Bush assasination movie

[House of Mustard]

Regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, this just seems like really poor taste:

President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama

Set around October 2007, President Bush is assassinated as he leaves the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago.

Death of a President, shot in the style of a retrospective documentary, looks at the effect the assassination of Bush has on America in light of its 'War on Terror'.

The 90 minutes feature explores who could have planned the murder, with a Syrian-born man wrongly put in the frame.

Peter Dale, head of More4, which is due to air the film on October 9, said the drama was a "thought-provoking critique" of contemporary US society.

He said: "It's an extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work, a drama constructed like a documentary that looks back at the assassination of George Bush as the starting point for a very gripping detective story.

"It's a pointed political examination of what the War on Terror did to the American body politic."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365246-details/President+Bush+assassinated+in+new+TV+docudrama/article.do

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I dunno. Depends on how it's handled on screen. If every character is a yelling liberal, than it's a bad taste thing, designed, it would seem, to threaten W.

However, if the plot of the actual movie is a-political, I'm not sure that I find it more tasteless than assassinating any fictional president.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

I don't see how that is in bad taste at all.  It's a story about a political figure being assasinated, which is fiction.  It's not like they are saying, "hey, you should kill the president."  They're just using a fictional story about such to further a plot or point.

Even if they used it to get across a liberal agenda, I don't get why you would say that it is in bad taste.  It's just a fake storyline used to show a point of view, but instead of spending a bunch of time creating a fictional background essentially the same with fictional characters, they're just using the current administration to portray their story, and therefor their message, into a setting all their viewers understand with much less explanation and much less confusion.  It's no worse than me writing a fictional book about the world after George Bush, but following the problems of his administration in the future, a really common portrayl of politcal fiction writers.

[Entsuropi]

It's in bad taste because it's quite threatening. They may not want to say this, but it will still appear that his death would be good.

Nothing would be lost by making it a fictional character. And I absolutely hate fiction or films written in a political manner which are designed to change your opinions. 'Get off the pulpit, you self impressed mouth-jockey' is what they make me say.

[Skar]

Well said, Ent.  

shows him being gunned down just hours after driving past an anti-war demonstration while doing a talk in Chicago

shows the media storm around the War on Terror as Muslims are fingered as the culprits before there is any evidence.

In the wake of the assassination, authorities focus on a Syrian-born man in the search for the culprit.

From those quotes it seems pretty obvious how the film is being slanted and why it was made.

If I may quote, Get off the pulpit you self-impressed mouth-jockey.

I suggest this man move to Syria and attempt to make a similar film about the leader of Iran.  How long do you suppose he would last?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I suggest this man move to Syria and attempt to make a similar film about the leader of Iran.  How long do you suppose he would last?

I'm not sure what that has to do with it?

[Skar]

I'm attempting to point out two things at once.

First, that the author of the film is taking potshots at a relatively harmless world leader
-whose citizens enjoy unprecedented levels of security and prosperity,
-whose allies enjoy his protection and help,
-whose country has been responsible for handing out more aid around the world than the rest of the world combined, and
-whose wars are more bloodless and less dangerous to civilians than any in history.  
I point this out by comparing him to the leader of Syria (I could have said Iran, I suppose, or NKorea, or any of a number of African countires or... well Syria is just the place that popped into my head first.) who is none of those things and who would have the author of such a film killed out of hand, along with all of his other political enemies or any given Jew.  

Which brings me to the second point.  It seems ironic to me that the only countries and leaders of countries that have such films made about them or in them are those under whom it is completely safe to do so.  If the author really wanted to do some good in the world he would take some risks and perhaps document the atrocities going on in any of a hundred countries around the world, like Syria, instead of placidly taking shots at one of the few leaders who sit still for such things from within a country where he is warm and safe.

So I was pointing out that were he to make such a documentary in and about Syria and its leader he would not be so safe, which implies all that I've written above.

I suspect that his motivation, however, is not to do good in the world but rather to gain prestige and perhaps some cash by peddling a controvesial film.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

so it's wrong to question your leadership when you have the privelege to do so, but right when it's more dangerous to do so. Interesting.

[Skar]

Not at all.  Who said anything about wrong or right? Not I. Should I be insulted that you put stupid words in my mouth?

I merely find it ironic that all these starry-eyed crusaders only seem to attack targets who are actually responsible for a great deal of good in the world.  And I find it telling that they refrain from taking the risks necessary to attack targets responsible for actual evil.

How many pieces have you seen or heard of attacking Bush or Blair and how many attacking the people who commit actual atrocities?  An interesting ratio yes?

As for questioning one's leadership I believe that should be done whether your leadership grants you the privilege to do so or not.

But the film in question, as described, is not questioning, it's merely a frothymouthed attack.

[Spriggan]

Roger Friedman gives his review of the movie over at Foxnex.com (just FYI he's a Micheal Moore fan to a degree)

"Their intention is to show him hoisted by his own petard, as it were; the ultimate victim of his Patriot Act. This doesn’t quite work, since “Death of a President” simply turns into a laborious episode of “CSI” rather than expanding the premise so we can see America post-Bush."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213289,00.html

[Skar]

Uh, huh.  My characterization of the film seems to have been dead on, according to that guys review.  And if he's a Michael Moore fan it must have been REALLY bad.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

How many pieces have you seen or heard of attacking Bush or Blair and how many attacking the people who commit actual atrocities?  An interesting ratio yes?

Interesting, but hardly condemning. As you say, questioning our leader *should* be done. Especially if we disagree with his politics. There's little question that what Osama bin Ladin did was a horrible evil. Why would we want to investigate *if* it's evil? If someone were to make a movie that merely questioned it, rather than stated it, you'd be just as upset as you are now.

As for "frothymouthed attack." How, exactly, would such a story be told that questioned? It seems to me that presenting a work of fiction wherein somethign happens and we can see a hypothetical result of a real world decision is the best way to question something. It is, in fact, one of the primary ways political fiction has always been done.

In this case, it appears to have been done poorly. As in, badly executed. That does not, however, mean that the entire motivation of the creators is debased or even suspect.

In short, I still find this a valid expression of political discontent. Nothing you've said has given me a remotely good reason to believe otherwise. This does not mean I agree with his position (indeed, I cannot conclusively say what his position is, having only heard about this third hand). It just means that you guys, who dislike "art" that tries to convince you of an opinion, or of "art" that disagrees with your opinion, believe said "art" is always done by "self-impressed mouth-jockeys"

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Oddly its not like the idea of killing the president is new in movies, or literature. Its high drama, and it always has some sort of political bias. But since this is a free country I dont really care that much how they do it.

I don't think its any more threatening than My Fellow Americans was as far as movies go.

[Skar]

Interesting, but hardly condemning....

 No, not condemning, but it does reduce further films on the same tired old subject of why Bush and America and Blair and Britain are evil empires to yet more mouthing of the same old tired lines of rhetoric/propoganda instead of something new or valuable.

There's little question that what Osama bin Ladin did was a horrible evil. Why would we want to investigate *if* it's evil?

 I did not suggest either that the man should investigate Osama Bin Laden or *if* anything was evil.  I, in fact, suggested that he should *expose* the actions of Bashar al-Assad and his regime in my first post and then expanded the suggestion to include the leaders of any of the other murdering dictatorships in the world.  Osama Bin Laden is not the leader of a state and, as you point out, is pretty obviously evil, not requiring a great deal of investigation. Although considering the number of times I've heard America accused of somehow deserving OBL's actions on 9/11 it wouldn't hurt to investigate and expose OBL's history and agenda in a high-profile film.  Instead we get more of the same anti-Bush rhetoric, propogated out of a transparent desire to make a buck and gain prestige in certain circles.  Again, I defend the guy's right to do it.  But I also have the right to heap scorn upon it for its obvious intellectual and philosophical failings and contradictions.

If someone were to make a movie that merely questioned it, rather than stated it, you'd be just as upset as you are now.

Again, should I be upset that you put stupid words in my mouth?  You claim to know what I would do in a hypothetical situation?  Tiring and prejudiced.  I would not, in fact, be upset if someone rigorously questioned the morality of OBL's action or the actions of Bush or Blair.  The defining characteristic, of course, being the "rigorous" part.  I have yet to see anything rigorous on the matter.  

It seems to me that presenting a work of fiction wherein somethign happens and we can see a hypothetical result of a real world decision is the best way to question something. It is, in fact, one of the primary ways political fiction has always been done.

Agreed.

As for "frothymouthed attack." How, exactly, would such a story be told that questioned?

By rigorously examining the effects of said event instead of blindly pounding on the refrain of anti-Bush/Anti-Americanism that has become so tired and common.  Imagine if you will a mockumentary seriously examining how the fall of Bashar al-Assad might lead to democracy in Syria?  It would need to rigorously examine and believably overcome the problems of fanatical Islam being a power in the country, it would have to examine and overcome the problems of family, clan, and tribe coming before the nation in the minds of the people, it would have to overcome the problems of government censorhip in the subject country,  it would have to overcome the challenges presented by the subject country being surrounded by other countries who do not want democracy to succeed, etc...  In the end such a mockumentary might actually propose or inspire real solutions to those real problems which could lead to some idealistic revolutionary in that country, or another, to actually take the plunge into resistance and perhaps succeed.  Now imagine if there was a large body of such work.  Its effects would compound to the good of the world.  Instead, we get "Death of a President" and "Farenheit 9/11."

[Skar]

In this case, it appears to have been done poorly. As in, badly executed. That does not, however, mean that the entire motivation of the creators is debased or even suspect.

 It does seem to have been done poorly.  Had it been done well I would applaud it and I would be grateful that someone had taken the trouble to add intelligent thought to the matter and the general discussion.  However, it wasn't done well and the motivation of its creators is fairly obvious given its context.

In short, I still find this a valid expression of political discontent. Nothing you've said has given me a remotely good reason to believe otherwise. This does not mean I agree with his position (indeed, I cannot conclusively say what his position is, having only heard about this third hand).

I never said it was NOT a valid expression of political discontent.  I said it was poorly done, transparently motivated by less than worthy goals, and adds nothing of worth to the current general discussion.  Nothing you've said has given me a remotely good reason to believe otherwise.

It just means that you guys, who dislike "art" that tries to convince you of an opinion, or of "art" that disagrees with your opinion, believe said "art" is always done by "self-impressed mouth-jockeys"

Again, you put stupid words in my mouth.  It's becoming a pattern.  I never said nor do I believe anything of the sort.  Well done, intellectually honest "art" pleases me whether it agrees with my current opinion or not.  Sometimes it changes my opinion.  This film, as described, is neither well done nor intellectually honest.  So I doubt it would please me.  But, as you say, neither one of us can conclusively say anything about the film since we've heard about it third hand.  Perhaps we've both been duped by reviewers and columnists with political agendas.