Interview with Jarek Kupsc, Director, Writer and Star of "The Reflecting Pool" – Part III

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 not 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.

 1  |  2  |  3