show their inner conflicts and dilemmas, whereas in the book they are all evil to the core,” said Cyrus. Each of these men has a reason for his complicity, and while some of their reasoning is almost understandable, it doesn’t make it any easier to accept. In fact, the entire village is swept up in this religious fervor, and the relish with which the village men (and even some of the women) take part in the repulsively violent proceedings is truly a window on the failings of mankind.

Because you know going in what will happen – Soraya is killed in a brutal “religious” stoning ritual on charges of adultery – much of the drama is in what takes place beforehand: seeing how the beautiful, kind, caring Soraya is set up for a fall from which there is no getting up. Her aunt Zahra (played by Shohreh Aghdashlooo) sees what is happening. although she doesn’t know specifics, she warns Soraya that some kind of plot is afoot, but Soraya refuses to believe that anyone would go to such trouble on her account. When she realizes, too late, what is happening, Soraya says, “So he’s finally done it. He’s gotten rid of me.” And she knows she is trapped: there is no escape.

Soraya is at her happiest when she is with her young daughters, and her greatest concern after discovering her own fate is what will happen to them. The tender scene where she says goodbye to them is in stark contrast to her final words with her sons – one of whom tells the other to “act like a man.”

The Mullah prepares for his part in the stoning as he gets his beard trimmed and, when he arrives at the pit, he has changed into a black robe and is wearing sunglasses – like some kind of medieval pop star. The grandstanding is quite sickening to behold.

The script is riveting and the cinematography is fabulous – the stark beauty of the mountain village underlining the bleak outlook on life for the women who live there. As Ali tells his sons, “This is a man’s world. Never forget that, boys.” In fact, such is the man’s world that Soraya’s elderly father turns against her too. He even gets the honor of casting the first stone.

As for the stoning scene itself (achieved by puppetry, stunt performers and CGI), it’s brutal, cruel and shocking. It’s hard to believe the director toned it down: “I didn’t want to have anyone mistake what they were seeing for standard, popcorn movie violence but I also didn’t want it to be so graphic that it overwhelmed the audience.” Nowrasteh added, “All I can tell you is that compared to what I saw and read [about real stonings], the scene in the movie is far less graphic than it could have been.” Be prepared for real tears, and not just during the stoning scene: I had to work hard to keep myself from breaking down completely. Throughout the film I could hear exclamations of disgust from other viewers (especially when God was invoked as a reason for what was happening), and the man two seats away from me was audibly sniffling.

Much of the importance of this film lies in the real-life bravery of Zahra and her determination to tell the story of what happened to her beloved niece. She not only endangers herself, but also journalist Feidoune Sahebjam (played by Jim Caviezel in a small but pivotal role). Their chance meeting turns into what is arguably the biggest story of his career, but he must dodge the mayor, the Mullah, and a couple of members of the Revolutionary Guard after speaking with Zahra. The question that remains, of course, is that if indeed “Islam” demands it” and “it’s God’s law,” why the attempt to hush it all up?

The cast is first rate, with everyone giving solid performances. Aghdashloo shines as Zahra, the fearless woman who will not rest until she does what she can to tell the world of the cruel injustice visited upon Soraya. Marnò plays Soraya with a haunting grace and underlying strength that, despite having all forces against her, can never truly be vanquished. John Denby’s score provides the proper mood throughout, while the photography and editing are also essential to the telling of the story. Except for the scenes where Zahra is telling Sahebjam her tale in English, the movie is in Farsi with English subtitles, which immerses the viewer in Soraya’s world more completely than would have happened had the movie been in English.

As I left the screening room and walked down 48th Street, I was in a daze. It was a beautiful summer evening in New York City and yet I wondered how I could enjoy it after seeing the stark reality of brutality that continues to exist against women (and some men). I walked by a movie set – not unusual in New York – and wondered about the movie being filmed. Was it a comedy? An action film? I’m not a movie or theater snob; I like fluffy entertainment as much as the next guy. You won’t often hear me saying, “This is an important film,” but I’m saying so now. I certainly don’t expect The Stoning of Soraya M. to outperform Transformers 2 at the box office, but it will haunt those who see it. As difficult as it is to watch, Soraya’s story must be told. If it can save lives, she will not have died in vain.

Due to the film’s graphic nature, I would not recommend it for anyone under 17 (hence the R rating).

Rated R (cruel and brutal violence); 1 hr 56 min

Director Cyrus Nowrasteh has news for people who think the public execution scene at the heart of “The Stoning of Soraya M.” is too long, too graphic or too uncompromising in its horror. The real thing is worse. Much worse.

Nowrasteh’s “Stoning,” which debuts in select cities June 26, tells the true story of an Iranian woman accused of adultery by her narcissistic husband and subsequently stoned, per Sharia law, for her crime. The film, based on the book by journalist Freidoune Sahebjam, reveals its critical sequence via the title. But audiences will still recoil at the monstrous behavior on display.

“I want people never to forget what a stoning is,” Nowrasteh says. “I’ve seen it on tape, and it’s much worse.”

Nowrasteh, who wrote the ABC miniseries “The Path to 9/11,” read Sahebjam‘s book back in 1994 but figured no one would green light a film based on the harrowing true story. The story stuck with him all the same, and years later he and his wife, screenwriter Betsy Giffen Nowrasteh, decided to try to make such a movie themselves. Wresting the legal rights to the book took time, but they had very little competition, he says. Only two Italian directors flirted with the notion of making the book into a movie, as did, briefly, director Costa-Gavras (“Missing”).

Standout Iranian actress Shohreh Aghdasloo (“The House of Sand and Fog”) signed on after reading the Nowrastehs‘ script, and some of the director’s past connections helped flesh out the funding. Nowrasteh promised the book’s author to use Iranian actors and have them speak Farsi in the film which came in under $4 million. He also had no intentions of sugar coating the main story. The biggest change from the book came with the supporting characters, who display a complex range of emotions regarding the stoning – even those who take part in the atrocity.

“If you read the book you would see just how far I went in the writing the script,“ he says, adding even the selfish husband who accuses his wife of adultery is given flashes of humanity. “In the book there was no shading.“

Tomorrow: Nowrasteh shares how a “user friendly” version of the stoning scene fared with test audiences and his frustration that “The Path to 9/11″ remains unavailable on DVD.

Christian Toto is a contributing reporter for The Washington Times, MovieMaker Magazine and boxoffice.com. He blogs about film at whatwouldtotowatch.com and at The Denver Examiner.

Directed and co-written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, “The Stoning of Soraya M.“ is based on Freidoune Sahebjam’s novel and stars Jim Caviezel and Shohreh Aghdashloo. According to a press release, it opens June 26th “in New York, Los Angeles and other key markets, with a national roll out to follow.”

More information is available at the official website.

However, coming from an area of the “entertainment” world (talk radio and documentary films) where expressing a strong opinion is not only allowed, it is mandatory; I come at this challenge from a different perspective than many of the writers for this site. I believe that a complementary relationship between those who are just now slowly “coming out” and those of us who are already battle scarred and hardened is absolutely vital to our side having any chance in the message/information war which is currently raging, and in which we have been getting creamed, for far too long.

And make no mistake this is a war we are in. One of the many reasons we are losing so badly is that their side gets this, our side does not.

When you are in a battle like this (even one that usually doesn’t involve real bullets, but rather only the verbal variety) you need generals, infantry and diplomats all working in coordination and in the best interest of the team. In my experience, our forces are largely disorganized, discouraged and in disarray. Consequently, our soldiers, through little fault of their own, are forced to act out of their own survival instincts rather than out of what might be good for the cause.

As someone who is at heart a warrior and who has put himself on the firing line with the scars (and lost jobs) to prove it, I want to make it clear that I am honestly not making a negative value judgment about those who choose to take a safer and more moderate route. In fact, I envy the ability to put self preservation in its proper priority and to properly pick and choose one’s spots. I wish my DNA was designed more towards the “diplomat,” but unfortunately this is clearly not the case. So instead, I am simply using what I have.

The point I wish to make is that in order to make efficient use of the division of labor concept, we need to accept that some of us are fighters, some of us are diplomats but we are both needed equally in this battle. All I ask is that we consider this simple deal: the “fighters” won’t disparage the manhood of the “diplomats” if the “diplomats” agree to provide some cover, or at least a little safe refuge every once in a while.

There have been numerous times in my own career when I wish such an understanding had already been in place, but the most dramatic example of which I am aware became the subject of my first film.

In 2006, ABC ran a two-night, five-hour-plus mini-series called “The Path to 9/11.” The writer/producer of this amazing film was Cyrus Nowrasteh. During the pre-broadcast controversy Nowrasteh was smeared by the mainstream media and threatened by the far left all because he had the audacity to publicly express opinions that were not “liberal.” While the left-wing blogs went on an almost literal search and destroy mission aimed at him and his family, the counter attack from the right (outside of talk radio) was, at best, anemic.

Consequently, even though the facts were almost 100% on Nowrasteh’s side (as proven in my film “Blocking the Path to 9/11”), Disney caved to the political pressure, severely edited the film, has never allowed it to be broadcast again, and even prevented the customary DVD release. If ever there was an event that personifies everything conservatives know about the plight we face in Hollywood, this is it, and yet our side has largely allowed this continuing outrage to go on without even the slightest push back.

We all know that if the exact same circumstance occurred with a liberal filmmaker (even if the facts were 100% against them) that this offense would not be allowed to stand, even when perpetrated by a giant like Disney, and that today Nowrasteh would be a household name with the ability command enormous attention for anything he does. While Nowrasteh’s career is still strong, it is hard to imagine him ever getting another “mainstream” opportunity like “Path,” which given his vast talents, is a grave injustice.

Now to be fair, thanks to the media being almost completely controlled by the left, there are ample resources to go around to fuel a fight from that side, while those on our side, lucky enough to get a seat at the table, are often understandably more concerned with keeping it than risking any of their precious capital.

But just because circumstances are far more difficult for us doesn’t excuse at least making even a symbolic effort. After all, if we are willing to lay down without a fight on issues as clear cut as the censoring of “The Path to 9/11” or the outrageous media coverage of the 2008 campaign (the subject of my next film, “Media Malpractice” www.HowObamaGotElected.com ) then there is nothing to stop the forces from the left from feeling confident they can win any victory they choose, no matter what the facts are.

Big Hollywood will likely contain plenty of stories dealing with and (hopefully) overcoming the hardships associated with being a “conservative” in and around Hollywood. I want to commend those who have been able to hold on to their principles and have had the courage to share their true convictions in the face of obvious and insidious prejudice.

Again, I honor those who come to this battle with different vulnerabilities and sensibilities than some others. Such diversity is healthy and necessary. Just please keep in mind that if our side does not support the “fighters” once in a while, then soon there won’t be any of us left standing.

UPDATE: This post has been edited due to a technical glitch that caused paragraphs to repeat. Thank you to the readers for the heads up — JN