Posted on 10/27/2006 8:24:51 AM PDT by Borges
Death of a President Critic's rating: 1.5 stars
As a medium-left liberal with a fierce belief in free speech and artistic expression, I'm proud to live in a country where the government can't prevent the release of a fictional film depicting the assassination of the real-life president.
That said, I find the idea repugnant and morally objectionable.
Ever since early September, when the Drudge Report posted a dramatic, black-and-white "news photo" fictionalizing the assassination of President Bush, the docudrama "Death of a President" has been the center of much controversy -- and deserved criticism. For once, it seemed fair to critique at least the premise of a film without even seeing it. Whether you believe George Bush is a fiendishly clever war criminal, a hapless puppet or the greatest international leader since Churchill, he is also a fellow human being with a wife and children and parents, and there's something inherently unseemly about imagining this man's murder for the purposes of entertainment, talk radio discussion and cocktail party debates. (How would you like it if someone was asking people to pay nine bucks for a movie about your sudden and violent death?)
That said, "Death of a President" is more offensive as a concept than as a work of film. Writer/director Gabriel Range -- who explored a similar "What if?" scenario in 2003 with "The Day Britain Stopped," in which he imagined what would happen if all public transportation in his native country came to a halt -- handles the faux documentary footage of the assassination with considerable restraint. This isn't some cheesy drama with a look-alike actor playing Bush, grimacing in close-up as he takes a bullet and falls to the pavement. It's all about quick cuts, herky-jerky camera movements, fleeting glimpses of things going wrong. Range skillfully employs news footage from real events, taking them out of context and weaving them into his story line, set in the fall of 2007, when the president comes to Chicago and is gunned down outside the Sheraton Hotel.
In fact, the "documentary" is actually set about a year after that night, with key players from the evening sharing reflections and insights with an unseen interviewer. A Secret Service agent, a Chicago cop who was in charge of local security, a presidential speechwriter, the wife of the man accused of killing the president -- they all share their memories of the fateful chain of events. The actors portraying these people aren't particularly natural or spontaneous-sounding -- but then again, they're playing people who wouldn't naturally be that comfortable in the front of the camera, talking about the most devastating moments of their lives.
We're told that the protesters who gathered in Chicago in October of 2007 were agitated and confrontational -- spoiling for trouble. At one point during the day, some of them break through police barricades and actually make contact with the presidential motorcade, in a scene convincingly filmed by Range. Nevertheless, Bush proceeds with his schedule, and gives a speech that night to a business conference at the Sheraton. (Range uses actual footage of a Bush speech in Chicago, with familiar faces such as William Daley on the dais.) Despite the warnings of his top bodyguards, the president decides to work the rope line outside the Sheraton -- and that's when shots ring out.
As Bush is rushed to Northwestern Hospital, authorities shut down the perimeter and the search for suspects is on. Local touches abound, from the locations to the likes of Joel Daly as a news anchor (believable!) and Walter Jacobson as the Larry King of this parallel universe, conducting interviews on a news-oriented talk show.
This movie is called "Death of a President." I give nothing away by telling you the president dies. From that point on, the film's most egregious offense is becoming predictable and heavy-handed. A Syrian man with questionable ties to terrorist activity is arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death, even though there's a paucity of concrete evidence against him. President Cheney grabs power by the double fistful, using the mood of the times to push through Patriot Act III, giving the government even more authority to abuse individual rights in the name of Homeland Security. When a story in the Chicago Sun-Times provides solid evidence that the real assassin may in fact be a disillusioned, distraught Gulf War I veteran from Downstate Illinois, the FBI isn't particularly interested in pursuing the case. Who cares if an innocent man sits on Death Row? He fits the profile.
Great. Thanks for the lecture in liberal politics. We live in precarious, frightening times, when civil liberties are routinely sacrificed in the pursuit of national security, when wars are waged for reasons still not entirely clear -- but things could even be worse in the near future. This is the lesson of "Death of a President," and if that's not preaching to the choir, we might as well retire that phrase.
I imagine that he didn't imagine that private enterprise would take over, and no one would notice the difference except for all the improvements.
I imagine that he didn't imagine that private enterprise would take over, and no one would notice the difference except for all the improvements.
Movie tickets are donations to the people who undermine us, our families, and our beliefs.
The wild and wacky world of a lefty 'journalist'. I'm certain that as the victims in the WTC, Pentagon, and on that plane in Pennsylvania died, they were worried sick that someone might harm those involved with murdering them!
Newly sworn-in President Cheney delivers a eulogy of his predecessor; it's a techno-tour de force, thanks to computers. And then, of course, the descent into Dick's abyss: The "Patriot 3" act is signed into law, free speech effectively outlawed.
Meanwhile, President Cheney orders the US government to "go after" Syria. The moviemakers emphasize what they see as an obvious and ominous similarity between Cheney's targeting of Syria in 2007 and Bush's targeting of Iraq -- not Afghanistan -- not long after 9-11. Conveniently, a Syrian-American is arrested and charged with the crime. The man is a dubious character, having spent time in Afghanistan, but, the film argues, a pattern of suspicious behavior is not the same as murderous behavior. Various faux forensic experts come forward on camera to challenge the evidence against the Syrian; the movie drags here, becoming almost a laboratory-courtroom drama. But legal procedure is clearly near and dear to the filmmakers; in the question-and-answer session after the showing, producer Simon Finch declared that the "danger of a rush to judgment" was the principal message of the picture. Cheney and Americans might show "impatience with legal machinery," Finch said, but the rest of us should remember the importance of rights-based proceduralism. Audiences are then free to insert their own suitably negative thoughts about Guantanamo, rendition, wiretapping, or any other aspect of the Bush homeland security program.
As David D'Arcy, film critic for Greencine.com, observed to me afterward, "The filmmakers see this as the new America. This film is their delivery vehicle, consolidating all their concerns about 9-11." OK, fair enough -- the flick represents their point of view. For another POV, there's "The Path to 9-11," the ABC drama that has generated its own ruckus, as various sides sought to write, edit, and then re-edit the historical record to meet their specific wants and needs. Nine-eleven is many things, but by now it can also be considered a full-fledged political football, to be tossed and dropkicked like any other historical event.
But returning to "Death", here comes the twist in the tale (Warning! Spoiler dead ahead!):
The Syrian is convicted and sent to death row. But then comes a strange piece of revelation: It turns out that a black American, a US Army veteran, is the real killer. The African American had fought with distinction in the 1991 Gulf War, but when his own son is killed in Iraq during the current fighting, he snaps. He kills Bush with his rifle, flees the scene, and then, in a secluded location, kills himself, leaving a note and enough evidence to convince all but the closed-minded that he committed the crime. The film, of course, suggests that the black man was justified -- partially, if not fully -- in what he did. As the man's wife explains, "He loved the Army, proud of serving America...He felt that Bush destroyed all of that." So the cosmology -- make that demonology -- of the film is clear: Bush is so bad that even a loyal patriotic man is driven to kill the president. But the Cheney-ized feds aren't interested in this inconvenient truth, because they are intent on blaming the Syrian, and Syria.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1703305/posts
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Now that it is a movie, who will be the first to try a copycat attack? Is this a subtle suggestion to inspire the liberal left? At the very least it is in bad taste.
The death of a bad movie, as presented by reality, for your dining and dancing pleasure. This movie has done an artistic hit job on itself -- death by bad taste -- even by liberal standards.
Fruit loops who wanna whack da prez don't need a schlockumentary to motivate 'em.
(Sigh). The culture continues its slouch towards Gomorrah...
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.