British Drama Depicts Fictional Bush Shooting

[JamBray]

Has anyone heard about this? While on the one hand I think it might be an interesting film, I still find it somewhat disturbing. Blurb found here (http://movies.aol.com/news/articles/_a/british-drama-depicts-fictional-bush/20060831184609990001).
LONDON (Aug. 31) - British public broadcaster Channel 4 is courting controversy with what it calls a "shockingly real" television drama about a fictional assassination of President Bush.

Death of a President," shot in the form of a documentary, will use a blend of archival footage and computer-generated special effects to portray Bush in October 2007 arriving in Chicago during an anti-war rally.

In the film, Bush is shot to death by a sniper, and the investigation quickly focuses on a Syrian-born man. It will air in October on Channel 4's More4 digital channel, as well as at the Toronto Film Festival in September.

"It's a pointed political examination of what the war on terror is doing to the American body politic," said More4 boss Peter Dale at a press conference on Thursday.

Promotional materials described the program as "a thought-provoking critique of the contemporary U.S. political landscape."

Dale acknowledged that the program will be controversial but maintained that it was a sophisticated work meant to spur debate.

"I'm sure there will be people upset by it," he said. "I hope people will see the intention as a good one."

Channel 4, which is publicly owned but funded by advertising, was criticized last week by outgoing ITV Chief Executive Charles Allen for its reliance on reality TV shows and "shock docs."

More4's autumn schedule also includes "The Trial of Tony Blair," a satirical program about the future resignation of the British Prime Minister.

[jnettie]

DH was telling me about this last night. Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of it. I can't stand Bush, but I'm not sure about creating a movie with a fake assasination. Kinda gives me the creeps.

[thedoorchick]

I think that's in incredibly poor taste.

And not just because I'm a Bush supporter; I'm pretty sure I would feel the same regardless of whose assassination was depicted in it.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

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.

[flygirl]

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.

LF, I almost wonder if that knee-jerk reaction isn't really knee-jerk, but rather a semi-conscious evaluation of what's PC. When I saw the title, my initial reaction was to wonder what my reaction should be. Better check to make sure that I don't *want* to see him killed, for goodness sake! But after thinking about it, I think most Americans would have no problem whatsoever with a film that depicted Ahmadinejad being assisnated. In fact, I bet there are plenty of movies in which Saddam is axed (Team America aside). Just because we're supposed to be the good guys doesn't make one any better than the other.

[Scooter]

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.

It says he arrives in Chicago "during an anitwar rally," but doesnt say he attends the rally. ;)

[pocket]

hmm..doesn't bother me at all. i probably won't see it if the shooting is graphic, but i don't have a problem with it. aren't there movies where presidents get assassinated? and what about that movie The American President where the president dates a lobbyist. i guess that's a pretend president so it's different.

[kris97]

I think there's a world of difference between showing a fake president dating a lobbyist than a sitting world leader being assassinated. Yes, they have the right to portray it, but it's in incredibly questionable taste, let alone principles.

Frankly, I'm just stunned that some people can shrug at this. Substitute living abortion-provider or president of NOW for George Bush - does that change your view? If it does, then, well, just wow.

[bookworm]

Wasn't Saddam blown up in Hot Shots (or, perhaps, Hot Shots part deux)? He was a sitting world leader at the time.

FWIW, I do think it's in bad taste, but I'm not sure why it should bother me when Hot Shots did not (at least, not for that reason). Maybe because HS was a comedy rather than a drama? That still seems like a bad reason, though.

[pocket]

LOL - you think it would bother me to see a movie where the president of NOW or a "living abortion provider" gets assassinated? I couldn't even name the president of NOW, and I'm not sure what a "living abortion provider" is. Is that an abortion provider who is living ( I suppose it would be hard to assassinate an abortion provider who was already dead?)

It's just a movie. There's that Tom Clancy book where the Capitol gets blown up with an airplane and most of Congress, the president and vp are all killed. And he is so conservative I feel guilty when I read his books! Or Independence Day where the White House is blown up by aliens. Or Zoolander. Or the Manchurian Candidate. Assassination of a world leader is not an uncommon theme especially in spy movies. Isn't the assassination of Trotsky in Frida? I know I've seen a movie about it.

[thedoorchick]

Pocket, I think the difference in those other books/movies is, any character that is killed is fictional. They may be the President of the United States in the story, but it's a made-up person, not a living, actual individual who actually is or was the President.

[pocket]

I guess so... well, if it seems different to you, ok. For me, it's fictional, so what difference does it make? It's like when the Vatican got all bent out of shape about the DVC. Or when a fatwa was issued for Salman Rushdie. Fiction is about fantasy and the suspension of disbelief. You begin the fiction experience by divorcing yourself from reality. What about that Philip Roth book where Charles Lindburgh becomes the president and anti-semitism spreads throughout the US who stays friends with Hitler during WWII? Plenty of movies portray depictions of horrendous crimes or fictional re-enactments of horrendous crimes.

[ysolde]

I think it's in poor taste. The US has had a long history of political assassinations, particularly of presidents. In my lifetime, I remember the attempts on Presidents Ford and Reagan, and the fear and confusion these incidents created. It's one thing to depict the assassination of a fictional president who resembles the sitting president in political stance, etc. To depict the assassination of a sitting, living president crosses the line of taste. The screenwriter, producer, and director have every right to make whatever film they want, of course. However, this is not a film I wish to see.

[jnettie]

I guess it's the intent of it. GB is an extremely unpopular world leader in Great Britian and most other countries. It's almost as if the film wishes for his actual death, KWIM? I can't stand GB, and I wish he were removed from the Presidency, but I don't wish for his death.

[kris97]

LOL - you think it would bother me to see a movie where the president of NOW or a "living abortion provider" gets assassinated? I couldn't even name the president of NOW, and I'm not sure what a "living abortion provider" is. Is that an abortion provider who is living ( I suppose it would be hard to assassinate an abortion provider who was already dead?)

It's just a movie. There's that Tom Clancy book where the Capitol gets blown up with an airplane and most of Congress, the president and vp are all killed. And he is so conservative I feel guilty when I read his books! Or Independence Day where the White House is blown up by aliens. Or Zoolander. Or the Manchurian Candidate. Assassination of a world leader is not an uncommon theme especially in spy movies. Isn't the assassination of Trotsky in Frida? I know I've seen a movie about it.

I meant "living" as in, someone who is, in reality, still alive. What you're talking about are works either about: made-up politicians being assassinated, or leaders who have already been killed. IMO, neither is the same as a movie or book talking about the killing of a real person who is currently alive. Yes, it's fiction, but really, wouldn't you find it distasteful if far right wing sympathisers made a movie depicting the assassination of a prominent liberal leader? Imagine if Paul Wellstone were still alive, but before his death, the NRA financed a film showing him being killed by Second Amendment activists. You'd really just say, "nope, doesn't bother me, fiction"?

[pocket]

Yeah it would bother me if the NRA made a movie about the fictional assassination of Paul Wellstone. But this is not a political film funded by an American lobbying group to influence a particular policy. It's a fictional film made by people in another country intended for entertainment. It's not being shown to promote a particular political agenda or to support a politican. It's not the same, imo. Once you enter the realm of fiction, you enter the realm of art. Art is supposed to make you think. It wouldn't bother me if someone made a fictional movie about Paul Wellstone's plane being shot down by a conservative domestic militia, for example. That sounds like a good movie.

I guess, for me, the purpose of Art - film, literature, visual etc - is to explore ideas. If it's offensive, that is OK. If it's in bad taste, that's OK too. Art doesn't need to be tasteful. It just needs to capture a thought or a mood and deliver it to the viewer to be chewed on.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I agree that it's art, but- that doesn't necessarily mean anything. There's a lot of good, meaningful, controversial art out there, but there's also a lot of crappy, meaningless controversial art too.

I'd be more willing to accept that this was controversy for a higher purpose if the movie was coming from, say, the BBC. But from what the article said, it isn't... It's coming from a network that's about controversy solely for the sake of viewer numbers. It's like- imagine a movie by FOX about the fictional assassination of Hillary Clinton, versus a movie by PBS about the fictional assassination of Hillary Clinton.

[flygirl]

Just have to say again: Do you think any American would have a problem watching Ahmadinejad get axed?

[trestlegirl]

Just have to say again: Do you think any American would have a problem watching Ahmadinejad get axed?

I don't recall any public outrage in the US over Kim Jong-Il being killed off in "Team America." Okay, so it was an incredibly idiotic movie with puppets...but, it depicted the death of a real person, loony dictator though he may be.

Yes it's in bad taste, no I probably wouldn't watch it if I had the opportunity, but I don't see how it's that big of a deal.

[Delta]

I'm kinda eh, whatever. 'They' just want to provoke and by getting bothered by it I'd just be playing into their hands.

As for the Saddam/Ahmenishwhathisname comments, I don't think you can even compare the two. First, Bush holds The Office of the President of the United States and is our leader. Second, SH and Ahmenablahblah are sick, ruthless dictators and just plain BAD people. Not even close to being on the same plane morally speaking.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Well, I'm pretty sure there are people around the world who do think Bush is comparable to those other guys.

[Delta]

I'm sure there are but I certainly don't take them or their opinions seriously.

[bookworm]

As I said, I thought this was in poor taste but the SH one didn't bother me at the time.

But as I think about it, I'm not comfortable with my reaction. I can't stand GWB, but he has a family who loves him. But the others might as well. And if we start getting into who has done more Very Bad Things...that's so subjective.

I'm not actively bothered, or doubting the right of the filmmakers to do what they want, but I think I should consider my own response next time I see Hot Shots (I hope to never see it again, but my dad has a way of finding it on TV when I visit. That and "Die Hard.").

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I'm sure there are but I certainly don't take them or their opinions seriously.
I get the feeling that you're imagining that those people are just over-the-top liberals here in the U.S. or in the U.K. But I know you must know that's not the case. There are people around the world who hear about how our government claims a moral highroad but flies "enemy combatants" to places where they're tortured. They've seen pictures of torture. They hear we have secret camps and that we hold people indefinitely without identifying them. And they hold GWB responsible, specifically because he does hold the Office of the President of the United States and he is our leader.

Considering what they've heard and seen- both true and untrue- I don't think it's at all surprising or silly that people would hold GWB in low esteem. And, I think it's unproductive, and honestly it's like an ostrich burying its head in the sand to not take their opinions seriously. Maybe not in formulating an idea of what GWB is about, but definitely in formulating a plan as to how we deal/relate with other countries and their people.

[justHB]

I get the feeling that you're imagining that those people are just over-the-top liberals here in the U.S. or in the U.K. But I know you must know that's not the case. There are people around the world who hear about how our government claims a moral highroad but flies "enemy combatants" to places where they're tortured. They've seen pictures of torture. They hear we have secret camps and that we hold people indefinitely without identifying them. And they hold GWB responsible, specifically because he does hold the Office of the President of the United States and he is our leader.

Considering what they've heard and seen- both true and untrue- I don't think it's at all surprising or silly that people would hold GWB in low esteem. And, I think it's unproductive, and honestly it's like an ostrich burying its head in the sand to not take their opinions seriously. Maybe not in formulating an idea of what GWB is about, but definitely in formulating a plan as to how we deal/relate with other countries and their people.Well said!

[wendalah]

This doesn't really bother me; I suppose because it doesn't surprise me that someone would come up with a fictional plot of this sort. First off, being president carries a tremendous security risk anyway. Second, Bush is a lighting rod for drama/opinion.

I wouldn't like to see him actually killed, of course. I don't think watching this particular show would bother me though.

[skraus75]

OMG!!!! Then Cheney would be president!!! Maybe I really should have moved to Canada. ;)

[Delta]

Yes, LFPH, I knew someone was going to make that point. ;)

[paulinaaa]

Here's part of the video:

http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1715489

[paulinaaa]

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

There is the spoiler of "who dunnit" at the end of the article in case anyone doesn't want to know. (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1533715,00.html)