B
Buckdodgers
Guest
Picture this - it is Fall 2007 and with a little over a year left in his second term as President of the United States, George W. Bush is assassinated. That is the premise of a new "docudrama" that is premiering next week at the Toronto Film Festival.
The docudrama is set as a documentary looking back at the assassination of President Bush. In the movie, the President is shot in the stomach in Chicago as he is leaving a speech at a hotel in the midst of a vast anti-war protest by a Syrian-born assassin. This isn't just a hypothetical President who represents George W. Bush. The filmmaker used digital technology to superimpose the face of the President onto an actor's body. Also included in the movie is real footage from campaigns. The film, written and directed by Gabriel Range, is hailed by the station airing it as a "thought provoking critique of contemporary America."
Needless to say, the film is being widely criticized by those who know about it in America as well as across the pond in England. Facing the criticism in England, the head of More4, Peter Dale, commented that he sees nothing inappropriate defending the dramatization as a "well thought-through and carefully researched piece of drama."
While this film is definitely on the line of appropriate - and the director is known for making controversial films - the question is whether this film in fact crossed the line. The same people who will no doubt defend this film as an expression of free speech are the same ones who practically rioted and who manufactured cries of distress over Ann Coulter's presence at UConn last fall, saying they felt threatened because she in effect said that talking to a liberal with a baseball bat is the most effective way to go about things.
In a country where the mention of Abraham Lincoln's assassination creates a solemn atmosphere and the assassination of John Kennedy still brings tears to the eyes of those who lived through it, is the depiction of a sitting president (or any president) respectful or at all appropriate. There are plenty of ways to comment on the state of the war on terror and its impact on the world without depicting a dramatization of the leader of the free world being assassinated. I think the premise of the film is disturbing and questionable enough, however much unneeded controversy could have been avoided by veiling the film under a see through hypothetical with a fictional character - perhaps the president who wins the 2008 elections. The fact that real footage is coupled with digital manipulation of Bush's face onto an actor's body is intentionally offensive and for that I think this film crosses the line of appropriate commentary. The purpose of the film is to reportedly examine the consequences of the war on terror, although little is known about the extent to which this is explored until after the movie premieres.
Docudrama Stages Bush Assassination - Commentary
Wana know why theyre never gonna put this movie in USA? Cause they have to put every secret service agent in every threater so they can listen and watch peoples motions
The docudrama is set as a documentary looking back at the assassination of President Bush. In the movie, the President is shot in the stomach in Chicago as he is leaving a speech at a hotel in the midst of a vast anti-war protest by a Syrian-born assassin. This isn't just a hypothetical President who represents George W. Bush. The filmmaker used digital technology to superimpose the face of the President onto an actor's body. Also included in the movie is real footage from campaigns. The film, written and directed by Gabriel Range, is hailed by the station airing it as a "thought provoking critique of contemporary America."
Needless to say, the film is being widely criticized by those who know about it in America as well as across the pond in England. Facing the criticism in England, the head of More4, Peter Dale, commented that he sees nothing inappropriate defending the dramatization as a "well thought-through and carefully researched piece of drama."
While this film is definitely on the line of appropriate - and the director is known for making controversial films - the question is whether this film in fact crossed the line. The same people who will no doubt defend this film as an expression of free speech are the same ones who practically rioted and who manufactured cries of distress over Ann Coulter's presence at UConn last fall, saying they felt threatened because she in effect said that talking to a liberal with a baseball bat is the most effective way to go about things.
In a country where the mention of Abraham Lincoln's assassination creates a solemn atmosphere and the assassination of John Kennedy still brings tears to the eyes of those who lived through it, is the depiction of a sitting president (or any president) respectful or at all appropriate. There are plenty of ways to comment on the state of the war on terror and its impact on the world without depicting a dramatization of the leader of the free world being assassinated. I think the premise of the film is disturbing and questionable enough, however much unneeded controversy could have been avoided by veiling the film under a see through hypothetical with a fictional character - perhaps the president who wins the 2008 elections. The fact that real footage is coupled with digital manipulation of Bush's face onto an actor's body is intentionally offensive and for that I think this film crosses the line of appropriate commentary. The purpose of the film is to reportedly examine the consequences of the war on terror, although little is known about the extent to which this is explored until after the movie premieres.
Docudrama Stages Bush Assassination - Commentary
Wana know why theyre never gonna put this movie in USA? Cause they have to put every secret service agent in every threater so they can listen and watch peoples motions
