David O'ConnellDeath of a President
June 20th 2008 02:45
George W. Bush was assassinated on the 19th of October, 2007…………………..........in the alternate world posited by British filmmaker Gabriel Range in the fascinating faux documentary Death of a President, made in 2006.
Replete with talking-head testimonies and vivid recountings of the stunning events which would shock the world and send the Americans into a frenzy as they track down the killer, this film makes us believe the untruths of this alternate strand of the future. It has the feel of authenticity which is testament to all its participants, the actors especially and the skillful direction of Range and his co-writer Simon Finch.
This daring manipulation of time begins with the lead up on the final day of Bush’s life as he jets into Chicago for an important speech at an economic conference. The suspense is palpable as we’re led through the day's events by the participants, the most important players involved as the drama slowly unfolds. Will he be killed at the airport? On arrival at the hotel with some 12,000 protesters hovering with placards and enraged chanting? Will a sniper sneak in and kill him as he delivers his speech?
The integration of real-life footage - some shot by Range - and recreations is flawless and builds the suspense to a fever pitch because we never know when the crucial moment will occur. And when it does it’s so seamlessly blended into the enfolding drama that we can’t believe it isn’t real, chaos and pandemonium unleashed, the President’s car rushed away to a hospital and the western world thrown into turmoil!
The film then concentrates on the investigation as the search for a killer immediately begins, all the cctv footage studied and suspects drawn up. Not surprisingly a Muslim man of Syrian ancestry is identified as a primary suspect after being seen loitering in a nearby lobby soon after the assassination. But is he just an easy fall guy for a nation seeking immediate restitution for their loss? Clearly, the authorities are not going to let the truth get in the way when they can lay the blame on a convenient suspect with the right cultural specifics.
We’re shown through the investigative process in conjunction with the ramifications for America and the world as Dick Cheney becomes an unwitting President elect in the wake of these shocking events (.........and gives a eulogy at Bush's funeral!!!! Apparently this footage was modified from his eulogy at Ronald Reagan's funeral!)
The fact that a bunch of Brits has had the audacity to make a film like this, which depicts a horrible end for a current President, probably suggests that the whole concept strikes a nerve with Americans, many of whom were up in arms when this film was first released. It was described as amateurish in parts by some critics but I think it’s anything but - with a strong uniformity across the board in terms of the acting (except for maybe a couple of slightly weak links) and especially the production which is first class.
Is it stretching belief too far to imagine that the US would pin a crime of convenience on a man because of his religious beliefs and skin colour? Inferring guilt from so little concrete evidence just to appease a sense of immediate and swift retribution for the masses?
Considering today’s social and political climate, your enjoyment and admiration for the daring of this film may depend on it, but as a provocative and diverting piece of cinema it stands up well on its own two feet and has the power – through suspense and drama - to simply entertain.
Replete with talking-head testimonies and vivid recountings of the stunning events which would shock the world and send the Americans into a frenzy as they track down the killer, this film makes us believe the untruths of this alternate strand of the future. It has the feel of authenticity which is testament to all its participants, the actors especially and the skillful direction of Range and his co-writer Simon Finch.
This daring manipulation of time begins with the lead up on the final day of Bush’s life as he jets into Chicago for an important speech at an economic conference. The suspense is palpable as we’re led through the day's events by the participants, the most important players involved as the drama slowly unfolds. Will he be killed at the airport? On arrival at the hotel with some 12,000 protesters hovering with placards and enraged chanting? Will a sniper sneak in and kill him as he delivers his speech?
The integration of real-life footage - some shot by Range - and recreations is flawless and builds the suspense to a fever pitch because we never know when the crucial moment will occur. And when it does it’s so seamlessly blended into the enfolding drama that we can’t believe it isn’t real, chaos and pandemonium unleashed, the President’s car rushed away to a hospital and the western world thrown into turmoil!
The film then concentrates on the investigation as the search for a killer immediately begins, all the cctv footage studied and suspects drawn up. Not surprisingly a Muslim man of Syrian ancestry is identified as a primary suspect after being seen loitering in a nearby lobby soon after the assassination. But is he just an easy fall guy for a nation seeking immediate restitution for their loss? Clearly, the authorities are not going to let the truth get in the way when they can lay the blame on a convenient suspect with the right cultural specifics.
We’re shown through the investigative process in conjunction with the ramifications for America and the world as Dick Cheney becomes an unwitting President elect in the wake of these shocking events (.........and gives a eulogy at Bush's funeral!!!! Apparently this footage was modified from his eulogy at Ronald Reagan's funeral!)
The fact that a bunch of Brits has had the audacity to make a film like this, which depicts a horrible end for a current President, probably suggests that the whole concept strikes a nerve with Americans, many of whom were up in arms when this film was first released. It was described as amateurish in parts by some critics but I think it’s anything but - with a strong uniformity across the board in terms of the acting (except for maybe a couple of slightly weak links) and especially the production which is first class.
Is it stretching belief too far to imagine that the US would pin a crime of convenience on a man because of his religious beliefs and skin colour? Inferring guilt from so little concrete evidence just to appease a sense of immediate and swift retribution for the masses?
Considering today’s social and political climate, your enjoyment and admiration for the daring of this film may depend on it, but as a provocative and diverting piece of cinema it stands up well on its own two feet and has the power – through suspense and drama - to simply entertain.
Director Gabriel Range accepts the International Critics Prize in Toronto
| 46 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
