Death of a President

I went to see this "controversial" fake documentary about the October 2007 assassination of George W. Bush and I can ensure you that, contrary to Robert Reich's fears, it's in no way incitement to kill the president or advocacy of the same. It rather soberly posits that elevating Dick Cheney to the White House through acts of political violence would not achieve anything worthwhile. For the first two-thirds or so of the film, moreover, it's got a lot of very clever, highly enjoyable filmmaking techniques, using clever editing and pastiche techniques to insert fictional people into scenes with the real White House staff, repurposing footage of Ronald Reagan's funeral as Cheney's eulogy for Bush, things like that. Near the end, it really drags as they develop a not-so-interesting plotline about the investigation into the assassin's identity.

Comments

Why would anyone assassinate a President 7 years into the term? Killing a lame duck does nothing but elevate him to a martyr. Kind of a stupid concept. Anyway.

PS - assure, not ensure. [/pedant]

Posted by: Al on October 28, 2006 03:45 PM

PS - assure, not ensure. [/pedant]

Al, you lack MY's embiggened sense of the possibilities of the English language.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on October 28, 2006 04:32 PM

I've been trying to imagine what it would be like to be ensured by someone. I feel vaguely uncomfortable. Something's either happened in my mother's womb, of I've exited a Schrodinger Box.

Posted by: Keith M Ellis on October 28, 2006 05:07 PM

"through acts of political violence would not achieve anything worthwhile."

I do not think it wise to argue against this here, today.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on October 28, 2006 05:44 PM

Matt, Why put "controversial" in quotes? It is, in fact, a controversial movie whether or not it deserves to be.

Posted by: Mark Adams on October 28, 2006 06:14 PM

The film sounds like a valuable reminder that anyone plotting to assassinate Bush should be sure to take out the VP first.

Posted by: Walter Noutson on October 28, 2006 07:01 PM

The film sounds like a valuable reminder that anyone plotting to assassinate Bush should be sure to take out the VP first.

Because assassinating Cheney wouldn't provide the administration with any excuse to launch new wars or eliminate civil liberties.

Posted by: Christmas on October 28, 2006 07:28 PM

Looking back on American History, assassination does in fact seem an effective political tool. Yes the country tends to respond in a militant attitude, but this does not necessarily correspond with what the President would have done.

Lincoln's assassination definitely changed the course of Reconstruction, and probably led to Reconstruction being much less effective.

McKinley's assassination did lead to the civil service reform that his deranged assailant desired.

The assassination of the two Kennedys' certainly led to a very different Democratic party and the reduced social programs pursued and not pursued by the government after their passing.

Now what assassins want is unclear, because they are without question CRAZY AND EXTREME. But it is a tragic fact that our country has been much less and much different because of the guiding hands that were violently struck down

Posted by: Tony v on October 28, 2006 07:33 PM

Lincoln's assassination definitely changed the course of Reconstruction, and probably led to Reconstruction being much less effective.

Less effective for whom? Reconstruction under Lincoln's Republican successors was much harsher than it probably would've been under Lincoln, which is probably not what Booth and company had in mind. Your assertion that JLF's assassination "reduced social programs pursued and not pursued by the government after [his] passing" is without merit; the Civil Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid all came under Johnson's watch. And has anyone serious ever suggested that Oswald shot Kennedy to derail the civil rights movement or preempt the Great Society? Sirhan Sirhan's motives for killing Robert Kennedy have never been clear; can assassination be considered "an effective political tool" when it's being wielded to no discernible purpose? And McKinley's assassination wasn't a coherent attempt to catalyze reform in America by promoting Teddy Roosevelt to power; Leon Czolgosz was simply inspired by other political assassinations of the time (notably that of Umberto I of Italy).

Yes, it's obviously true that if you kill world leaders, you're going to have some kind of effect on history. But you're not necessarily going to have the effect that you want to have. In most cases this turns out to be a rather ineffective way of advancing one's policies.

Posted by: Christmas on October 28, 2006 08:30 PM

Reconstruction under Lincoln's Republican successors was much harsher than it probably would've been under Lincoln, which is probably not what Booth and company had in mind.

My understanding is that Andrew Johnson, a War Democrat, gave away Reconstruction.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on October 28, 2006 08:41 PM

Matt, Why put "controversial" in quotes?

Perhaps because growing up he heard things that gave him a modicum of cynicism about the nature and sources of "controversy" surrounding a film? Then again, he might just have perused the first page of the Arts Section of today's New York Times. (The end of that article has the most interesting tidbit, about the religious right finally getting wise to a very old game.)

Posted by: artappraiser on October 28, 2006 10:19 PM

Re: Sirhan Sirhan and RFK, you should read Peter Evans book Nemesis--
http://www.amazon.com/Nemesis-Aristotle-Triangle-Brought-Kennedys/dp/0060580534/sr=8-1/qid=1162099544/ref=sr_1_1/002-9116017-4480057?ie=UTF8&s=books

Evans was Aristotle Onassis' official biographer. After his death (and the publication of the biography), his lawyer and daughter both told Evans on the record they believed Onassis was behind RFK's murder. Evans comes up with some other evidence that is, to say the least, interesting.

Posted by: beowulf on October 29, 2006 01:31 AM

"Near the end, it really drags as they develop a not-so-interesting plotline about the investigation into the assassin's identity."

I wouldn't quite call that "near the end" -- the whodunnit bumbling consumed two thirds of the movie!

Posted by: cjclarke on October 29, 2006 12:09 PM

As I said, it's difficult to judge what assassins want so there's no reason to say for sure whether or not their goals are accomplished. Presidential assassins (both attempted and successful) without exception are deranged and illogical people.

But it's a far chasm between that and "assassinating Bush would only end in Cheney being President so who cares?" Such deaths do in fact have a profound impact on the world and policy. Sometimes this aligns with some of the thigns the may have assassin wanted, sometimes not.

I certainly think John Wilkes Booth was successful. If he was half as leninist in attitude as modern revolutionaries, he would have been quite pleased to find out that his actions sparked a harsher, clearer, more oppressive Reconstruction that was all the more weaker, ineffective, and transient for it.

Posted by: Tony v on October 29, 2006 12:10 PM

Nothing works like one thinks it should, and extremer acts have extremer blowback. Sarajevo should be caution enough to anyone contemplating assassination as a political tool.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 29, 2006 02:30 PM

So much confusion here:

James Garfield's assasin, Charles Guiteau, was a deranged would-be office holder who was a also a Stalwart, the faction of the Republican Party that Garfield didn't belong to. He wanted to elevate Chester Arthur, a Stalwart, to the Presidency. Once in office, Arthur surprised everyone, including the Stalwarts(who had been the more patronage-friendly of the two factions), by signing civil service reform. The McKinley assasination had nothing to do with civil service reform.

Posted by: James Kabala on October 29, 2006 03:17 PM

Assassins are always kind of pathetic and broken and deranged. They assassinate partly for overt political reasons, but also partly to fulfill their own fantasies of effectuality and heroism. Guiteau was a great example of this, convinced til the end that Chester Arthur would pardon him for the great service he had done the nation. Also, Jodie Foster totally loves dudes with guns. I'm going to see this movie mostly because I'm interested in what the filmmakers will make of the assassin him(or her)self. Will s/he be entirely political or (more true to life) a pathetic nut job?

Posted by: justin on October 29, 2006 03:29 PM

Nothing works like one thinks it should, and extremer acts have extremer blowback. Sarajevo should be caution enough to anyone contemplating assassination as a political tool.

The Serb nationalists got exactly what they wanted as a result of Sarajevo. The assassins were hailed as heroes in Yugoslavia after the war, I believe.

Posted by: John on October 29, 2006 04:10 PM

The Serb nationalists got exactly what they wanted as a result of Sarajevo.

I don't think they wanted an end to 19th century optimism or to menace Western Civilization.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 29, 2006 09:18 PM

Assassination works if you want to be featured in a book by Sarah Vowell 100 years after the fact. This is a very limited benefit. (Although the book is very good, and truly patriotic.)

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc on October 30, 2006 03:04 AM

Assination works extremely well. It's best used not as a way of removing leaders you don't like, but rather as a way of intimidating leaders in the future. So assinating Bush would certainly make future republican presidents less likely to be as extreme or cater to certain elements of the electorate.
If you think assassination is inneffective, then why did the Kennedy murders affect the left so?

Posted by: soullite on October 30, 2006 06:00 AM

I'm just watching this now, and in a crowd scene at about 34:30 there's a dude wearing a #5 jersey with the name "Yglesias" on the back. Coincidence?

Posted by: Aaron S. Veenstra on December 20, 2006 08:40 PM

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Posted by: youtube on November 17, 2007 05:38 AM

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Posted by: youtube on November 17, 2007 05:39 AM

thanksss

Posted by: oyun indir on January 11, 2008 02:45 PM

harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com

penis büyütücü

Posted by: sexshop on November 7, 2008 06:53 AM

Post A Comment

advertise_liberally.gif