Death of a President (1 Viewer)

[Chris]

For all the controversy around this film, and there should be controversy, probably the one thing that isn't said enough is: it isn't very good. Seeing it for free (I wouldn't pay) at a local arthouse, the first twenty minutes clips along. It's interesting, the setup and use of news reel as well as the way in which they cut the news real is inventive.

But the movie quickly derails immediately following the assassination and wanders aimlessly, as though the director and scriptwriter had no idea of where to really go after the assassination moment.

I get the strong feeling that this film started as two guys in a bar saying "wouldn't it be cool if... " and this is what they end up with. Despite the serious ethical concerns with a film such as this - editing together speechs of Cheney, etc. to make it sound as a eulogy for Bush - the film itself comes off as plodding and unfocused. I had thought for a while this could be a fictious recounting of a presidential assassination, only using real characters. But the film itself is just an unfocused mess. I'm trying to think of anyone out there outside of the most malicious really would watch this and contend it was a "good experience"

 

[Jack Briggs]

OK, a post about this controversial new film was inevitable.

Given its subject matter, this thread is subject to a crucial requirement: Do not post here unless you have seen the film. Then, limit your comments to the film itself: Does it work? Is it effective?

Do not use this thread to state your personal political views. Only deal with politics in how such is depicted in the film and how it serves (or does not serve) the work.

Finally, this thread is subject to closure without notice. Please post well.

 

[Francois Caron]

I actually liked it. If it were a real news documentary, it's true it would be rather subdued especially when compared with today's news documentaries produced by the major news networks (i.e. milk it for all its worth and get the tears on tape). In fact, this movie is similar in tone to a PBS produced documentary.

Love it or hate it, D.O.A.P. does present a plausible scenario. It's not just about the assassination of a president, it's also about how the fear and paranoia generated by a terrorist attack of a few years ago could affect so many people of authority to the point that these same people now make rash and hasty decisions that can affect so many lives in a terrible way.

As for the use of a president still in office, it was probably not as much to instill shock and anger as it was to put the movie in the proper context. By using president Bush instead of a fictional president, there's no need to develop a complete background on the individual or his administration; it already exists and no further explanation in the movie is necessary. You save at least twenty minutes of screen time by going this route.

Overall, it was an interesting viewing. Granted the movie does not have that much repeated viewing appeal, but it's worth watching it at least once out of curiosity as well as being presented a perspective of what could happen without actually allowing it to happen.

 

[Chris]

I will say, this was the strong suit of the film. The presentation was laid out in such a way that it was believable. I don't think that's the fault of the film, I felt the performances simply didn't hold up in the second half and it drug considerably.

 

[Mark Kalzer]

Saw it a short while ago, and I thought it was a facinating exercise in speculation.

First off, I think it's ridiculous that all the discussion in mainstream media is focusing solely on the one scene depicting Bush's assassination. The film is not that one scene. It is about America and it's relationship to the president, how society so badly needs to find a villian in such an event, and how truth and justice become confusing in such a scenario. Contrary to impulsive reactions, this film is NOT endorsing the murder of the president.

I'm wary of crossing the line into political discussion, and it's a little dissapointing that I can't cross the line, for I feel this would be the place thoughtful analysis would be more welcoming with regard to this film, compared to other forums I frolic on where political debates too easy turn into mudslinging wars.

I would only say that this is an important film. What isn't said by talking heads is almost more important then what is. I think a film like this needs to be seen.

 

[Dave Hackman]

I couldn’t get into this movie at all. I have no problem with the subject matter but at least make it interesting with a passionate loony tunes pulling the trigger.

This film took itself way too seriously. Its story is told like an A/E crime story. There are interviews with those in charge of protecting the president and others who met with him that sad day. Live footage from security cameras is replayed back and forth more then a NFL challenged call.

The only thing missing was the use of psychics and Nancy Grace stating that the prime suspect was definitely guilty. Give me a break. It was hard to stay interested when you knew the whole thing was made up.

This movie was filmed nicely but its story is just a waste of time. It’s not worth a visit to the theater.

D-