'Death of a President" Banned

[raysr]

Just heard it on "Court TV" 1215 AM PDT. This is all I can find on it yet:








http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=156582




Death of a President shocks at US debut
Sunday Oct 29 09:36 AEDT
The film Death of a President has stirred up plenty of controversy but it still managed to surprise several moviegoers on its US debut.

The film is called Death of a President and its provocative premise has stirred up plenty of controversy. But it still managed to surprise several moviegoers on its US debut.

"I didn't know the president would get bumped off. I thought maybe he would get wounded," said Cutter Cash, 44.

"I thought it was going to be about Daddy Bush. I didn't know it was going to be about 'W,'" said Charles Snow, 45.

The pseudo-documentary imagines the assassination of President George W Bush and the hunt for his killer that involves Arab-Americans and a black Iraq War veteran.
Politicians across the spectrum from the Republican Party of Texas, Bush's home state, to New York Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton have criticised the movie for portraying the killing of a sitting president.

[Skip Intro]

1. banned? In America? How?

[Dangerman]

2. Are they a little afraid...

That their big wittle prez bitting the bullet is too scary of them?

[Wonk]

3. Boycotted by some of the major theater chains, not banned.

There's a difference.

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Death_of_a_President_movie_opens_to_10272006.html

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

5. Don't be surprised to see the same thing happen to

"Shut Up and Sing", the documentary about what happened to the Dixie Chicks in 2003.

After all, hasn't NBC refused to show the trailer for this movie because "it's disparging to President Bush".

I really don't recognize my beloved country anymore...

[Benhurst]

8. Oh, well. They'll just have to show it in the

Free World.

Maybe they can do a radio adaptation for Radio Free America. :shrug:

[PADemD]

13. That's the Name that Air America Should Use

[aquart]

6. Good. I don't want it around causing an idiot backlash.

They want to work out screenings after the election, dandy. But I don't want to see hide nor hair of that film till at least Thanksgiving.

[yurbud]

4. I find the whole thing ironic because Bush's death would have the least

impact on policy of any president since Kennedy, which indirectly shows that violence doesn't solve all problems.

An interesting story would be if a sane president was replaced by an extremist--maybe Ike replaced by a young McCarthyite Nixon, but with Bush, it is simply a matter of the puppet being replaced by the puppetmaster.

[jbnow]

7. If I owned a theater

I wouldn't play it.

An imaginary president, sure. But not the killing of any real still living person. Not a president, sports star, musician,not my grocery store clerk, not saddam. It's just not right.
You just don't play with a real, living person that way. That's obscenity.

I wouldn't make it, see it or run it so I can't judge the theaters that made the same choice.

[orleans]

9. but you are judging those theaters "that made the same choice"

as you would have made

you've just told them you thought they did the right thing.

and you've basically just said those who are running it are showing "obscenity"

[jbnow]

15. Don't know if it's right

but they are doing what I would do.

There are a lot of movies I wouldn't show in my fake theater. This feels obscene to me but then in my fake theater I would be likelier to show what might be considered obscenity (eek! sexual scenes) than violent movies.
I wrote more about my feelings in my response below. But I;m not saying the theaters that do run it are wrong either, it's their theater.

I should have been more careful in my phrasing and said instead "This feels obscene to me. Obscene as in repulsive to me. There is something in it I just object to, not the story but the killing off of a living person. I wish they had made it President Jones or something.

[Hissyspit]

11. Why is it obscenity? Why is it not free speech?

It's art. It's commentary. The courts have traditionally ruled that persons in the public sector/public service can be treated to a slightly different standard. Even slander have a high bar of tolerance and requirement for proof of damage because of the chilling effect that might have on free speech. Obscenity is a pretty strong word to use without a defensive argument for it's use. These same theatre chains are running "Saw III," torture for entertainment's sake. "Death Of A President" involves the viewer in consideration of serious issues.

[jbnow]

14. I'm not using "obscenity"

as a legal term ,just as a reaction.

It could be the same movie only with a fictional president and I wouldn't give it a 2nd thought. It would still involve the viewer in consideration of serious issues.

I'd react the same way if someone did a movie about a sniper killing a quarterback during the super bowl or a singer at a big concert. Fine if it is a fictional guy, wrong if it is a real quarterback or singer.

You're right that there are violent and horrible movies out. I don't watch them or know why people do but I know people who do. In my imaginary theater I wouldn't show those either.

But somehow I find it all the worse that they show a person who is real and alive and have them killed in the movie unless that person agrees to it.It's not in particular that it's a current president, it's the principle.
Hope it doesn't lead to more such movies, some rw group making one about snuffing Clinton.

AFTER a person is dead I wouldn't mind a movie about "what if this had happened instead". Just something that feels obscene about showing the killing of a person who is real and alive.
My feelings are not the law, but I do own the imaginary theater.

[Hissyspit]

20. See my reply #19. Thanks. n/t

[bridgit]

17. non-sense, there's "art" & "commentary" that would never be allowed...

here on DU & rightly so :eyes: http://www.mapplethorpe.org

[Hissyspit]

19. I still have no one explaining why it is "obscene."

And yes there is art and commentary that crosses some line, and some discussion is not allowed on this website, (although you don't say why your example shouldn't be allowed. As an art professor, I am quite aware of Mapplethorpe's work), but it has not been explained to me why this is "obscenity." Just because something is shocking or startling does not automatically make it obscene. Just because an artist is pushing the envelope or exploring the boundaries doesn't make it automatically obscene.

[Up2Late]

10. I just searched the Court TV, AP's "Raw News" and Reuters web site...

...and I found nothing to indicate this film was "banned!" :wtf:

Yes it's having trouble in distribution and advertising, but nothing about it being Banned!

Plus, that link goes to an Australian web site where they have re-branded that Reuters article as their own! (aap)

I've already written to the editors at Reuters about it's article being stolen.

Here it is at Reuters: <http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=2006-10-27T224515Z_01_N27401932_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE-PRESIDENT.xml&WTmodLoc=EntNewsHome_C2_entertainmentNews-2>

[LeighAnn]

12. Couldn't believe I saw commercials for it on TV

I never dreamed any station would run them. LOLOLOLOL!
:rofl:

[bridgit]

16. sounds like a proper call to me...

it's time to ban all tripe

[Hissyspit]

22. Ban tripe?

Who's tripe? Who makes the judgment on what is tripe? The world is MADE of tripe! What if it's only partial tripe? Have you even seen the tripe?

Censorship only works in the short term, anyway. Truth will out and art will, too. Even bad art, whatever the hell that is.

[bridgit]

23. the world is not made of tripe, but they have you believing that it is...

"No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke,
"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate,
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

ban it, curtail it, end it: it matters not to me how; but neither use hoity-toity notions to further it's publication in either case

[ShaneGR]

18. What if the same film came out in 1998, with Clinton getting assinated?

The point is, its a dumb movie.

[Hissyspit]

21. Yes? What if...

Dumb? So? All movies are "dumb" on some level or another.