Death of a President

[vivalaultra 0]

I guess this belongs in here since it's a movie...

 

How Do You Sell 'Death of a President'?

By ANTHONY BREZNICAN, USA Today

(Oct. 26) - How does a movie studio entice people to go to a movie that sounds like it's committing treason?

 

That's the challenge facing Newmarket Films' new 'Death of a President,' a fictional documentary about what could happen if President Bush were assassinated.

Simply joking about killing a sitting president is a quick way to get a visit from the Secret Service. Could the theme make potential moviegoers skittish?

 

"It's not a crime to see the movie," jokes Richard Abramowitz, marketing director for Newmarket, which also released the controversial 'The Passion of the Christ.' "The film does not promote violence on any level. It no more advocates for assassination of the president than 'Silence of the Lambs' advocates for cannibalism."

 

'Death of a President,' from British director and co-writer Gabriel Range, has raised hackles ever since it premiered in September at the Toronto Film Festival.

 

Some large theater chains balked at featuring it, and the film will open Friday in about 100 theaters, mostly art houses. CNN and Fox News refused to run ads for the movie.

 

"There's a provocative element to it, particularly in synopsis," Abramowitz says. "A one-sentence logline makes the film sound more incendiary than it is."

 

The film starts with the faux assassination in 2007 and features fictional Secret Service agents, speechwriters, investigators and journalists discussing the events and their repercussions.

 

One of the suspects has ties to Syria, which leads the newly inaugurated President Cheney to threaten military force.

 

"This film is about the world we live in," he says. "It's about the consequences of the climate of fear."

 

Though it won the International Critics Award in Toronto, reviews have been divided.

 

Jim Emerson, who is filling in for the ailing Roger Ebert at the ChicagoSun-Times, wrote that the use of real characters is "seamless, intelligent and maybe even necessary to an understanding of George W. Bush 's role in the world." The Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt called Range's manipulation of real footage a "morally dubious tactic."

 

Conservatives and liberals alike have condemned the subject matter. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the film "despicable."

 

Though the White House is obviously displeased with his film, Range says he was contacted only once by the Secret Service, when he was shooting motorcade scenes in Chicago.

 

Range says Secret Service agents did not ask him to submit a script for review. "I think it was clear to them that the film was being made, and no way was it going to incite anyone to do this."

[SuperJerk 0]

Political assasination is an idea that runs contrary to what the vast majority of Americans believe in, and to a movie about it about the sitting president is disturbing. This sounds like it might've been a pretty good movie if they'd made it about a fictional person.

 

They're not advocating that assasinating Bush is a good idea, but simply saying "here's what would happen if he was," but I don't find a filmmaker's ideas on what that would be like to be a particularly useful insight into the real world.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

the general ideas as he describes it sounds kind of interesting, but its still tacky as hell. Nobody's stupid enough to be surprised by the controversy, which indicates that choosing a current president to buy it in the movie was done as a publicity stunt deliberately.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

They should screen it in adult theaters since plenty of liberals in the US will likely be whacking off to it.

 

If they were really interested in showing the effects of an assasination, they could have simply used a fictitious president. Even if they had called him "President George B. Walker" or something, it would have been less transparent and tacky.

[Guest Felonies!]

West Wing: "Boy, wouldn't it be great if the president was a Democrat? HMM?"

 

Commander-in-Chief: "Boy, wouldn't it be great if the president was a woman? HMM?"

 

This movie: "Boy, wouldn't it be great if the president was shot dead? HMM?"

[Guest Vitamin X]

Hey what if we combine all three if Hillary Clinton wins in `08? HMM?

[Red Baron 0]

Hey what if we combine all three if Hillary Clinton wins in `08? HMM?

 

Awesome.

 

 

I do want to see this movie out of curiosity, but I'll end up hating it by the end of the movie.

[bob_barron 0]

I bet Slapnuts is turning into a big block of ice just thinking about it.

[Guest Hotbutter Spoontoaster]

They should screen it in adult theaters since plenty of liberals in the US will likely be whacking off to it.

i bet, lol!

[Gary Floyd 0]

Funny thing is, many of the reviews its gotten say it's boring and forgettable.

[2GOLD 0]

Hey what if we combine all three if Hillary Clinton wins in `08? HMM?

 

You trying to give me nightmares?

[Ginger Snaps 0]

I think the more offensive thing about this film is not that Bush gets killed but the implication that we'd just pick some random Arab to blame for the death.

[SuperJerk 0]

West Wing: "Boy, wouldn't it be great if the president was a Democrat? HMM?"

 

The West Wing debuted while Clinton was president, smart ass.

[bob_barron 0]

Czech's still right though. Many people still looked at the West Wing as life with a Democrat president, since only season 1 took place with Clinton in office

[SuperJerk 0]

Czech's still right though. Many people still looked at the West Wing as life with a Democrat president, since only season 1 took place with Clinton in office

Bob, you ignorant slut. Your capacity to be wrong never ceases to amaze me. Don't correct me unless you're absolutely sure you've got your facts right.

How can someone with that much useless TV trivia trapped in their head not realize (or be able to look up) that the show premiered on September 22, 1999 and Bush took office on January 20, 2001? Since when are TV seasons 2 years long?

 

Also, Czech's premise was that the show was created so it would show what it would be like to have a Democrat as president. There already was a Democrat as president at the time, and had been for over 6 years. Thus, his premise is in error. End of story.

[bob_barron 0]

I always love how Jerk acts like that disagreeing with him is akin to raping his mom.

 

I KNOW when West Wing premiered. I also know when Bush took office. OMG TV TRIVIA!~

 

For MOST of West Wing's run, it had a Democratic president, while real life America did not. Many people then saw West Wing as what America would be like with a Dem as president.

 

I hope Jerk disagrees with this, so I can revel in his snarkiness.

[SuperJerk 0]

I always love how Jerk acts like that disagreeing with him is akin to raping his mom.

 

That's tremendous. I'm seriously running out of room in my sig.

 

Anyhow...I took Czech's post to mean those were the reason the shows/movies were created. You're taking Czech's post to mean that's why people watched those shows. If he meant what you think he meant, instead of what I think he meant, then I'd argue that since most people quit watching West Wing about 2 years into Bush's presidency, his comment was not really valid from that perspective either.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Being called an ignorant slut really got under Bob's skin, I guess.

 

By contrast, Jerk doesn't appear to have skin.

[Guest Felonies!]

The West Wing did begin its run during the Clinton presidency, but wasn't the show initially supposed to be about Rob Lowe's character and his job within the White House, and later metamorphosed into "wow! Look at these ethical, educated liberals doing The Right Thing The Right Way!" later on? I mean, come on, as if the show wasn't trying to idealize the Democratic Party. I'm surprised John Goodman didn't dress like a character from a Thomas Nast comic.

[SuperJerk 0]

The West Wing did begin its run during the Clinton presidency, but wasn't the show initially supposed to be about Rob Lowe's character and his job within the White House, and later metamorphosed into "wow! Look at these ethical, educated liberals doing The Right Thing The Right Way!" later on? I mean, come on, as if the show wasn't trying to idealize the Democratic Party. I'm surprised John Goodman didn't dress like a character from a Thomas Nast comic.

Did you even watch the show?

 

First of all, the first year of West Wing was more about all the mistakes the characters made than highlighting one ideology over another. The whole MS storyline from years 2-4 ended with President Bartlet admitting he was wrong to cover-up his illness. Once they'd established that the show was about Democrats, they pretty much had to keep it that way because everyone was under contract. The original plan was to have Alan Alda (Vinnick) take over as a moderate Republican president, but those plans were scrapped because the show was cancelled. Because John Spencer died, they decided to let Jimmy Smits (Santos) win the election.

 

Second, the focus shifted away from Lowe's character (Sam) because Martin Sheen joined the cast, and test audiences for the pilot said he was the character they were most interested in. Bradley Whitford's character (Josh), remained the secondary focus of the show because people responded to the romantic tension with his female assistant (Donna).

 

Third, very few of the shows Republican characters were portrayed as villians (the exceptions being James Brolin's Gov. Ritchie and Speaker Haffley). John Goodman's character was a straightforward conservative, and the tension in the episodes he played in came from the Democrats paranoia about what he might do, rather than what he would do. Matthew Perry, Christian Slater, Mark Feuerstein (Calley), William Fichtner and Emily Procter (Ainsley Hayes) among others were all sympathetic conservatives or Republicans that were recurring characters.