I Only Want What I Can't Have

Champagne corks must have been popping when U.S. theatre chains started banning Death of a President from their screens. The controversial film, which looks back at the future fictional assassination of George W. Bush in a faux documentary, has been shut out of three major chains – over 16,000 theatres.

There’s nothing like telling people you can’t see something to drum up interest in exactly that. This was not going to be a movie that people were going to flock to, so this kind of action will have two positive effects for the film. Firstly, it will generate heaps of free publicity as people write about the ban (guilty as charged) and secondly, it will concentrate the audience in fewer venues making it appear more popular, like a bar with a huge line outside. Controversy sells, and these chains are helping more than they think. The same goes for CNN and NPR, who both rejected ads for the movie this week, due to its content.

“That's a really striking statement,” said director Gabriel Range. “I think some of the theatre chains have decided that it's an opportunity for them to take a moral stance, and I find that questionable.” He’s right of course. The only reason that people shouldn’t go and see DOAP is that it isn’t a very good film. It has one provocative concept – the shooting of a sitting president – and has no other follow up. Range calls it “an engaging and compelling portrait of the post 9/11 world we live in." I call it a dull procedural that tells us less about the world we live in than any daily newscast.

Once Bush is shot, nothing too eye-opening happens. There is a rush to judgment that the assassin is Muslim (much like the Oklahoma bombing in ’95) and a naval battle group is set to Syria but told to stand down (unlike the post 9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq). As for the fascination over the mixing of current footage and actors, do the critics not recall Forrest Gump or ever seen an example from the current mashup phenomenon? Melding two disparate sources together to create a new work is nothing new.

It’s all about using controversy to push a product. The Toronto Film Festival got in on the act when DOAP was awarded the 15th annual Prize of the International Critics. Festival programmer Jesse Wente was on the CBC on Friday talking about the film and said the TIFF screenings were full, which of course they were as almost all screenings are full. I was at the premiere and it was in one of the smaller theatres at the Paramount. And the head of the critic’s panel said they awarded a film that "irritated us a lot," and “questions our conventions of making and seeing films." Not for it being a great film, mind you. Much like Cannes’ Palme d'Or often highlights edgy films, the Toronto film fest won’t be hurt any by consorting with contentious filmmakers.

Nothing sells like forbidden fruit of course, something Harvey Weinstein knows well. His company is distributing the other film that involves George W. Bush – the Dixie Chick’s Shut Up & Sing. NBC and the CW network have refused to air ads for the documentary about the reaction to Natalie Maines’ assertion that she was “ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.” NBC said it could not accept the ads as "they are disparaging to the President."

Faster than you can say “free speech,” Weinstein had a press release in hand: "It's a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America.” Of course this is the film people should see – an actual documentary about the “post 9/11 world we live in” and the sometimes negative effects of speaking out. This was a great film that also debuted at the Toronto film fest and unlike DOAP, actually has something to say. If you go and see one anti-George Bush film, go and see this one. Sex may sell, but so does controversy.

Reality vs. False Reality

Two shots ring out and a president falls to the ground as people scream, cameras swirl and chaos breaks out. But it’s not just any president, it was U.S. President George W. Bush.

Controversial? Without question. Provacative? Surprisingly not. Death of a President (or D.O.A.P.) is a fictional documentary about the purported assassination of Bush in 2007 outside of a Chicago hotel and perhaps the most buzzed about film at this year's Toronto Film Festival. The most controversial part about D.O.A.P. is the fact it uses a current president as its assassination target instead of a fictional character. Beyond that it was nowhere near as edgy or political as the hype led you to believe.

After taking the bold step to use the current president as a target, the filmmakers appeared to lose their nerve to explore the worldwide ramifications of what would happen if the U.S. president was assassinated in the current world climate. D.O.A.P. focused more on detailing security failures and legal procedures than making a political statement. It was surprisingly passionless. Yes, it showed that the in a case like this the U.S. would jump to conclusions and make the evidence fit the facts. A Muslim was the top suspect and remained so even after an American comes forward with evidence his Dad, a veteran of the first Gulf War, did it. Any remember the Oklahoma bombing? After screening so close to the anniversary of 9/11 and being set in the future, it all seemed so five years ago.

D.O.A.P. really didn't tell us anything we don't already know and can't get in the current media, which has finally become more critical of George W. Bush, his decisions and his administration. You can find a more hard-hitting critique of the current regime from Jon Stewart in almost any episode the Daily Show.

There was a lot of controversy before this film screened, before anyone had seen it, which appears mostly unwarranted upon viewing. People need to stop freaking out about films they not watched themselves. The controversy continues with some reports describing the audience as cheering, others indicating everyone sat in stony silence. Neither are true – it was an attentive and receptive audience who gave the film the same applause any film gets after a screening. No more, no less. Any other reports are an example of the fact manipulation the film focuses on.

The deficiencies of D.O.A.P. became all the more apparent the next day when we saw Sharkwater, a documentary with little to no advance press. Now this was a film that had impact, both dramatic and emotional, telling a real story about how humans are killing off the world's sharks.

Rob Stewart, a photographer, set out to make a film about sharks and what beautiful creatures we were going to lose if we didn't stop killing them. He ended with a tale of political corruption and greed, and showing us that we may destroy ourselves in the process as we shortsightedly kill off the top of the food chain of the ocean.

Stewart showed how governments are allowing the overfishing of sharks in sensitive ecosystems such as Costa Rica and the Galapagos with wasteful methods such as long lining — all due to the demand in Asia, in particular, for shark fins. The fins are sliced off the sharks while they're still alive and then the bodies of the maimed fish are tossed back into the ocean to drown and bleed to death.

Unlike D.O.A.P., it had a purpose, a call to action. Despite having slaughtered 90% of the world’s shark population over the past 50 years – creatures that have existed for over 400 million years – Stewart said there was still a chance to make a difference before it’s too late. Visit Sharkwater.com for more details.

Pics:
Above: A scene from Death of a President. Below: Gill and TBA pose with the Sharkwater mascot while I idiotically show what a shark will not do to you in the ocean.