President Bush has just been assassinated by a sniper outside a hotel in Chicago.
That, at any rate, is the premise of a movie, "Death Of A President", directed by Gabrielle Range, and recently unveiled at The Toronto Film Festival. The movie deals more with the aftermath of the event, which takes place in October of 2007 during the height of a massive anti-war demonstration.
It has already drawn the ire of such stalwart Republican conservative supporters as blogger Matthw Drudge of The Drudge Report, and Rush Limbaugh, who claims the films sole purpose is to move forward the anti-Bush agenda.
"Isn't it against the law to talk about killing a President"?, Limbaugh railed, even going so far as to question the morality and integrity of anyone that would sanction such a work.
This would include apparrently anyone that might so much as see the film, which the White House said they would not dignify with a response.
All of these criticisms were brushed aside by Director Grange:
In a release, director Range said, "We're thrilled to be screening the film at Toronto. It's a striking premise which may be seen as highly controversial. But it's a serious film which I hope will open up the debate on where current U.S. foreign and domestic policies are taking us."
To learn more, click on the link in the post title. As for me, though I haven't seen the film, I'll still rate it. I give it two great big balls.
I heard about this film. Imagine the controversy! Someone here will pick it up because it will make big $$$$. I certainly appreciate free speech, but geez, it comes with some responsibility. This might be a very risky film, especially considering our current political climate. Even though I'm not a Bush fan, I hope no one tries to follow through with bringing this to life.
ReplyDeleteIt might inspire some people to make the attempt, but those kind of people would be highky unlikely to be successful. If somebody were to try to assassinate him, or any other President in this day and time, and actually succeeded in doing so, it would be accomplished with or without this movie. At most, a film such as this might only give the assassin(s) the opportunity to set up some nut to take the blame for it and make out like he was influenced by the film.
ReplyDeleteDo they not understand the word "fiction"?
ReplyDeleteHe is under such heavy guard that he is kept just about in a bullet proof bubble.
That's the way it is with all Presidents anymore, starting with the Kennedy assassination, then revved up with the attempts on Ford, and then really put into overdrive after the attempt on Reagan. An assassination now by some lone nut or even a group of them is highly unlikely, it would take a coordinated conspiracy of insiders.
ReplyDeleteWhat would be cool though is if somebody could slip Bush a drink spiked with a strong dose of alcohol, with the taste and scent disguised somehow with a strong fruit flavor, right before he gives a major speech.
It would be fun watching his drunken alcoholic ass stumble around on stage in front of asembled leaders, elected officeals, and media, in a televised address.
I think the usual way that you slander someone in fiction is to show them having sleazy sex with a relative or an orgy or something. I would think that showing a president getting killed would provoke sympathy for him. I'm guessing it will be a lot different than people expect.
ReplyDeleteGood point, TPT. Perfect opportunity for a little scapegoating.
ReplyDeleteOf course. Let's blame the media. No thinking for ourselves.
Yes, media.....Yes, media....What's that media....I should what?
If anything, the film would put the Democrats on the ropes. While Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., are going on about the prospect of the film influencing some nut, the Democrats are left in the unenviable position of either feeling they have to deounce the film, and so look like hypocrits for not standing up for the usual free speech stance, which if they do will net them all the more criticism for seeming to promote the film. It's a no-win situation for them, and as Rufus says, a possible sympathy raiser for Bush and the Republicans.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI would think that showing a president getting killed would provoke sympathy for him.
ReplyDeleteUnless you showed him getting killed during a sleazy drug-induced, incestual orgy :-\
I didn't like the non-stop Clinton bashing, and I'm not crazy about the non-stop Bush bashing (disclosure: I'm a Libertarian, and did not vote for either of them). It's unfortunate that most people who spend so much time ranting and raving about our president (whoever it might be) pay absolutely no attention to town, local, and state politics which ultimately have much more of an affect on our personal lives. Zoning laws and school taxes will have a more immediate impact on jobs and the local business climate or will determine one's resale value on a home. State-level incentives will help or hurt major businesses in an urban area; a factory that lays off 5,000 people because of high taxes has a much bigger impact in that area than any welfare cuts.
In the past, movies tended to have a generic president. I think that this film is just grandstanding and is in poor taste.
The Tao of Masonry
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTom, good point about local politics, I've always felt the same. The fact that so few people participate at that level is one of the main reasons, if not the only one, that local and state governments are so damned corrupt in most states, cities, and townships. Unfortunately, as long as the state and local power players are safely in their positions, they aren't going to do anything to encourage more active participation, in most cases it would not be in their interest.
ReplyDeleteI think the movie might well be in bad taste, but it is cleverly so. Obviously, director Range knew the subject matter would be more controversial, and attact more attention to his film that if he were to use a fictitous president. It's hard to fault his logic.