“An investigation of the 9/11 events by a Russian-American journalist implicates the US government in the attacks.
Alex Prokop (Jarek Kupsc), a successful journalist, receives a rare 9/11 videotape revealing new information about the day of the attacks. The footage was sent by Paul Cooper (Joseph Culp), a driven researcher whose daughter died on 9/11. Sensing a good story, Prokop travels with Cooper to New York and Washington, D. C., where they uncover suppressed information about the attacks and their aftermath. As Cooper introduces Prokop to key eye-witnesses, the façade of the “official story” begins to crumble.”
Bonanno: There’s something I’m going to harp on just a little bit more and I hope you don’t mind. I understand what you said about Oliver Stone.
However, I keep hearing that there are certain actors – and who really comes to mind is someone who seems to have put his career on the line - is Charlie Sheen. He seems to agree with 9/11 Truth and, as you said, one of the things that “All The President’s Men” had going for it besides a slightly larger budget, is the fact that it starred Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.
Joseph Culp, I believe, did a very good job. He showed us that he has acting skills. He’s been around for a while and I think he did an excellent job.
John Cusack comes to mind. Sean Penn comes to mind. These guys – I think their hearts are in the right place.
Did you attempt to send the script to any of the actors that I mentioned?
Kupsc: Well, not before we made the movie. What I wanted to do with the film in terms of casting was to make sure that nobody had seen these actors before in order to build up more credibility to create a pseudo-documentary feel of realism.
If you see a movie like this with Sean Penn playing Joseph Culp’s part, you’re going to look at Sean Penn and, no matter what the content is, you’re going to see Spicoli talking about the collapse of Building 7.
If you get Charlie Sheen, he comes with a lot of other baggage. He’s made all kinds of movies in his day.
I would hate for this movie to ever be remade with Brad Pitt telling me that NORAD has a stand down order. People would just laugh at it out loud.
There are no actors today on the “A” list who would carry that kind of believability in people’s minds. They would not even take on these roles because it’s a career killer. I have no career, so I have nothing to lose, but, for these guys, it’s the end of the line.
When Charlie Sheen came out with his views on 9/11, which are absolutely valid and correct, he was immediately ridiculed and undermined by virtually every news outlet in the country. However, he has a hit sitcom. He makes a lot of money for his network and they would not do anything about it because he’s a money making machine.
However, when Rosie O’Donnell spoke out on – uh
Bonanno: The View?
Kupsc: Right, about WTC Building 7, she was canned from her show just because she doesn’t have that kind of clout. She’s not a money maker for her network anymore. She used to be, but she’s not.
It depends on who you are, what you do and what your status is.
If you had someone like…let’s just drop this celebrity…it’s just not going anywhere.
Bonanno: All right.
Kupsc: I fully understand. I did send Charlie Sheen and Martin Sheen a copy of the movie. I tried to get a hold of Sean Penn, not in terms of performing in the film. We need the support of these people with credibility or credentials, if you will, to speak out on 9/11.
I was hoping I would hear back from Charlie or I could get through to Sean to see what they think about it or see if they could support our movie and I never heard anything back.
What we really need, not just for the movie, but for the 9/11 Truth Movement, is for one respected journalist such as Seymour Hirsch of The New Yorker to do an investigative piece connecting all the dots, all the loose ends, wrapping it up in a story.
They did a great job in The New Yorker with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. They broke the story in The New Yorker. Why couldn’t they do something similar with 9/11?
Mother Jones or Harper’s…it’s a moot point, really, to say this because the answer is obvious. They can not put their ass on the line.
All it would take for people’s opinion to turn on a dime is for one journalist such as Si Hirsch to write about it.
Bonanno: There’s a scene in the movie in which Prokop is on a beach or near a dock – there’s water. There’s a guy that Prokop meets there. Prokop says, “You’re the only one who’s written about Building 7.”
According to what McGuire, Prokop’s editor, says in the beginning of the movie, the movie takes place 5 years after the events of 9/11.
We all know that people like Thierry Meyssan and David Ray Griffin had written about 9/11 before 2006.
Yet, the story line seems to indicate that the possibility of an alternative explanation for what happened on 9/11 was coming to light in 2006.
Was this intentional? Did you mean to imply that 9/11 hadn’t been researched prior to the time frame in the movie?
Kupsc: What you’re leading to is why didn’t I bring out any of the 9/11 research?
Bonanno: Was it your intention to make it appear that research had just begun?
Kupsc: The reason for that is that I wanted the movie to be accessible to people who’d never really thought about 9/11.
This movie is not geared toward people who already know what happened or already suspect what happened. For anybody who knows anything about 9/11, they’re not going to find any new information about that day in “The Reflecting Pool”.
This is not a movie about breaking a story. This is a movie about the quest of a journalist, a mainstream journalist. It’s about breaking the story open in the mainstream press.
We’re not talking about any of the alternative takes on the story that had been reported through documentaries and books like Steven Jones’, David Ray Griffin’s and others – great books; Michael Rupert’s book. They’ve never been reviewed by the mainstream media.
What I wanted to do is to turn the table on the mainstream media and say, “Hey, every source we used in making this movie comes from you”; New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Newsday, CBS News, you name it. They’re all verifiable mainstream corporate media sources.
Granted, none of these articles or these clips have ever been shown in prime time or printed on the front page. They’ve all been marginalized. It took me a very long time to get to the bottom of these sources. It’s very difficult to get to that.
However, they have published it at some point. The commentary on the DVD reveals all the sources. That’s the bonus feature on the DVD. If you watch the movie with the commentary, it quotes all of these mainstream media outlets telling you all these facts. Nobody’s ever connected the dots in the mainstream.
As I said, I wanted to turn the table on the mainstream media saying, “Hey, guys, you’ve already reported on that. So why don’t you connect the dots to make one solid piece of investigative journalism”, which is what Alex Prokop is doing in the film, which is kind of wishful thinking on my part.
I didn’t want the journalist in the film to follow the path of people who’ve been established in the underground sector. That’s already been done. What hasn’t been done is what we’re saying in the movie, meaning get somebody in the mainstream to connect all the dots. That’s all we’re asking.
We’re not trying to portray this quest as some kind of an underground effort which is verifiable in the eyes of the larger public. Even though David Ray Griffin’s work is completely verifiable. So is Steven Jones’s, Richard Gage’s and so on.
This is still perceived as fringe in the eyes of mainstream America.
In the commentary, we do mention Steven Jones’s research. We talk about William Rodriguez and other things.
Again, this is a movie for a complete skeptic who never really took the time to investigate this issue, somebody who just bought the official version and never moved beyond that. This is a very gentle way of introducing someone like that to the subject matter. That’s the idea behind the movie. It was not to reiterate all these points made by all these researchers already and not to overwhelm the audience with technological data and scientific information. It’s something very gentle, very subtle. It’s the journey of a skeptic to the other side.
“You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.” - James Thurber
World Conditions and Action Items