Truth and Chads Hang In the Balance Of 'Recount'

Klain, who liked the film overall, said: "Secretary Christopher comes across as kind of naive and out of touch, and he wasn't. It makes Christopher look like an idiot, and he wasn't. It's just not right."

Klain and Baker were among those given a chance to review the script and request changes, some of which were accepted. Christopher was not. Baker, by contrast, was so pleased with the product that he is hosting a screening next week at his public policy institute in Houston.

Tapper, one of the consultants, says the film is "a fictional version of what happened" and "tilts to the left because it's generally told from the point of view of the Democrats." But, he says, while some scenes and language are manufactured, "a lot of dialogue is not invented, a lot of dialogue is taken from my book, other books and real life."

Similar issues surfaced in the widely praised HBO series "John Adams," where the screenwriters didn't have the luxury of interviewing the principals. There was a wonderful moment when Adams, having just learned that he has won the presidency in 1796, passes George Washington, who says: "I am fairly out and you are fairly in. See which of us will be the happiest!" Upon further examination, it turns out Adams had written his wife, Abigail, that he imagined Washington was thinking that.

That was just a minor example. The screenwriter, Kirk Ellis, in a New Republic article, recalls a scene in which Vice President Adams is shown breaking a Senate tie over ratification of the Jay Treaty with Britain. In reality, the treaty passed by a two-thirds majority, so Adams had no role. Adams did cast many tie-breaking votes, Ellis says, but "in retrospect, the scene now seems too much of a stretch, the one example of 'manufactured drama' in the miniseries."

It seems fair for Ellis to ponder how often John and Abigail should hop into bed based on the sexual innuendo in their letters. But, he admits, "some of the signature speeches in the show -- notably Adams's oration for independence -- are largely invented." Ellis's rationale: "The line between 'history' and 'drama' is a fine one."

Adams and company aren't around to complain, but Bill Clinton and members of his administration went ballistic in 2006 as ABC was moving to air "The Path to 9/11." ABC kept insisting that the film, which portrayed the Clintonites as soft on terror, was based on the work of the 9/11 Commission. But there was, for instance, a scene in which then-national security adviser Sandy Berger vetoed a CIA request to launch a raid in Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden. ("Do we have clearance to load the package?" the CIA man supposedly asks in a message to Washington.) Berger says nothing like that ever happened.

The explanations were familiar. While ABC admitted there were "composite characters" and "fictional scenes," Executive Producer Marc Platt maintained that "we've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events." There's that elusive "essence" again. Under mounting Democratic pressure, including letters to parent company Walt Disney, ABC cut some of the disputed Berger scene and others, along with a note saying the film was "based on the

9/11 Commission report."

It was the Republicans' turn to cry foul in 2003, when CBS was ready to broadcast "The Reagans." The miniseries depicted the former president blithely shrugging off the AIDS crisis by saying, "They that live in sin shall die in sin," despite the lack of evidence that he ever said any such thing. GOP Chairman Ed Gillespie, now White House counselor, demanded the film be reviewed for accuracy in a letter to CBS Chairman Les Moonves. Emotions ran particularly high at the time because Reagan was in the latter stages of Alzheimer's disease, which would claim his life months later.

Although CBS had approved the script, the network ultimately pulled the movie, saying, "We believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans," and relegated an edited version -- minus the AIDS line -- to its pay-cable channel, Showtime.

From Adams to Bush v. Gore, filmmaking teams have tried to have it both ways: harnessing the power of history while fudging and fiddling with the details for cinematic impact. Talented filmmakers can do what the best novelists and dramatists have always done -- create art that captures the human condition. But if they want to be seen as serious chroniclers of great political battles, they may want to worry less about "larger truths" and more about the old-fashioned variety.