Film review: "Death of a President"
international |
arts and media |
feature
Monday October 23, 2006 00:08
by cling film buff
Protestors against Bush in 2007
"Death of a President" was the opening film at the 2006 Toronto Film Festival, and caused something of a minor political uproar for its depiction of the assassination of George W Bush in Chicago in 2007. The Republican Party in Texas asked for it not to be screened, while Hilary Clinton (more than likely Bush's successor) called it "despicable", "absolutely outrageous", and called the fictionalised shooting incident as "a horrible scenario". Two large cinema chains in the US stated they would not screen the film - although it has secured a distributor now. It was also shown as the opening picture in the Cork Film Festival; and was screened twice on UK television in the last month, first on digital station More4 and then the terrestrial Channel 4.
I dont think I've ever seen a feature film focus on an assassination of a real life person who is still alive - especially if its a politician. We've seen political shootings in films set in the present day such as Jonathan Demme's "Manchurian Candidate", and Tim Robbins "Bob Roberts"; but in these the Republican Party is never named, and the figures are all fictionalised, if thinly disguised charicatures of real life personas. Likewise feature films set in the not too distant future often contain nightmarish dystopian visions, examples being the recent "Children of Men" or "V for Vendetta"; yet these scenarios are controlled by fascist thugs and authoritarian big brothers, and never mentioned any one existing political party or political leader in Britain.
WARNING: This review contains some plot spoilers
In recent years there's been a welcome resurgence of interest in the political documentary, following Michael Moore's polemic against George Bush a couple of years ago in "Fahrenheit 9/11". And although Moore raised the ire of many right wing commentators in his own country, his message ultimately went unheeded and Bush romped home, without a shadow of the messing witnessed in 2000. Its rare that a political feature will cause much controversy, particularly when its to the left of centre. "Medium Cool" and its modern day tribute "This Revolution", both shot in the thick of the action, found favour with intellectuals and film buffs but never set the streets on fire or raised the voices of those on the right. The film thats probably caused the most uproar in recent years is "La Haine", which the French cabinet was brought to, and may or may not have contributed to sporadic unrest in Paris when it was released - of course it was almost prophetic in a way when France erupted late last year with enormous rioting in urban centres.
But is "Death of a President" any good? Constructed in a faux documentary style, it begins with a woman in a hijab speaking in arabic (I think), obviously emotionally distraught, talking to the invisible interviewer, asking if the person who pulled the trigger thought about the consequences of their actions in advance.. but then that storyline is left for later. Bush is arriving into hostile territory for a conference. Actors playing the parts of secret service agents, journalists and speech writers all give their side of the events leading up to the shooting. All seem credible, and there is little to differentiate it at this stage from a genuine political documentary.
And because Bush is there, with the stock footage weaved together into a coherent narrative, its very easy to suspend your knowledge that its not real and get into the story. The motorcade is greeted with jeers by anti-war protestors, who break through the police cordon to manage to touch the president's car - "a major security breach" as its described. This in turn leads to an escalation in the stand off later on in the evening, ending with the usual pepper spray, batons, screaming, arrests etc that you'd come to expect from any large scale action with lots of "militants". However during the scuffles one anarchist breaks through the police line unhindered with a long narrow bag on his back, and manages to access a building across the way from the conference centre...
Meanwhile Bush is finishing up his speech, and doing a bit of meeting & greeting with the party faithful at the rear entrance of the conference centre. His guards are edgy, but once an "environmental nut" has been dealt with, they breathe a brief sigh of relief... until suddenly shots violently ring out, and Bush along with one of his minders take a bullet. All hell breaks loose, there's absolute chaos, people are shrieking in terror, the agents are all shouting at once. Bush is bundled into the presidential car, which takes off at speed towards a hospital. We see his doctors later on giving a press conference, saying he has a strong heart and should be ok... but of course we know otherwise. The investigation by the FBI begins almost immediately; the CCTV tapes from the locality are rounded up and scrutinised, and a list of suspects soon emerges. Admittedly the suspects do fit the stereotype of the discontented - a gulf war vet, an anarchist, a Syrian with a possible link to Al-Qaeda.
In the end however, it doesnt really matter who the suspect is, or what their motives are. It is the response that is predictable - and ultimately the most chilling and credible. President Cheney is inaugurated after giving the eulogy at Bush's funeral. And so begins a new stage in the war on terror, with a new Patriot Act with broader definitions of 'terrorism', higher levels of security, greater powers of surveillance given to the agencies, and a potential conflict in the Middle East based on extremely tenuous links to the would-be assassin. The story pulls in more characters, mostly the families of the accused, and we see the effects of the Bush administration's political choices manifesting themselves in the both the anguish of the Syrian's wife, and the pain of the mother of the dead US soldier.
The film slows down somewhat in the second half, the energy of the street protests and chaos of the assassination would have been impossible to maintain all the way through. Yet it is the latter stages of the film which show a scenario which is utterly plausible, and in essence not much different from the current situation in the US. The killing of Bush only increases the eroding of civil liberties and results in a military build up - in much the same way that the Americans responded to the Sept 11 attacks. If anything it shows that violence begets violence. Shooting Bush is not a method of resolving conflict; like a hydra the GOP head grows back twice as strong and determined to inflict as much damage and revenge as possible. The story concludes with the grim result of an innocent man locked away in prison, but in the new atmosphere of fear and tension, his background means it will be a long time before he gets out - and nobody is particularly bothered about his plight.
Although a lot of hype has surrounded this film, which is usually a good way of spoiling it in advance because you expect too much, it is definitely worth a viewing.
things get a little heated outside where Bush is speaking
ceremonial flag burning
CCTV camera shot from hotel lobby where Bush gets shot
about half a second before Bush is shot
chaos in the shooting aftermath
one suspect on CCTV
Cheney gives the eulogy at Bush's funeral
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (19 of 19)
Jump To Comment: 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1Come on jeff, do you really believe that neo-con propaganda you just spouted.?? The "war on terror" is phony , there is no global terror network other than the US and their band of puppets. Get a grip on reality jeff.
Matt,
The only venue that I see President Bush as a "dangerous" world leader is if I am a terrorist bound on killing thousands of innocent people in the name of religion. I think it pretty pretentious to follow the belief that Bush is out there in a renegade form trying to "convert wayward ideals" or "man handle the global economy," I rather believe that he is out there trying to dismantle the terrorist network that exists. The same network that spins their web throughout the world, as you have so keenly pointed out. You might not like his tactics, you might deem them somewhat aggressive, but, "dangerous," I hardly think so.
BTW It's not the first film like this as it happens, in 2003 there was a movie about the assassination of Bill Gates called 'Nothing So Strange', done in a kind of docu-drama style.
I saw the film Death of a President this afternoon. I found that the film made me do a lot of thinking. Why would they have a plot in which a serving president is assassinated? Probably to draw people into going to see the movie. I liked the documentary format. I think that the focus was the fear and paranoia that people in North America have towards the Muslim world, and how that fear can impair judgement and escalate to more violence. The US Patriot Act certainly is shocking---to realize how it infringes on the rights of the American people under the guise of keeping them safe. I think the movie is meant to help wake up the American people concerning their own fears and how those fears are leading them down a dangerous path. I think it has little to do with Bush and his policies, but more to do with the gullibility of the American people and their willingness to accept the actions and policies of the Executive Branch blindly because of the symbolism of the office i.e. the president must be right since he is the president. I liked the film. It makes me determined to keep tabs on and be vocal about our Prime Minister's position in Afghanistan. I don't want to see Canada follow in the US's footsteps concerning attitudes toward the Muslim world.
I saw "Death Of A President" a few nights ago and found the movie to be incredibly boring. Aside from all the "hype" regarding whether or not the movie has moral issues, this is of no concern to me. I just found the movie to be plan boring. So boring, in fact, I left three-quarters of the way through the film. Don't waste your money or your sense on this ridiculousness. Do the motion-picture business a favour and forget about it - really!
maybe the choice to assassinate bush in the film was merely a ploy to drum up some controversy but so....the controversy would inevitably attract more people than an actual documentary about the insanity of bush's war on terror and how cheney et al. will use whatever they can to launch further conquests in the middle east. No doubt a lot of right wingers watched for the novelty value and maybe just maybe took in some of the messages the film was trying to get across.
Besides how can criticism of bush be written off as old hat when he is still leader of the most powerful and dangerous governments in the world....yes dangerous if you don't believe me ask the iraqis, the afghanis, the colombians, or any of the inhabitants of african nations where the US has propped up "friendly" dictatorships....we can't stop criticising just because he refuses to go away....
Do we all not feel that the criticism of Bush is old hat already? This movie, I personally feel is another attempt to "cash in" on the "Bush bashing." I truly would hope that a professional filmmaker would be producing thought-provoking material that helps society in some way or another...unfortunately, the spin that has been put upon this film contradicts those ideals and is more for shock value than anything else.
This story is news worthy not because of the film, but the way that its release has demonstrated the morbid fascination of peoples all over the world to be sucked into the senseless "interpretation" of the Bush camp.
Bush is, indeed a horrible human being, but it seems the directors/writers are just using his name to drum up publicity. I love how the Brits feel it is open season to attack America at every opportunity because they feel the US is the last safe country for them to berate now that they are so hated worldwide.
I wonder where these filmmakers were when their own PM, Thatcher, was murdering Irish citizens in the North throughout her bloody reign. But, again, it's easier to abuse America's president-an open and easy target!
This is just like an elaborate personal insurance plea for Bush + Blair - saying, "please don't bother to asassinate me, it will only make things worse for everybody"
But how can things get worse if Bush is popped? He has already been brain-dead for a long time, since Yale, and probably cannot feel the bullets - and Cheney was going to intro PA3 and attack Syria anyhow, with or without his sock-puppet.
So go ahead Lone Sniper, be my guest.
It's just like when Kennedy was shot.
The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter.
But it seems he might have had connections to the Mob, he flurted with both Pro and Anti-Castro extremists, he was being monitored by the CIA and FBI, he had once lived in Russia so he might have been a KGB assassin and he was a highly trained US Marine marksman. He was suspected of shooting at Gen Walker, a right wing John Birch Society extremist.
But he seems more likely to have been a loner who craved fame and attention and felt by associating with political groups he would somehow influence world events. He imagined himself as some kind of anarchist fight a one man war.
If Bush was really shot you could bet the same kind of conspiracy theories would surface.
In the film it is suggested that Cheney might have had Bush killed in a covert operation to get a new more draconian Patriot Act passed by Congress and to become President
But it seems that a Syrian ex-soldier who associated with Al-Qaeda and travelled to Afganistan prior to 9/11 is the chief suspect, he was at the scence and circumstantial physical evidence links him to the crime scene, CCTV footage, a finger print and gun residue on his clothing.
Then there is the simple lone assassin ex-Marine who believes he is an American patriot.
At the end of the film either scenario seems plausible.
But it seems more likely that the Syrian is responsible.
If Hinkley had killed Reagan and been shot dead by a vengeful person like Jack Ruby in the same year as Pope John Paul II was shot by an alleged Soviet controlled Turkish assassin we would never hear the end of the whirl of conspiracy theories.
'The scenario protrayed in the film is highly believable.'
Which scenario was that, Righteous?
That the Lefty Protester did it? the black guy or the Muslim?
The movie borrows a lot from movies such as "JFK" and "The Day of the Jackal" or books such as "Fatherland" by Robert Harris - they all posit likely scenarios.
The scenario protrayed in the film is highly believable.
I bet George W. Bush watched it and had a good chuckle.
but worth having a look anyway. The score and the shots of all the buildings give a nice dehumanising effect thats worth seeing and the faux documentary format is way more informative and fair than any mainstream documentary coverage I've seen when covering protests. Still a bit crap though, not a patch on independent coverage.
What is worth considering is the fact that this is made at all.Not the plot twist and the liberal framing of the story - but rather that we can download the death of Bush for our entertainment? When will the budgets and video expertise be devoted to Bono, thats what I want to know.
Oh, and to Jesus and John, Indymedia can be anything you want it to be - this week the feature is a film review. Do you want it to be different? Do some work.
I don't think you can say Hilary Clinton is "more than likely Bush's successor". This may be more wishful thinking on the author's part than anything else, as it's really too soon to make such claims.
I'll try to find some time to write my own little review of this film - it is feature worthy just in terms of how the anti-war left is protrayed in the film. A lot of the film hits close to the bone and might make one blush at times how realistic it is in terms of rhetorical arguments and how they are used and justified on the left.
http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=president+death
I don't mind it being a story, although it's more like an opinion, seeing as it's essentially a review. How it got promoted to being a feature is a bit beyond me though.
The thing about censorship removed last night- and now featurising what should be
in other press- I expect this comment to be removed asap- breachesthe commandments
'Shall not Citicise'
But but a lame feature- it'll be car chases and nipples next.
Its a new film that created controversy both here and in n. america.. and elicited remarks from politicians, sounds like news to me.
If you think something else should be featurised, why dont you write something yourself instead of giving out about what's up on the front page. If its well written, properly punctuated, with a decent amounf of original content, it might get turned into a feature. If you want to pull something off Youtube and review it, that's great - do it, dont talk about it.
It's a film review.
yes, I know plenty of people on this site don't like Bush (and for good reason), and it's entertaining to mock him, but c'mon... this is a film review, not a feature. Where are the related stories? What is newsworthy about it?
Can we all just pull stuff off youtube.com and get features? How about Terrorstorm by Alex Jones? Could write loads on that, but is it a news feature just because it was made?