Fake TV Documentary 'Death of a President' Praised, Panned
 

Reading the news on the Internet Movie Database as I do every weekday I came across an interesting article, which I feel is easily and interesting as topic for discussion. For ease I decided just to cut and paste the article, but it can be found at this address, Studio Briefing

"A controversial British film titled Death of a President, which takes place in the not-too-distant future and revolves around the assassination of President Bush in 2007 is due to have its world premiere at the Toronto Film Festival on Sept. 10, the film's producers, Britain's Channel 4, announced Thursday. The film, which resembles an actual documentary, had previously been listed by the festival as '"D.O.A.P.". Gretchen Essell, spokeswoman for the Republican Party in Texas, told the British wire service Press Association, "I cannot support a video that would dramatize the assassination of our president, real or imagined. ... I find this shocking, I find it disturbing. I don't know if there are many people in America who would want to watch something like that." But Peter Dale, head of Channel 4's digital channel More4, which plans to air the film on Oct. 9, said: "It's a pointed political examination of what the War on Terror did to the American body politic. ... It's not sensationalist or simplistic but a very thought-provoking, powerful drama. I hope people will see that the intention behind it is good.' "

I know, I know, there will be outrage. But really, I could care less. Where's the outrage when San Francisco get wrecked in the disaster movie of the week, or when Steven Seagal aces some thinly disguised stand in for whatever world leader is on America's shit list this week?

Get over it, if you haven't already.

How many presidents have the producers of "24" killed?

Personally, I think this is just British revenge for "King Ralph".

WHERE CAN I SEE IT?!

Not in the United States. It made the front page of Yahoo today or CNN and they had a video with some still shots. Interesting concept, but it's a good way to get the secret service to watch you.

:D But one movie is not enough for that atrocity.

It will be shown first at the Toronto Film Festival.

Come to Singapore... there is plenty of outrage in the bureaucracy. The film censors here love to get upset about things like this.

For example, Zoolander (the goofy Ben Stiller film) was banned here for reasons of political sensitivity. It seems the film's plot revolved around the plot to assasinate a fictional Malaysian president.

Its about free publicity.

Its close to viral marketing. Make a so so film, include something that will upset some people or seem shocking, let the talking heads and water cooler do the advertizing for you.

Oh, you've seen it! How was it? Where did you see it?

Yes I saw it, I was sitting with the real killers from the WTC, they thought it was a hoot and told me to say hi.

I can assure you that Channel Four (the producers of the film) do not need to make a film to get publicity. They have a large audience of people who will gladly tune in... an audience that for which the Toronto Film Festival appearence has no bearing really.

The marketing of this film, as little to do with the making of this film.

I was just surprised how you were able to give the movie a so-so review despite the fact that basically no one has seen it yet. I guess it was a simple matter of a stereotypical assumption from a conservative. My mistake.
I thought because you were appealing to everyone to be civil in the mass media thread that you were going to start showing people the same respect that you are asking of them. I guess that's two mistakes.

Every time you start to earn my respect, you blow it. Eventually I will go the way of Host and roachboy and simply stop trying.

Ah yes the great channel 4. I mean why would anyone be looking for world wide publicity when you have the marketing, loyal audience, and power of channel 4!

Ustwo, I need not reply as your sarcasm belittles yourself and displays your ignorance for all to see.

I don't know what to think of it. On the one hand, I'm all about creativity, storytelling as a way to examine issues, freedom of speech, etc., but on the other hand... My knee jerk reaction is that it's just not right- a story about the death of someone real who's alive. I'm not sure whether that reaction is based in logic though, or if it's just visceral.

ETA: Just out of curiosity, why would Bush attend an anti-war rally? That almost sounds satirical. It would make the film less believable, I guess, detracting from the assumed inappropriateness of assasinating a sitting prez.

Here's part of the video:

http://us.video.aol.com/video.index....pmmsid=1715489

Oh gawd. This seems so wrong to me. It reminded me of the assassination of the Kennedy brothers, MLK, the attempted assassinations of Wallace and Reagan. Too friggin' much for me to view this film in any positive or useful way. Blood pouring from Bush's chest? Just lurid sensationalism as far as I'm concerned.

Certainly not very tasteful. I would protect it as an expression of free speech, but this is more borderline than most other cases.

A peculiar response, I must say. The internet is a funny place when it comes to interpreting people's tone, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I interpret the use of all caps and the exclamation mark after the comma to denote excitement. Are you extremely excited to see a film about George Bush getting assassinated?

As expected its a left wing crap fest.

You see the president is killed but an innocent musslim man is accused when he was really killed by the greaving parent black soldier killed in Iraq.

Gee I'm so shocked.

Typical left wing wishfull drivel.


Oh and it was picked up by a US company to show in the US. Guess maybe the great channel 4 wanted more money after all.

The situation holds promise if done correctly. One can make it into what kind of reaction the government's would have to their leader being assasinated in a time of war. Done in such a way it could be very intelligent and politically non-aligned.

I doubt it will be so, and if Ustwo is correct in the plotline it appears to follow my feelings.

I don't know about him, but I certainly am.

How typical of you u2. You have accused me of being one of the "looney left" but you ignore my disgust regarding this film. You can always be counted on for the "Johnnie One Note" response, which requires no thinking at all.

When you're wrong, and you have no actual fact-based methods to convince people that you're correct, one liner talking points are your only recourse.

I'll watch it... hoping... that one day dreams come true.

Thank you for proving my point :lol:

First and foremost I love thrilling and challenging entertainment. I love watching movies that engage me and are able to keep me interested. Recently, movies have kinda sucked in that area. I'm excited to see a movie not driven by corporate interests and focus groups filled with boring stupid people. Sometimes It's fun to see simple entertaining movies like Crank or Superman. It's good to relax. But it's when I watch films like Schindler's List and Constant Gardner, I can actually think. I miss that. A movie about the assasination of a current world leader is really challenging.

I do not want to see George W. Bush dead. I'd like to see him retire or maybe be heald responsible for what he's done in a court, but wishing someone death is inexcusable. I hope people in here are able to seperate distrust and dislike from murderous hatred.

Exactly will...

It isn't a matter of whether you agree with the premise or the conclusion of the film (though I would argue you can't really do much than be outraged at the premise if you haven't seen the film). What matters is that this is a film that is attempting to grapple with a contemporary issue.

For what I can tell, not having seen the film, the actual assination is context rather than the meat of the film. Get over it. They are making a film that is attempting to explore the world that the current administraion has created. They are suggesting a certain outcome based on what they believe would happen given these circumstances.

It is a fictional film. Get over yourselves. Fictional films are made all the time that deal with contemporary figures. This one is just ballsy enough (maybe foolish enough) to show the assination of a current head of state. To me, it suggests more immediacy to the plot.

Is it "leftist"... perhaps (I haven't seen the film). Does this offend me anymore than if it were "rightist"? Not really. IT'S FICTION.

Get over yourselves.

I have to wonder if film makers will have the balls to make a movie showing the face of modern Islam...

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/2...u5ghgeiLwa.w--

These fine young men are protesting the pope quoting a long dead emperor. I wonder if they know they are proving the dead mans point with their reactions?

More interestingly its ok for film makers to say, assinate a current US president and turn it political, but lets not be insensative to the culture causing all the drama lately. You would swear they would cut your head off or something for calling them into question.

The enemies of western civilization are on the march again, and yet it is best to fight amoungst ourselves, and feel guilty over what we have achieved.

Great pic, Ustwo

It reminded me of a pic of Randall Terry at a Terri Schiavo rally last year, shaking his fists and calling for retribution against godless judges and politicians.

But I would not presume suggest that he is the face of modern Christianity.

Once again, you take the most extreme and try to pass it off as representing something broader that it is.

I am sure there are filmmakers who will take on this subject. Why not?

The question remains... is there a market it for it?

Is there a demand for that film? What does it add and what does it subtract from the debate? Does it say anything new? Who is the intended market?

The west likes to talk about it's leadership. It loves to push the limits of "freedom of expression". This includes making films like like "Death of a President", films about 9/11, "The Day After", etc. We speak to ourselves with a multitude of voices.

I support this. I don't expect to agree with or like everything that is made.

That's the thing about people having different opinions about the truth or reality. It's inturpretation by an artist is always going to be subject to those who don't get understand it, don't like it, don't tolerate a different point of view.

Bring on the film that explores Islam. It would be a welcome addition. Chances are it has already been made and languishes in a producer's collection unable to find an audience due to the timidity of some programmer or distributor. Now that I think about it, portions of Syrianna apply to this (of course, it would be seen as too anti-American by many here despite the fact that it offers a much more complex approach than simple anti-Americanism).





The world of Islam has a different cultural base. I do not expect them to match us film for film, book for book.

Quoted for tremendous truth. The "There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world, and they are all terrorist extreemists" thing is so overdone and is so blatently wrong that it gives me heart burn.

I loved Paradise Now. It portreyed the hidden side of Palestinian suicide bombers. Brilliant film making.

To take this thread a little off topic, re: the face of Islam.

I am not an apologist for Islam extremists. It is a deadly serious issue that the vast majority of the more than 1 billion good and decent practicing muslims must address, but consider the fact that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity as a religion.

And what were good Christians doing in the 15th century? I give you the Spanish Inquisition and persecution of non-Christians throughout Europe, where tens of thousands of Jews and other "heretics" were tortured and murdered. This follows on the heels of two centuries of the crusades where thousands of Muslims were slaughtered in the Holy Land and continued in the New World through the 17th century with witch burnings.

Think carefully before considering yourself "holier than thou" for your history is not one without its own atrocities. (for the record, I am Jewish).

As my Palestinian-Born Middle Eastern Studies teacher put it, "Syriana makes Star Wars look like a true historical documentary."

I like that people still use and more specifically misrepresent the MYTH of the Spanish Inquistion, or "Black Legend", as fact of Christian (Catholic) cruelity, and a seeming justification, or apologist position for the behavior of muslims.

The Black Legend.
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodic.../article4.html
Oh yeah and DC, the Crusades were all fought at the heels of Dogma and Catholic intolerance, right? It was more a problem of religion, then say, Geopolitics?

There are extreemists of every religion, but that has little to do witha movie about the president being assasinated. In the movie, I think he is killed by an American, btw.

What point?

Out of all the posts in this thread, I do have to say you sound quite brainwashed.

That's pretty creepy.

Well duh...

It's a fictional film. It isn't a documentary.

It is why I said, "portions" and all I was looking for was an example that deals with the contemporary. I think the storyline about the suicide bomber is a very interesting story that deals with the recruitment and deployment of suicide bombers.

well it did happen "a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away...."

Ya think?
It's the same story, Stompy, for at least the last 26 fucking years, contrived, (Gulf of Tonkin, '64...) aggressive war by an imperialistic hyper power, against a small, technologically backward, poorly armed "enemy" country,,,,and Jesus...GOOD!

....queers....and liberal media, BAD! Since the entire "message" is broadcast incessantly, by one guy, L. Brent Bozell III and his MRC.org, nephew of William Buckely of the National Review....yeah....brainwashing is an accurate description, IMO.....

I found another article about this movie, this time from the good folks at Time magazine in partnership with CNN.

Who Killed George Bush? A controversial fake documentary gets its world premiere in Toronto

Nice find, Bittertalker. There is the spoiler of "who dunnit" at the end of the article in case anyone doesn't want to know.

A film maker can make a film about absolutely anything at all. Those are the rules. Content is irrelevant. It is either a film you enjoy or a film you do not enjoy.

Wasn't this exact same arguement just floated around regarding the ABC miniseries (the one Clinton was supposed to have deemed unfair) before it had even aired? And what side of the discussion were you on regarding that?

U2, perhaps you should view the spoiler. The most likely assassin in terms of history proved to be the Killer in this movie.

The Pope's statement was reprehensible to anyone, not just Islam.

.....and what do you think about the Islamic reaction to the popes statement Elphaba?

It was criminal as measured by my Western judgement and highly predictable given the reaction to the Danish cartoons. That is why I criticize the pope's judgement.

I apologize for perpetuating this threadjack.

I think I wasn't clear on my point.

The issue is that while we argue about whatever, left vrs right, socialism vrs capitalism, etc, we have a storm that has been coming since 500 AD just over the horizon.

So we have a film that takes a leftist stance, shows the assassination of a SITTING US president, makes up its own twisted false historical visions, yet they would be terrified to make a film showing whats going on for real with Islamic extremists lest they offend them.

Honestly I don't understand how the left is so blind to it all, but then again they don't understand basic human nature to start with as is evident by embracing socialism, so I can see where they would fail here too.

We need this dealt with now, not after China catches up and Europe gets even older and weaker militarily. After the bloodiest century on record, I would hope that the left would come to understand that wars haven't gone away because they are inconvenient and nasty.

Do you blame the victim in rape too?

What?
Futurism isn't false until the future has already passed. Watch Paradise Now if you want to see a gripping, brillient movie about Islamic suicide bombers. It is tremendously realistic. BTW, Paradise Now had a wider opening than Death of a President.
Anarchy is human nature, but I don't see you embracing that. Does that mean that you also don't understand simple human nature?

Ustwo, enlighten me, what am I blind to?
We need to deal with dramatic poltical movies before China becomes too powerful? I'm afraid you've lost both me and the rest of the thread.

:lol:

You don't think the muslims gave up after being beaten in Spain and stalled in Hungry do you?

You should ask them, the world is going to be a Islamic world.

Actually I remember reading that athism is growing pretty rapidly. Man, that would make for some boring jihads.

What on earth are you talking about? I say that I find the violence to be criminal and this is your response?

Try reading for comprehension before going into attack mode.

According to Amazon.com this title will be released on April 3, 2007. I'm looking forward to the release, because I was unable to see it in theatres. I think the release on DVD will bring the controversy back into the spotlight, if only slightly.

Its been shown here,the UK (twice) in the last year,on terrestrial TV.

Its a very ordinary 'What if' type job,made essentially by some twat studio executive to raise the hackles of those in the anti-bush faction,and those in the pro camp.

A similar TV film;and far better I might add; was made about Tony B-liar which goes along with the premise that the man gets accused of war crimes and is sentenced at the Hague!

Bush can't be tried because the US refuses to recognise the court,so B-liar takes the rap for the whole war thang - Now that was hilarious I can tell you.Coupled with the lead being taken by a rather excellent actor called Robert Linsay it all made for an entertaining hour of telly.

But that was just what is was - a TV entertainment,same as the chan4 offering.If people cannot distinguish between media and reality - then oh dear O dear :)

What is this called? I'd like to see it.

I'm surprised it isn't on youtube. I haven't checked bittorrent yet.

I'll try out the new bbcode with the trailer.

I agree. I thought there was a long-standing tradition in our domestic film production to not show sitting presidents in situations like this. I know this isn't a hollywood film, but it seems disrespectful at the least. I don't think we've gone around showing British leaders being assassinated, out of the same respect given to our leaders by our media. I haven't watched 24, does the series regularly assassinate US presidents? That's surprising to me.

Regardless, fictional characters are much less abrasive to my senses than assassinating a real, living, and sitting president.

For anyone who is against the rights of this Canadian (note "Canadian not "far left -which is retarded) Company to make a fictional movie about the assassination of "a sitting President" Flashback to 1995:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1313

Um, seems that when a "right wing" nutjob is in the whitehouse -a fictional suggestion is off limits. However, when a Moderate Centrist is in the whitehouse it's okay to make all sorts of NONFICTIONAL ie serious suggestions to assassinate him.