President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama:Death of a President

[shellycheval]

A brief mention of this film was made on CNN yesterday and then nothing so far today. It was announced that this film would not be released in the USA. This article is from "thisislondon.co.uk" in their 03.09.06 News and Current Affairs section. If art is a reflection of life then . . . ?

President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama
31.08.06

Bush is shot by a sniper in a scene from Death of a President.
Held up by a secret service bodyguard in his dying moments after being shot in the stomach, this is President Bush being assassinated.

Surrounded by a crowd of panicking onlookers, the American leader is pictured just seconds after being gunned down by a sniper following an anti-war demonstration.

But rather than a repeat of JFK's shooting or Ronald Reagan's attempted assassination, this shocking image is part of a new Channel Four show.

The dramatic scene, which has caused outrage among Americans, has been created by a British film company for a programme about the effect of the War On Terror.

In Death Of A President, which will premiere at the Toronto Film Festival later this month (SEPT)before being shown on Channel 4's satellite channel More4 in October, the assassination is a starting point for a retrospective fictional documentary about what happened next.

This scene, which was created by putting the President's face onto an actor with digital wizardry, shows him being gunned down just hours after driving past an anti-war demonstration while doing a talk in Chicago.

The two hour drama, in which events are 're-created' by the use of footage and interviews, 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.

'In the hunt for the killer, this will show how America has been affected by the War on Terror,' said a spokesman. 'It is about the polarisation of America in all the events post 9/11.'

But the drama, which will be shown on Channel 4 after being screened on More4, has angered some Americans who have seen four presidents assassinated while in office.

Eric Staal of Republicans Abroad in London said last night: 'I wonder if they are celebrating the idea that the president could be assassinated.

'We've seen from early in his presidency the extremes that the political Left are willing to go to vilify him. This takes this vilification to a new and disturbing level.

'It is an appalling way to treat the head of state of another country.'

While a White House spokesman said: 'This does not dignify a comment (sic).'

The film, which Channel 4 describes as 'a thought-provoking critique of contemporary America' has been written and directed by Gabriel Range.

His previous work includes two docudramas for the BBC; The Day Britain Stopped, a fictional documentary on two planes colliding above London and The Man Who Broke Britain about a city trader who causes a national recession.

Death Of A President is not the only way More4 will be exploring the impact of the War on Terror, the channel announced at a launch yesterday.

The Trial of Tony Blair, by the makers of the farce A Very Social Secretary, will take a 'darkly humorous' look at what will happen to the Prime Minister after he leaves office.
Starring Robert Lindsay as Blair, a role which he also took in A Very Social Secretary about David Blunkett's affair with Kimberly Quinn the show will focus, the drama will kick off with his resignation.

The channel said: 'With Iraq still in turmoil and Gordon Brown in Number 10, The Trial of Tony Blair imagines how political events - now beyond his control - may shape both his future and his place in history.'

Other shows will include a real documentary on Iraq starring Saddam Hussein's daughter Raghad and Pamela Stepehenson conducting 'psychological interviews' with the Duchess of York and Stephen Fry.

 

[Laura]

We had a friend in UK tape the movie and we watched it last night. I have to say that the uproar about it is strange considering the fact that it treats Bush so sympathetically. His "speechwriter" and "bodyguard" and various other "officials" are presented as giving documentary type interviews in order to tell the story. This is alternated with "interviews" from various others involved, including the wife of the accused Syrian who didn't do it, and the son and wife of the U.S. military officer who did do it and then committed suicide.

Even if the "talking heads" give a very biased and friendly view of Bush (the bodyguard even almost crying), there is the juxtaposition with scenes of massive protests against Bush, all the while his inner circle are telling what a great guy he is, how firm he is to "stay the course," and so on. The masses are depicted as almost mindless, anarchic cattle.

Again, I really don't see any reason for the film to not be shown in the U.S. For the uniformed, it has the power to make them feel sorry for Bush and to draw people to him in sympathy for his mythical martyrdom. Even the informed would come away thinking "well, he was just doing his best and all these people loved him."

The only really critical message is the depiction of Dick Cheney who presses to prosecute the Syrian on the flimsiest of evidence and the implication that he was railroaded. A "forensic specialist" is depicted as having resigned his position because he wouldn't back up the flimsy evidence as proof that the Syrian did it.

The main message is that the system fails to bring justice, but even that is subtle.

 

[treesparrow]

This movie is again being broadcast tonight (25th Oct) in the UK at 11 pm on the S4C channel (Welsh channel).

 

[Novelis]

We had a friend in UK tape the movie and we watched it last night. I have to say that the uproar about it is strange considering the fact that it treats Bush so sympathetically. His "speechwriter" and "bodyguard" and various other "officials" are presented as giving documentary type interviews in order to tell the story. This is alternated with "interviews" from various others involved, including the wife of the accused Syrian who didn't do it, and the son and wife of the U.S. military officer who did do it and then committed suicide.

My friend and I watched this docudrama a while ago now, but we speculated how the film's makers could have been using a very subtle method of manipulation. While the interview with the wife of the accused man was going on, there were pictures of the man who committed suicide in a car, I wondered, this picture looks pretty real, in fact, it looked perfectly real, so was it:
A) They used an actor and effects to produce the pictures of the suicide, in which case the incident wasn't based on fact at all.

B) They used a real picture of a real man who committed suicide in an incident unrelated to the documentary, and during the interviews, they used actors to refer to this suicide as though it had been related.

C) They brought in non-actors who suffered a real incident where a wife and child really lost their father after he really committed suicide, then edited their emotional words to a scenario that was false.

The interviews of the wife and child were very confusing, were they actors? If so, they were being quite convincing about a loss that never happened, if not, what was real? Was the picture of the dead man real but not the scenario it they fit it into? Was the wife and child not acting and recalling a loss that was true, but then twisted to suit another scenario? God, after watching the program for a while I couldn't work out which images were fake and which weren't! There was a scene where a man got shot in the head, that I think was real, but it was fitted into the context that was depicting something clearly false, since we all know that Bush hasn't been assassinated. I didn't know what was real anymore because they mixed real scenes and real emotions with a false context, while parts of it looked like they were mixing a context which could be true with false scenes!
Basically, We thought this mixing and editing could have been exactly what the PTB wanted in order to make people emotionally charged by watching something disturbing, then giving them an intellectual rationalisation of their emotions that is fake. If you show a picture of someone getting shot, then show them a picture of someone and say "he was the one who did it", they will probably have associations that that is the case whether it's true or not! I'm speculating, but the whole show looked to me like a very clever and subtle way of manipulation.