Someone, named Gabriel Range decided to write a ficitional documentary that is about the assassination of President Bush, who just so happened to be very much alive.
I’m not even certain what to think about that. I do think it’s the craziest idea ever simply because he’s still president & he’s very much alive.
Despite the fact that there are a lot of people who would love to see him out of office right this moment. But the idea of him being assassinated doesn’t sit too well with me.
I don’t wish a death on anyone, even if they were my nemesis.
I would love to be a fly around his conversations just so I could really understand what he’s thinking & I want to know exactly what he thinks about having a film be based on him being assassinated. I can only imagine.
Would you go see this film? I don’t think I would.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
25 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Erin, which fictional film are you speaking of? Is that “The Death Of A President” that Gabriel Range wrote and directed?
I strongly agree that it is not very wise to use our U.S. President’s name. I wonder if our grandchildren would probably inquire me if that film is true?
The terrorist or a person with mental illness will be learning from Gabriel Range film when the POTUS might be assassinated on his second term. Therefore, the filmmaker Range will be entirely responsibility for the death of the great politic leader.
No matter if I never voted for Dubya twice, but I still respect him as POTUS…
It’s called speculative fiction and has been around for a long time as a genre in both literature and film.
Just because one idea seems a bit too real doesn’t mean it’s wrong to make it. It just means Range managed to drive his point home. The cool thing about these things is that it makes us THINK.
We cannot live our lives afraid of what our actions might inspire others to do. Rather, we should think about what our lives are at the moment.
There is a reason why it’s called FICTION. He has a right to free speech and there is nothing wrong with what he has chosen to portray.
If one is worried about what actions this may inspire, the same can be said to other fictional/non-fictional pieces.
Still, I don’t find it very wise to portray the assassination of a living president (whomever that person might be), using *real* footage of that person, not a fictional character. How’d you react if there was a movie on the assassination of Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela or Manmohan Singh? Not many people would approve, either.
I’ll concede you that point. Watching real footage of him would be a bit surreal, I think. Otherwise… *shrugs*
Plus, Dubya, like Annan, Mandela, and Singh, is a highly public and political personality. That, in conjunction with the fact that it’s speculative fiction for a reason, makes whether someone “approves” moot. People have disapproved of worse.
I get your point Allison, and I’m all in favor for the freedom of speech, the ability of making movies about almost anything, etc. It’s just the usage of real footage that disturbs me -some may even view it as incitement. You want to make a movie where the US president is killed? Sure, but use an actor and an invented name, not real footage of the current US President -otherwise I’d find it tasteless and even disrespectful.
I’ll watch the flick and cheer. It’s only a movie, not a movie that would happen in the future.
The eerie concidences within films always come true like the “Taxi Driver” (ex. Reagan assassination) and “The China Syndrome” (ex. Three Miles Island nuclear incident).
Hollywood haven’t made any many political films lately.
“The Day of Jackal” (the 70s film version) about the assassinated plot on French President DeGaulle which gave a lot of ideas how to assassinate the state-elected leader.
Pentagon people did not learn anything from the “Battle of Algiers”, French film. They just screened the film for soliders about the urban warfares. If the Pentagon carefully studied the “Battle of Algiers” film from creating the real insurgency in the first place among locals and visitors. The film clearly pointed out the brutal treatment of locals and rebels resulted in endless insurgency and chaotic situations.
I hope that the Gabriel Range film will be not just a gimmick with weak plot or not really the political film.
Many foreign films effectively deal with political issues than Hollywood films. So Range’s film is British anyway.
I would be much pleased to see President Bush being fictionally tortured by some environmental group or the former victims of the CIA under his father’s CIA days in one of the politically explosive film. So President Bush would understand how the real feeling to be tortured or humilated by someone else.
It sounds like it is just a wet dream film for the bleeding heart liberal demographic…
Anyway, I disagree with the film’s premise, but I’ll defend to the death the filmmaker’s right to make it…
yeah, it is definitely a wet-dream film as you put it. i, for one, can’t wait to see it. alternate history films (or does this count? it takes place next year, so it isn’t history yet) are always so much fun to watch.
If they’re using Bush in the film (this is the first time I’ve even heard about this film), I wonder how it will influence the audience? Will they support him more or support an assassination attempt? Hmm.
I was thinking about Forrest Gump - how they used special effects to take real situations and integrate his fictional character into those old film clips. Not to say people believed he WAS there, but in a movie about the assassination of a president, with the special effects and cinematography these days, it could surely fool a lot of people and alter perceptions for the worst.
Just my two cents.
Got to mention that this mock documentary was produced by BBC, which is interesting to me… making this a government-sponsored thing. Also, the freedom of speech over there is considerably less… to think they’d open the door to an imaginary assassination of PM Blair or any incumbent PM is shocking. And funny.
Sacha brought up an interesting point: incitement. What could be construed as such? Here in the U.S., there is the Clear and Present Danger test. Special circumstances have added wrinkles… for example, a burning cross has been recognized by the Supreme Court (not sure if U.S. or the state of VA) as prima facie (on its face) evidence of intent to harm. But not a burning flag. If copycat attempts ensue from this, then we very might well see action against this, unlikely legislation but maybe an industry-wide resolution (MPAA?) to not finance or produce movies like this.
All in all, free speech is delicate.
It’s a work of art.
No need to get political about this.
I perfectly understand people’s concerns about the idea of having the W being the main role in the movie and the one to be “assassinated”. On the other hand, I think the movie attempts to discuss the notion of what will happen to the nation afterwards when the president is assassinated. Our dear W is a constant controversial figure, the guy who is constantly loved and questioned by the conservatives and completely loathed and disregarded by the liberals. W is the perfect figure to stir up discussions of how the laws and politics fall into the place for the nation’s past, present and future.
Just enjoy the movie. I am sure that this movie will not be high on the must-see list, but I’m sure it’ll be an interesting flick to watch.
agreed about fiction, etc. If someone is inspired by the film to go out and assassinate Bush or any other leader then that’s his or her responsbility. Our rights to this and that have been slowly chipping away the past few decades and even more now with the current administration. So we’re not responsible for choices to make (ie right to abort, same sex-marriage). How many commericals and tv shows have you seen lately with a big disclaimer slapped on them?
While I agree with Dan that we shouldn’t make a big deal out of this.
My concern is this: How would you feel if someone made a movie like this about you or your loved ones? I think it is inappropriate. It is not about our right to free speech — it is really the issue of respect, as Bush is a human being like the rest of us.
Unfortunately, this concern you raised doesn’t really apply to public figures such as presidents. Sure, Jenna and Barbara definitely wouldn’t like this movie, but according to our cultural norms, Bush is fair game for these antics.
A movie of George Bush’s assassination? I don’t see the problem but interesting enough that there has not been one movie about our previous Presidents being assassinated on the job. That tells me how much other countries really despise our current President. Come, 2008! Hurry up!
It will be very interesting to watch the fictional story of current President assassinated. How imaginable can it be revealed by the filmmakers? It reminded me of watching my favorite cartoon, JUSTICE LEAGE, a group of superheroes who saved Earth from the League of Villains. In the bizarre episode of JUSTICE LEAGUE, superheroes discovered stunning the Nazis occupied Earth after the “electrical marinated attack” and their watchtower vanished into the space. They encountered “super” Batman and he led them in dislocation cave. The story explained how the Nazi occupied Earth by the advanced technologies from the future. Superheroes jumped into the swirl time machine to change the history, to combat against the Nazi’s advanced technologies and colonized the world. It occurred when the villain from the future brought the advanced technology devices (laptop, computerized card, etc) to change the Axis of world and to honor Hitler. That’s unbearable!
For my “devil advocate”, it will be nice if the time machine arrives our time, then we could change the history of deaf and hard of hearing to equalize the hearing world by accepting sign language, oral speaking, and capable of liberal communications each other beautifully in the world. And the big 3 renowned universities/college (Gallaudet, NTID/RIT, and CSUN) would have beautifully fashion of exchange to educate and to promote deaf and hard of hearing individuals to pursue job opportunities, to equal accessible to the communication technologies everywhere, to equal justification for all of us, and to settle decent and economic lives as well as hearing people.
In addition, I look forward to see President Bush to leave the White house in January 2009 and the Democratic President will re-create a beautiful country like President Clinton years.
GWB will leave the lasting legacy on our country which we have to clean up his real mess for decades.
That’s why we ought to elect Kerry to save our country from the hordes of madmen (Bush, Inc.).
J.J., I am not one of the bleeding liberal demographic. I am very angry with President Bush’s inept leadership on many domestic issues from squandering our federal budget surplus to “big business” cronyism. I consider myself “fiscally conservative” and “socially liberal”.
I would love to make a movie about President Bush being FICTIONALLY attacked by the natotechnology device sleathly crawl inside his body. One of the assasian(s) simply blow the micro-size device into Bush’s drinking glass or his nose. So we would turn GWB into a total nutcase for the U.S. Congress to impeach him and his Bush, Inc cronies.
Or the FICTIONAL pyschological-ladden chemical fumes release into the White House indoor air system and turn Bush against himself like tearing out his human parts, ex. ears or hair or flesh. (Moderate scene from what I originally thought).
Let’s get one thing straight:
-I voted for Bush
-I think Bush sucks
-The reason I voted for him is simply this:
When Bush gets up in the morning, he stratches his crotch, and says, “Lets kill us some ******* terrorists” - Dennis Miller (I loosely paraphrase here)
-Anyway, let’s not get into it…I shoot my mouth off about politcs sometimes for no reason…forget it… (raises another white flag) heh heh…
I shudder at the thoughts of the assassination of W simply because it means a President Cheney for us all to deal with. Are you sure this film isnt of the horror genre?
As distasteful as this may be, if we restrain such expression, then art will be a crime.
Cheney will even be worse. Truly well-stated, Rove be gone.
Where has Rove been anyways? Earth to our Rovey!
whoa. now that you guys have brought up Cheney.. then no, that’s even worse! SEriously, though, alternative history films are interesting because they force us to reexamine assumptions and “truths” and view them in a new light, to imagine “what could be”. A GREAT book with an alternative history is Philip Roth’s “The Plot Against America”
Imagine… Charles Lindbergh, an anti-semite is elected President, and he nutures a relationship with Herr Hitler…
I couldn’t put that book down until I finished it! Wow!
Just heard that the Toronto Film Festival just bought the distribution rights for this mockumentary - so it’s coming to theaters near you later in the year. Wonder if it will have the same buzz as Fahrenheit 9/11.