Posted on 08/31/2006 5:47:02 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
More4 risks US ire with Bush assassination film
Jason Deans, broadcast editor Thursday August 31, 2006 MediaGuardian.co.uk
Digital channel More4 will court controversy once again this autumn with a fictional piece, shot as a documentary, about the assassination of the US president, George Bush.
Death of a President seems certain to cause a furore on the other side of the Atlantic when it is premiered at the Toronto film festival next month.
In the UK the 90-minute film will be broadcast first on Channel 4's digital service in October.
The drama takes the form of a fictional documentary looking back at the assassination of Mr Bush in October 2007, after he has delivered a speech to business leaders in Chicago.
When Mr Bush arrives in the city he is confronted by a massive demonstration against the Iraq war and is gunned down by a sniper as he leaves the venue. The hunt for Mr Bush's killer focuses on a Syrian-born man, Jamal Abu Zikri.
Death of a President will use a combination of archive footage, CGI special effects and scripted scenes.
Actors play the fictional secret service agents and other aides who are with Mr Bush when he is shot and recall the incident in interviews recorded for the retrospective documentary.
Death of a President also looks at the differing viewpoints of the pro- and anti-Iraq war lobbies and the impact of Mr Bush's war on terror on the US.
(Excerpt) Read more at media.guardian.co.uk ...
This actually isn't all that ridiculous. The premise is reasonable (an anti-war Muslim wanting to kill Bush). Merely changing the name of the president to Smith wouldn't really change anything, so there's nothing wrong with setting the story in our real world.
Rush is talking about it right now!!!
Would it be any different if the president in the movie was "President Jones?"
Or if the movie ended with Damascus and Tehran in ruins? Or was critical of the protesters for bringing about confusion and disunity?
I don't know, I haven't seen the movie. And neither have you.
I will comment on the intent of the filmmakers after I see it. And then attack on the merits, if warranted.
LOL! I was posting the same thing to you! ;*)
I couldn't have said it better. You are completely on the mark with your comments. Well put.
I believe these people secretly desire someone to really assassinate President Bush and thus put out such suggestive fodder hoping that someone a bit more wacked-out will actually do the job. It is a vile and disgusting display!
I think that a bit part of the basis of BDS is the leftist belief that what they're doing is "Good." Since they're "Good," anyone who disagrees with them is doing "Bad." And of course, to knowingly do something "Bad" is evil. So now the leftists are battling evil, in their minds. Consequently they hate conservatives, who usually look upon liberals as well meaning but wrong headed. It's not the case anymore. More and more leftists are succombing to BDS.
Mark
Speech that may reasonably be seen to instigate immediate harm or violence has never been considered protected. Speech that is an intended direct threat against another person has never been protected.
But this movie doesn't fall under either of those.
You have summed it up very well. A lot of politicians excuse bad behavior because, since they are "good" people, anything they want to do to achieve their ends has to be "good." This outlook usually has a finite run as majorities can see behind the self-image of the politician in question and end his tenure in office, or the party's tenure in the majority.
Sometimes, this is a very slow process.
This is so beyond BDS... I have no words. Just seething.
Sorry to disagree with you, but this is a direct threat to the sitting president of our country. I would say the same thing if it had been made during the 1990s.
And Cheney would be the guy to make them pay too.
now this is sick!
The Sum of All Fears?
I always wondered about that. No fiction - just dramatize the Starr report and the accounts of harrasment and intimidation. And the rape too.
The slightly rotund actor who has played Falwell would be a good Clinton.
But of course in Hollywood it's OK to slam Falwell and not Clinton . . .
Is it an obvious recruitment film for an assassin? That is the level of speech necessary to qualify for criminal charges or prior restraint.
Poor taste doesn't make it illegal.
I agree!
The Left is all foaming at the mouth again. What morons. Do any of them think that, were their beloved Leftist fascists (or their brethren Islamists fascists) to achieve full totalitarian control, that they would be allowed to continue making films critical of the government? Instead, their legacy would be found among the piles of skulls which would be found throughout the land.
So would the death of PRESIDENT BUSH!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.