Death of a President

[ecoli]

Anybody else hear about this 'documentary' detailing the future documentary about President Bush's assisination?

 

It premiers at the Toronto film festival, Sept. 10.

 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-death01sep1,1,5071840.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews&track=crosspromo

 

 

I'm certainly not a Bush lover, but as an American, I have to say that I'm not pleased by this movie. Especially since they are using George Bush's face digitally attached to an actors body during the 'assisination.'

 

I may be wrong, but to me it sounds like a cheap shot by the liberal propagandists trying to pass themselves off as art.

[mooeypoo]

I believe a movie, statement, suggestion or story about the assassination of any politician, or human being for that matter, is utterly and entirely wrong, and deserves to be excluded from the "freedom of speech", even by grounds of "causing" or "leading" people towards an act. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin comes to my mind, obviously and sadly.

 

Not to belittle the matter -- is this movie about the assassination of BUSH himself, or of "a" president of the united states?

 

~moo

[Sisyphus]

 

I may be wrong' date=' but to me it sounds like a cheap shot by the liberal propagandists trying to pass themselves off as art.[/quote']

 

What makes you think it's liberal? He could be portrayed as a martyr. And why do you say it's propaganda if you don't even know what the message is, if any? Or do you know more than the article you linked to?

[ecoli]

it's Bush himself. The story takes place in 2007. They actually show the president getting killed, though the lens of a sniper rifle... or something like that.

[JHAQ]

Although I consider Bush a national disaster , I feel this is going too far . There is such a thing as a copy cat syndrome -- well documented in serial killer circles .

[ecoli]

What makes you think it's liberal? He could be portrayed as a martyr.

Possibly, but I doubt it.

 

And why do you say it's propaganda if you don't even know what the message is, if any? Or do you know more than the article you linked to?

 

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1300832006

 

That opinion piece is pretty good.

 

Although I consider Bush a national disaster , I feel this is going too far . There is such a thing as a copy cat syndrome -- well documented in serial killer circles .

 

That seems to be a primary concern right now.

[Sisyphus]

That other link is just speculation, as well. Plus, I don't understand the assumptions. Showing Bush I or Clinton killed by terrorists would be "interesting," but Bush II is a "cheap shot?" Why? It could be just a cheap stunt, but why couldn't it be interesting? If Bush were assassinated, would that prove liberals right about everything? Of course not. So why is showing a scenario where Bush gets assassinated necessarily "liberal propaganda?" Personally, I'll withhold judgement until I've at least heard from someone who's actually seen the movie.

[ecoli]

That other link is just speculation, as well. Plus, I don't understand the assumptions. Showing Bush I or Clinton killed by terrorists would be "interesting," but Bush II is a "cheap shot?" Why? It could be just a cheap stunt, but why couldn't it be interesting? If Bush were assassinated, would that prove liberals right about everything? Of course not. So why is showing a scenario where Bush gets assassinated necessarily "liberal propaganda?" Personally, I'll withhold judgement until I've at least heard from someone who's actually [i']seen the movie.[/i]

 

It doesn't get realised until the tenth, so I have to speculate until then.

 

But, I don't see how assuming that a film about the killing of an unpopular conservative president, to be a piece that slanted to the left is a stretch. Especially since the stated goal of the film is to question America's 'foreign policy and especially the war on terror,' which is something that is definately being done by the leftists right now. Also consider that the film is being shown in Canada and Europe, which are notably liberal these days and anti-Bush.

 

So, yes, there is a chance that Bush will be portrayed as a matyr, or that the film won't be slanted towards the left... but I don't think that's being realistic.

 

Showing Bush I or Clinton killed by terrorists would be "interesting," but Bush II is a "cheap shot?"

 

I don't think it would be interesting, I think it would be equally as deplorable. That's one point I disagree with that article on.

[mooeypoo]

I don't quite know how it is in the USA.. do you guys have something to limit Freedom of Speech, or is all possible?

 

In Israel, for instance, Freedom of Speech is highest, as LONG as you are not LEADING someone towards committing a crime. Telling "lets see what happens when Bush is killed", and making it look like it is a good thing (and I don't yet know if that is what the movie did, I am just saying as an example) is certainly included in it.

 

How does it work in America? Do you guys have anything like that?

 

~moo

[ecoli]

Well, the patriot act is one example. But, there are other laws that limit free speach.

 

Language censorship, hatful slander and libel as well. But, this movie isn't american made and it isn't being shown in America. It might not necesarily fall under those catagories, though Bush could probably press the issue if he wanted to.

 

Under different conditions (if the movie was depicting someone other then the president being killed in a libelous way, for example) the makers could possibly get sued.

[mooeypoo]

The president can't sue?

 

Or.. well.. uhm the government or something..?

[ecoli]

The president can't sue?

 

nah, I mean that that I don't think that he will sue.

 

It would be harder to win because he is the president and such a public figure, it's a lot easier to pass this off as art, then if it was somebody else.

[insane_alien]

i'm failing to see how this is much different from other what-if scenarios like a nuclear war or something.

[mooeypoo]

Well, it's speaking of a specific person, and not a position. If this movie killed off a president, it would've been different than this movie killing of George W. Bush.

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

I'm certainly not a Bush lover' date=' but as an American, I have to say that I'm not pleased by this movie. Especially since they are using George Bush's face digitally attached to an actors body during the 'assisination.'

 

I may be wrong, but to me it sounds like a cheap shot by the liberal propagandists trying to pass themselves off as art.[/quote']

 

I agree with this sentiment. (Although I thought Sisyphus had an interesting point about how it may be the far right rather than the far left!)

 

And, not that you were suggesting such, but the only thing that would bother me more than this movie would be if it were squelched. But I think it's just a matter of days now before we start to hear news stories about efforts to get this thing quashed before it can be distributed in the US. Which of course would draw far more attention to it than it deserves.

 

By the way, if this is coming from the far left, it just shows how insanely hypocritical they are, doesn't it? They're supposed to stand for peace and love and getting along and free speech and appreciating differences in perspective, and yet here they are telling us that the best solution to the "Bush problem" is murder. How nice.

 

If it does achieve wide distribution, it'll probably do far more to harm the Democratic party and its effort to "win back the White House" than it could ever do to help it. But of course those in the extreme left aren't really interested in helping the Democratic party, which they view to be far too conservative. (shrug)

[Sisyphus]

 

By the way' date=' if this is coming from the far left, it just shows how insanely hypocritical they are, doesn't it? They're supposed to stand for peace and love and getting along and free speech and appreciating differences in perspective, and yet here they are telling us that the best solution to the "Bush problem" is murder. How nice.

[/quote']

 

Not that I think the movie would be good or interesting if this is the case, but it could present the case as "Bush basically brought this on himself, what a tragedy for America," instead of, "Bush brought this on himself, and the sniper is a hero, and now there's no more Bush! Yay!"

[Skye]

From what I've read I imagine it's a matter of looking at how the assassination would lead to a change in US policy. That is, in itself, a reasonably interesting point, and reflects on the synergy of politicians, policies and the public. I.e. if Bush were to die, would Bush's policies die with him? Would people no longer believe in them without Bush? I find it interesting in the contrast between representatives and leaders. Or maybe it's simply a Ur Prez died in the azz, lolz film, I don't know.

[mike90]

I agree with Skye if they're really trying to explore if He's actually a strong enough force to change american policy by himself. But if its just bush is a loser so would'nt it be great if he died movie, well thats disgusting. I'd have to see it to make a judgement

[Pangloss]

Not that I think the movie would be good or interesting if this is the case, but it could present the case as "Bush basically brought this on himself, what a tragedy for America," instead of, "Bush brought this on himself, and the sniper is a hero, and now there's no more Bush! Yay!"

 

Oh of course that's what they'll do. But it just underscores my point. Two wrongs don't make a right, after all.

 

I imagine they'll also trot out the concept of how a democratic society needs to have the ability to overthrow dictators, etc. This keys in with the far left's perception that not only is Bush a "national tragedy", but everyone in their right mind sees it exactly the same way, and if they don't then they need to have that fact explained to them, clearly and succinctly. It's not a question of logic and listening, it's a matter of indoctrination.

 

Faith is not a monopoly of the far right. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

[ParanoiA]

I think it's a tasteless idea and I can't wait to watch it. Sad isn't it? I'm not sure if I dislike it because Bush is an acting president or if I dislike it because it feels like an attack on my country's politics.

 

I'd be inclined to enlist the help of Oliver Stone to make a movie about executing a handful of spineless European leaders in Madison Square Garden. Which is why I should never be president.

 

If the movie is really what they're selling in that article it may not be too bad, but I doubt that's the case.

[ParanoiA]

I imagine they'll also trot out the concept of how a democratic society needs to have the ability to overthrow dictators' date=' etc. [/quote']

 

So maybe this would be a good time to recover citizen's gun rights?

[Pangloss]

Haha, nice response.

 

Which reminds me, I need to go vote today in the primaries. My House rep is up (the one who personally promised me he'd put up a "real" replacement for the Assault Weapons Ban, yet he never has) and I'm hoping against hope that he has some real competition this year instead of running unopposed again in both primary and general. In 2004 I had to settle for a near-worthless Libertarian vote. (chuckle)

[ParanoiA]

In 2004 I had to settle for a near-worthless Libertarian vote. (chuckle)

 

I hope you mean worthless since he didn't get elected rather than worthless because he did and he was horrible.

[Pangloss]

I would love to see a libertarian shake things up a bit in the House. I would love even more to shake some of that House Republican resolve and overconfidence.