Capitalizing on anti-Americanism

"Death of a President" suffers from lack of innovation

LET ME JUST state, for the record, that I think George W. Bush is a lousy president.

Throughout the past six years he has continuously proven to be either too quick to react (see: Iraq War) or too slow to react (see: Hurricane Katrina).

Then, when it comes time to justify his decisions, his dim-wittedness only leaves us feeling more unconfident.

Just like many of you, I too am anxiously counting the days until “President Bush” is just an oxymoronic phrase rather than a reality.

Okay, I got that out of the way — now let me proceed.

A film by British writer/director Gabriel Range entitled “Death of a President” premiered this past weekend at the Toronto International Film Festival.

It has drawn a heavy amount of attention due to the fact that, early in the film, President Bush (whose head is superimposed onto the body of an actor) is shown being shot and killed by a sniper outside of a hotel in Chicago.

The film then goes on to explore how America might react if such an event were ever to occur.

Not surprisingly, Range’s film has been met by heavy criticism from the American press.

The first question that most people feel inclined to ask is, “Couldn’t a similar film be made using a fictitious American president?”

Absolutely. But, would it be the same film? No.

The reason why is because this film, despite Range’s insistence to the contrary, is ultimately about shock value.

Range has spent much of the previous two weeks defending the integrity of his film, saying that it will encourage discussion amongst Americans as to how our government might move forward if Bush was in fact assassinated.

Point taken. But does Range really think Americans are that naïve?

This movie is going to be popular (especially in Europe) for one reason, and one reason only: a realistic-looking President Bush gets gunned down.

I’d bet money that a good number of British telly sets get switched to another channel once this scene is over.

Here’s something to note: “Death of a President” will be making its British television debut in October on channel More4, a station which has been operating for less than a year.

What better way for a blossoming television station to make its name known than to air a hugely controversial film? When it comes to entertainment, any press is good press.

Peter Dale, who is the head of channel More4, stated that a similar film featuring a fictitious president being assassinated rather than Bush himself “wouldn’t have the same kind of resonance.”

Substitute the word ratings for resonance.

It’s no big secret that Britain has a deep-seated animosity towards America that goes back hundreds of years.

I suppose it’s understandable. We are, after all, the little brother who ate all of his carrots, got bigger than his older brother and now calls the shots.

That’s enough to piss off anybody.

Ever since Bush has been in office, that already pent-up frustration that the Brits feel towards us Yanks has grown ten-fold. Believe me, Brits despise President Bush.

Gilbert Range and channel More4 are all too aware of this. No matter how artistic and thought provoking they believe the film to be, the truth is that they are capitalizing on the widespread anti-American sentiment that runs through Britain.

We don’t need a British filmmaker to depict a graphic scene of President Bush being fatally shot.

If you’re that desperate to see our president getting wounded, simply turn to CNN anytime Bush is giving a presidential address—he almost always shoots himself in the foot.

Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>