Death of a President
Sep. 11th, 2006 07:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lapsedmodernistI want to see it!
U.S. President George W. Bush is working "the rope line" outside a Chicago hotel, pressing the flesh of friendly supporters and celebrity gawkers. He's not going to let a noisy peace protest nearby interrupt quality time with his fellow Americans.
Two shots from a sniper's rifle ring out in the cool evening air, and Bush falls to the ground. There are screams of panic and alarm, followed by the wail of sirens. The louder reaction of vengeance and anger is still to come.
It is a scene all too familiar in American history, of a public figure being assassinated by someone of opposing ideology.
But check the date flashed on the screen: Oct. 19, 2007. This isn't current reality; it's a vision of all-too-plausible future rendered with urgency and eye-popping realism in Death of a President, a speculative documentary by British filmmaker Gabriel Range. The controversial film had its world premiere last night at the Toronto International Film Festival; additional screenings are scheduled for tomorrow and Friday.
Time runs out for the president on Oct. 19, but the clock starts ticking on a new world order. Dick Cheney, newly sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, updates the Patriot Act to all but eliminate remaining American liberties. A dangerous war of words erupts with Syria and other Arab nations, after a Syrian immigrant named Jamal Abu Zikri becomes the focus of assassination investigators. North Korea steps up its nuclear aggression, sensing opportunity in America's momentary distraction.
There is evidence that Zikri, who worked in the building opposite the hotel and who may or may not be sympathetic to the Al-Qaeda terror group, had both opportunity and cause to kill Bush. But there is also evidence that other interests may have been involved, or wholly to blame.
Such doubts hardly matter to investigators, however, who are in a rush to find a scapegoat and to prosecute as quickly as possible. Blood lust must be satisfied.
On one level, Death of a President plays as an incredibly realistic political thriller or whodunit. It can be taken as simple entertainment, despite Range's stated intentions he's not out to amuse the idly curious or to sate the bloodthirsty.
The film's deeper intentions are far more urgent, and elevate it into the company of such landmark works of historical argument as Peter Watkins's The War Game, Costa-Gavras's Z and, closer to home, Michel Brault's Les Ordres.
Among other things, this article reminded me about Les Ordres by a cinema verite great, Michel Brault, which, if you haven't seen, you should. It's a great film in the "first they came for the _____" genre about martial law declared in Quebec as a measure against the separatist Front Liberation du Quebec (which resulted in seizures without warrants of activists, left-leaning sympathizers, and local civilians who did not participate in the group).
U.S. President George W. Bush is working "the rope line" outside a Chicago hotel, pressing the flesh of friendly supporters and celebrity gawkers. He's not going to let a noisy peace protest nearby interrupt quality time with his fellow Americans.
Two shots from a sniper's rifle ring out in the cool evening air, and Bush falls to the ground. There are screams of panic and alarm, followed by the wail of sirens. The louder reaction of vengeance and anger is still to come.
It is a scene all too familiar in American history, of a public figure being assassinated by someone of opposing ideology.
But check the date flashed on the screen: Oct. 19, 2007. This isn't current reality; it's a vision of all-too-plausible future rendered with urgency and eye-popping realism in Death of a President, a speculative documentary by British filmmaker Gabriel Range. The controversial film had its world premiere last night at the Toronto International Film Festival; additional screenings are scheduled for tomorrow and Friday.
Time runs out for the president on Oct. 19, but the clock starts ticking on a new world order. Dick Cheney, newly sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, updates the Patriot Act to all but eliminate remaining American liberties. A dangerous war of words erupts with Syria and other Arab nations, after a Syrian immigrant named Jamal Abu Zikri becomes the focus of assassination investigators. North Korea steps up its nuclear aggression, sensing opportunity in America's momentary distraction.
There is evidence that Zikri, who worked in the building opposite the hotel and who may or may not be sympathetic to the Al-Qaeda terror group, had both opportunity and cause to kill Bush. But there is also evidence that other interests may have been involved, or wholly to blame.
Such doubts hardly matter to investigators, however, who are in a rush to find a scapegoat and to prosecute as quickly as possible. Blood lust must be satisfied.
On one level, Death of a President plays as an incredibly realistic political thriller or whodunit. It can be taken as simple entertainment, despite Range's stated intentions he's not out to amuse the idly curious or to sate the bloodthirsty.
The film's deeper intentions are far more urgent, and elevate it into the company of such landmark works of historical argument as Peter Watkins's The War Game, Costa-Gavras's Z and, closer to home, Michel Brault's Les Ordres.
Among other things, this article reminded me about Les Ordres by a cinema verite great, Michel Brault, which, if you haven't seen, you should. It's a great film in the "first they came for the _____" genre about martial law declared in Quebec as a measure against the separatist Front Liberation du Quebec (which resulted in seizures without warrants of activists, left-leaning sympathizers, and local civilians who did not participate in the group).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 05:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 03:29 pm (UTC)I'm torn as to whether it would be a good thing or not for the puppet to disappear and for everyone to see what's behind the scenes, run by Ye Olde Puppet-Master Cheney. Honestly, I believe that if Cheney really wanted to wipe out all of our freedoms, that's exactly what the puppet would be doing (even more so than he already has). What the synopsis you gave says to me is that in this scenario, it's Congress and the people of the US that have changed in response to the assassination, to allow such radical changes to be made. I honestly don't think the Executive branch would change much if we swapped Bush for Cheney. Nor, unfortunately, would it surprise me much if Congress/the people's response to an assassination *were* to allow further tramping on the values this country was founded on.