free counter with statistics Death of a President | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

cheney.jpg


No One Wants a Dick Running the Country

Death of a President/ Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | October 24, 2006 | Comments (21)


As the official release date for Death of a President nears, I suspect there will be a lot more print devoted to the film than it actually deserves. In theory, I suppose, people will be strangely fascinated by a documentary-style film that examines the assassination of a sitting president. Reviews will be written, op-eds will be composed, and talking heads, no doubt, will pontificate loudly, though most won’t have a bloody goddamn idea what they’re getting so worked up about. Patrick Buchanan will appear on Bill O’Reilly’s show and they will decry the film as unpatriotic, a ghastly idea for a film drummed up by a few profiteers looking to exploit the current climate of anti-American sentiment (Hillary Clinton has already jumped on this bandwagon). O’Reilly will probably blame gays and Democrats, while calling for the imprisonment of the filmmakers for purported treason. Keith Olbermann, in turn, will offer up another “special comment” stating that it is our patriotic duty to make films about killing the president. I’m sure Ann Coulter will show up somewhere with her own theories, cribbed — in all likelihood — from an unknown third source. Chris Matthews will yell incoherently, Lou Dobbs will blame the immigrants, and Wolf Blitzer will blaze up another spliff and the soothing drone of his voice will put us all asleep. When we wake up, Jon Stewart will probably do a “heh-heh” impression of Bush getting shot and then call Robert Novak a douchebag for no other reason than because he is, and the next morning, Nina Totenberg will remove her top and give her own editorial of the film on NPR (Fact: Nina Totenberg does all of her radio correspondence topless.)

But, no one will actually see Death of a President. And it’s not because politicians have preemptively scared us away with their self-righteous, pandering bullshit about the shocking nature of the film. And it’s not because the large theater chains have refused to screen it in their multiplexes, though most of them have. It’s because — aside from a few radical liberals with wish-fulfillment issues — no one really wants to watch a movie where George Bush gets assassinated, especially this film. In fact, I can almost guarantee that most of those who criticize Death of a President won’t actually see it, because if they did, they’d probably fall asleep halfway through. The truth is, Death of a President — a movie NewMarket Films wasted $1 million to buy — is remarkably dull.

I’m not suggesting it’s a bad film, or that the premise is not marginally compelling. It’s just that the director, Gabriel Range, seems to be so hellbent on skirting controversy with his unavoidably controversial concept that the proceedings are inflicted with a serious case of cinematic mononucleosis — once the kiss of death arrives, the film suffers from narrative malaise and mental fatigue. It trudges along like a cheap, lifeless PBS documentary that couldn’t afford the narration talents of Ken Burns, opting instead to use witness confessionals that have all the zip and intrigue of an NFL quarterback’s platudinous post-game interview.

(Spoilers ahead, if you want to call them that.)

For the unfamiliar, Death of a President is a fictional documentary about assassination of George Bush, which takes place in Chicago on October 19, 2007 (mark you calendar, Daily Kosophiles). He is shot twice, once through the underarm and once in the chest. And it may be the least violent shooting you’ll ever see in a cinema.

In fact, to its detriment, the faux doc tries its absolute damndest to nail the authenticity of a real documentary, without offering the slightest trace of sensationalism, right down to dry stock footage and plenty of dispassionate testimonials from fake people you couldn’t possibly give two shits about. The film’s first act, which tracks the hours leading up to the assassination, starts in Chicago, where Bush is set to give a speech on economic policy to a group of businessmen at the Marriot Hotel. Outside, anti-war protestors — tired of the conflict in Iraq — have reached a fever pitch, and there are separate pockets of violent demonstrators within the more casual haters of Bush. The billy clubs are out in full force, and the scene is oddly reminiscent of the 1968 Democratic National Convention. During this portion of the doc, a few derelicts are discussed by the various law enforcement officials in the area on that day, basically to set up the third act, which is all about the investigation of the suspected trigger man.

It is in the second act — while we are left wondering whether Bush will live or die (he dies) — when Death of a President reveals the most chilling line in the entire movie, and the one snippet, delivered by a newscaster, that would probably turn even the most ardent Bush critic’s stomach: “Vice President Dick Cheney to become the 44th President of the United States.” If pundits and politicians really want to take issue with the content of Gabriel Range’s pseudo-documentary, then it is here where their ire should be directed. It is, indeed, a harrowing thought that a man who eats live kittens for dessert would become the leader of the free world.

Cheney, in turn, does what you’d expect (or what his pact with Satan dictates he do), and he blames the entire country of Syria, specifically President al-Assad, for the assassination. Patriot Act III is enacted, and law enforcement figures round up hundreds of detainees, for whom the feds have probable cause only on the basis of the new law. Amongst the many is a Syrian by the name of Jamal Zikri, who has a somewhat tenuous connection to Al-Qaeda. He is indicted and ultimately found guilty, based on very limited circumstantial evidence. Unsurprisingly, tensions with Syria and the rest of the world increase after this.

The truth, as it turns out, is far less conspiratorial. The (fake) documentary unearths plenty of (fake) evidence pointing toward another (fake) man, a (fake) Gulf War veteran who also lost his (fake) son in the current Iraq war, as the most likely (fake) culprit. The father blames Bush for the death of his son and, ultimately, takes his own life after committing the assassination. Clearly, if Cheney actually were president, a documentary that posited a theory contrary to the administration’s wouldn’t have aired and/or Range would’ve been strung up and eaten along with those kittens.

Still, the film’s central message is mostly lost on the viewer, who will likely fall asleep a few minutes after Bush is shot. But, it is this: Wouldn’t it be totally fucked up if all of our civil liberties were stripped away and we got involved in yet another unnecessary war all because of some dude’s personal vendetta? The answer, of course, is yes. And is the outcome hypothesized by Death of a President possible? Sure. In fact, it’s probable. But, for all its plausibility, the film still doesn’t make for an interesting viewing experience. Indeed, in a way I suppose, Death of the President is the ultimate pro-Bush agitprop, revealing a dystopian America run by someone legitimately more horrifying than a bumbling, narcissistic right-wing zealot: A calculated, narcissistic right-wing zealot. And no one wants a Dick running the country.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. He is currently halfway through a three-year ‘sentence’ in upstate, NY, where he lives with his wife. You may email him, or leave a comment below.


Pajiba Love 10/24/06 | Let the Music Play! Down in Pajiba Rock!



Comments

"Vice President Dick Cheney to become the 44th President of the United States."

that's too horrible to think about.

jesus, now my day is fucked!

Posted by: urs at October 18, 2006 9:13 AM

"a man who eats live kittens for desert...." To be fair, he does put whipped cream on them first. And anything with whipped cream kind of is a dessert, you know?

Posted by: paco at October 18, 2006 10:12 AM

I was under the impression that he served up the kittens on a kebab. I don't know, something about Cheney just screams "kittens on a stick" to me.

Also, awesome opening paragrah.

Posted by: em at October 18, 2006 10:57 AM

Yeah, nobody in "the rest of the world" wants a Dick in the oval office neighter... Now I'll be really nervous until 2008, great. To bad this one didn't fly, I was hoping they would take it far enough for it to work, guess not. Thanx Dustin, you have made my life at the cinema far more rewarding since I became a Pajiba diciple, keep up the good work:)

Posted by: miramuffin at October 18, 2006 12:22 PM

Did anyone else think while reading this review that NPR should start streaming the video from the NPR broadcast booth?

Posted by: Peter at October 18, 2006 12:33 PM

I heard about this pseudo-docu somewhere, sounds sort of interesting, but it's pretty much a fantasy of everyone that Bush gets assassinated, of course, that fantasy would be pretty bleak because of Cheney. Let's wait till after the 2008 election then we can hang him...

Posted by: Gina at October 18, 2006 1:36 PM

Whoa,Gina,watch your landuage! Dont forget at this time,you still have no constitutional right to dissent *like that*. Beware,big brother sees all.

Posted by: kim at October 18, 2006 6:25 PM

Are you still around here, boring us with your pointless comments, Gina? Damn...

Posted by: Yawn! at October 18, 2006 7:56 PM

Thank you, Dustin. You have made my day. I was thinking to myself about how my day is not complete until I shit myself in terror. As soon as I change my jeans, I will truly be in heaven.

Let us hope that no one decides that the fictious events in this movie are worth a try...surely the thought of the Kitten Eater as the Commander-in-Chief, would drive sanity into the mind of the insane. And might I suggest, Stephen Lynch's Kill a Kitten. It is quite funny

Posted by: ScarletKnight at October 18, 2006 8:29 PM

Yes, Kim, you're absolutely right. The SS will be at your door any moment now.

Posted by: Uncle JR at October 18, 2006 9:34 PM

i just hope the DHS doesnt decide to confiscate your hard drives again, my dearest pajiba, for writing this.

i have a running tab of how many amendments the bush administration will trample before the dust settles.

Posted by: razh at October 19, 2006 3:53 AM

Rowles wrote: "Wouldn't it be totally fucked up if all of our civil liberties were stripped away and we got involved in yet another unnecessary war all because of some dude's personal vendetta?"

That's already happened. Recall that one of the reasons George Bush offered for the Iraq war was, "Saddam tried to kill my daddy." This was a reference to an April 1993 plot to blow up George H. W. Bush during his visit to Kuwait, a plot supposedly foiled by the Kuwaitis, who blamed the plot on agents of Saddam Hussein.

George W. Bush trotted this one out during the run-up to the start of the war, and in the aftermath, when it became clear that there were no WMDs--the primary rationale for going to war--Bush fell back on this reason as he flailed about for any kind of explanation.

Posted by: DDT at October 19, 2006 11:59 AM

I wrote a (fictional) story about the war that would be started if the new Pope declared a crusade against Islam after the bombing of the Vatican in 2010. That doesn't mean I'm anti-Catholic or anti-Muslim.

What I mean is, maybe these guys just wanted to write an interesting story. I'll admit its an interesting concept, and despite being 'conservative' I guess, hearing about this movie didn't even really phase me.

Granted, my little story is less probable (hopefully) than this one, but it does seem kind of dangerous to take the bite out of the word 'treason' by throwing it around so carelessly.

Its the same with the liberal's use of the word 'Nazi'. I assure you all, that no matter how much you disagree with the Bush Regime, they are not going to be rounding up American muslims in camps and gasing them by the millions, and I have yet to pick up a newspaper that was taken out of print for critizing the president.

Lighten up, everyone.

Posted by: Matt 2.0 at October 19, 2006 2:01 PM

WICKED review, i loved it.

Posted by: rachel at October 19, 2006 11:25 PM

DDT, I think he's using the literary device known as irony.

Posted by: ofthrees at October 27, 2006 7:24 PM

[i]DDT, I think he's using the literary device known as irony.[/i]

Ofthrees, how is that irony?

Posted by: DDT at October 27, 2006 11:24 PM

>>>Ofthrees, how is that irony?


It's (socratic) irony because he wrote it as if it didn't happen, though it has. It's hard to read sarcasm on the internet.... but not that hard.

Posted by: cate at October 28, 2006 4:28 PM

Dustin my friend, the opening paragraph of this review manages to sum up the entire news business in one tidy, horrific little package.

Thanks.

Posted by: Chez at October 30, 2006 3:37 PM

I enjoyed this review Dustin, but the Toronto Globe & Mail offered a different perspective - they really enjoyed the film. If anyone can find the review online let me know - it's worth reading for a second opinion.......and I think this is the only time that pajiba reviewers have actually agreed with Peter Travers....which makes me kind of nervous and sick in my stomach.

Posted by: danae at November 3, 2006 12:13 PM

As another conservative voice on the site, I have to agree with Matt that movies like this don't bother me at all. And not even in the "I'm going to say this doesn't bother me because I have to to make my point that I would die for you to have the right to say whatever you want to," way. I just don't care. Just like I don't get all excited when a movie comes out that criticizes liberal leaders, or at least supposedly criticizes them and is used in arguments when conservatives say there are no movies making fun of liberals, like "Primary Colors," and "Wag the Dog."

I think the closest analogy I can think of is gay porn. It doesn't do anything for me, but that doesn't mean I think other people are sick because it does... or that it's any concern of mine either way. Maybe this is kind of like liberal porn. Sounds from what Dustin said that this particular example ends up being a little too much like an anatomy film and doesn't do much to make you forget that you're sitting there with your johnson in your hand.

Posted by: Eep at November 3, 2006 4:46 PM

mmmmmm. Cool Whip.

I heart Paco.

Posted by: sassafras at November 5, 2006 11:43 PM