Assassination

2011.03.28.  Movie Review, Death of a President, Assassination of George W. Bush, hypothetical events, JFK, Reagan.

A few years ago, when George W. Bush was still President of the United States, I learned of an independent movie being made about his assassination.  I may have actually said "holy smokes," or some other exclamation as I stared in disbelief at my Netflix suggestions.  I was no fan of Dubya, but never had I seen a movie with the apparent audacity to depict the killing of an incumbent President.  I assumed, as many of the movie's objectors implied, that the movie was created by anti-Bush ultraliberals, intended to encourage someone to commit the crime.

I passed on seeing the movie.  And then years passed by me.  Now, four years later, the movie popped up again in my Netflix suggestions list, as I watch a lot of political documentaries.  I read the viewer comments, and none of the legitimate reviews seemed to imply the movie was a radical propaganda piece.  (There are always people who leave reactionary "reviews" to films they didn't actually watch.)  While few people gave this movie high marks, most admitted that it said something noteworthy.  So I decided to finally give it a go.

In advance I warn you this entry contains semi-spoilers.

What surprised me right off was that the film portrayed a believable array of reactions from characters purported to be Bush Administration insiders and Secret Service agents.  As a mockumentary, it seemed relatively neutral, and quite sympathetic to the slain President.  Though it was W in the crosshairs, the movie did not actually make a direct indictment of Bush, though one character [obviously] does.

The movie begins with a Muslim widow, asking why someone didn't more carefully think about the consequences of his actions.  Midway through the movie a Muslim trigger man is identified and shoved through the legal system and the media.  The first two-thirds of the movie are fast-paced, keeping us guessing, and impressive.  Then comes the final third, for which the less political viewers scathe the film.  They call it "lackluster" and "anticlimactic" and say that "it drags."  The fact is that the biggest and most relevant questions are asked by the film's final third.  The question isn't asked of the government or the producers, but of American viewers.

Following the conviction and sentencing of the first suspect, a new suspect appears, and though his story seems conclusive, it fails to gain media attention, or to exonerate the first.  The filmmakers borrowed heavily from the famous assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and a couple other famous successful and attempted assassinations, especially Ronald Reagan's in 1981.  From these events, and the current stream of anti-Muslim rhetoric and new law enforcement powers under the Patriot Act, the film suggests that a successful assassination of any U.S. President could result in political opportunism, false convictions, and politically convenient scapegoats.

Watching the film reminded me a little bit of Oliver Stone's JFK, also of the "Scot Free" skit in Kentucky Fried Movie, but mainly of actual news reels and documentaries of actual assassinations and attempts.  In this regard, the movie was a resounding success.  The movie said more about media and the American public than George W. Bush.  It invokes the "lone gunman" theory that seems to win out in the wake of every assassination, which is unsatisfying--and I believe that the filmmakers intended that we not swallow that theory, no matter how well the theory is sold.

The makers of this film were Gabriel Range and Simon Finch from the United Kingdom.  For this reason alone this film was successfully made and released.  The worldwide community watches American media, politics and finance with great interest.  Ask an Anglo-American to name the states and provinces of Mexico and Canada, let alone European heads of state and political parties, and you're likely to get a blank stare.  People all over Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America know damn well who our Presidents are, and a thing or two about their acts and policies.  A film exploring the hypothetical assassination of any major American public figure, and the likely aftermath, is likely to succeed financially, if not critically.  A previous film of identical title, Death of a President, won international acclaim in 1977 for Polish filmmaker Jerzy Kawalerowicz (the film, however, did not depict an incumbent's assassination).  In 1967 a book of the same name was written following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which became a best seller and won an international literary prize, despite protests from Jacqueline Kennedy and her government-aided attempts to block or modify its release.*

It's not a terribly enjoyable film, but I didn't watch it for entertainment.  I wanted to see if the film made any compelling arguments, or made me consider an issue in a way I hadn't previously.  It did.  If it were an action-adventure or suspense film based on an actual President, I may have given it 3 stars out of 5 for realism and character portrayals that were largely effective, and for presenting a plot that is unguessable (though this article makes your guessing easier).  For its daring theme and original execution, a bonus star; and for invoking needful questions about American society and justice in a time of crisis and political momentum, I'd be tempted to give it yet another half star, were it not for one major issue.

One must ask if the film, in its day, deserved a demerit for the easily exploited depiction of an incumbent.  Would the film have had as much media attention or viewer impact if it weren't George W, much less released just prior to Congressional mid-term elections?  No way.  Had they used a nondescript Presidential character, the film would fail to draw a crowd.  The six years of familiarity that most viewers had with W made the them (and me) preinvested in the story, whether they loved or hated him.  The inexorable march to assassination would have been simply irritating with a fictitious President.  Gonna blow away President Cunningham?  Fire away, and change the channel while you're at it!  For this reason most movie critics awarded the film no better than the 50% mark, and I can't blame them.

But, for what it's worth, the contemporary issues that drove the actions of the assassin, and those that motivated the judicial outcome in the film, are strongly tied to the Bush-Cheney Administration.  One could argue the makers needed Bush for the film to challenge the public on current issues and assumptions, more than to draw them in.  Even with the Bush Administration out of office today, we still face these issues with our new President, whom few would have predicted in 2006.  It still seems deliberately sensational, even after being impressed with the film's delivery and questions.  Such a film could have been almost as effective being released after the departure of Bush, where his in-office killing would have been less divisive (I now think of Tarantino's historically inaccurate machine-gunning of Hitler in Inglorious Basterds).

I give the film an unwavering three and four-fifths out of five, recommending it only to the politically and/or socially active.

 
*The Kennedy family managed to get 1,600 words removed from the 1967 book The Death of a President before serialization, and actually receives proceeds from its sale and controls the current rights to the book.  The author's recorded interview with Jacqueline, on which much of the book is based, is sealed at the Kennedy Library until the year 2067, by which time the tapes will probably have disintegrated.

Return to Blog Directory