Seeing movies in Canada sometimes has its privileges. True, we were stuck with the digitally-censored American version of Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut (1999), rather than the original European version. On the other hand, when Louis Malle’s Damage (1992) had to be recut so that it could get an R rating south of the border, we got the uncut NC-17 version up here, and some people even came up from Seattle to see the film here in Vancouver.
Now, the Canadian distributor of Death of a President is hoping for a little of that American action. From a press release today:
TORONTO, CANADA, October 24, 2006 — Maple Pictures Corp. has announced that they will be taking out newspaper ads promoting DEATH OF A PRESIDENT in Buffalo, NY, and possibly other US border towns in an effort to attract American audiences to Canadian theatres. The provocative film, which was awarded the Prize of the International Critics (FIPRESCI Prize) at the 2006 Toronto International Film Festival, opens later this week.
“We have developed and executed a highly effective and provocative marketing campaign here in Canada,” stated John Bain, SVP of Distribution for Maple Pictures. “We are committed to making DEATH OF A PRESIDENT available to as wide an audience as possible so that they can establish their own informed opinions about the film.”
“Many American filmgoers are unable to see DEATH OF A PRESIDENT in their own country,” said Brad Pelman, Co-President of Maple Pictures. “The three largest theatre chains in the US have refused to show the film, whereas Canadian theatres have been unanimously supportive.”
DEATH OF A PRESIDENT is the directorial effort of Gabriel Range, who co-wrote the script with Simon Finch. It is a groundbreaking thriller that skillfully recreates the fictitious assassination of George W. Bush in the near future. . . .
FWIW, I’ve seen the film, and it’s very impressive on the level of technique, though I’m still figuring out what I make of it as drama, as political commentary, or even as a media experience.
On one level, I actually found myself thinking of the Christian film Joshua (2002; my review), of all things, because of the way Death of a President tries to be both literal and allegorical at the same time, and doesn’t quite go the distance on either level.
I also found myself thinking of Errol Morris’s The Thin Blue Line (1988), because the latter half of the movie is essentially all about how the wrong guy gets arrested and tried for the assassination. But at that stage of the game, it doesn’t really matter what the crime was any more; I don’t find Death of a President any more political than The Thin Blue Line, in that regard (which is not to say that Morris’s film doesn’t have its own political subtexts).
I also found myself thinking of Robert Zemeckis’s Contact (1997; my review) and the way it used clips of Bill Clinton’s response to the Oklahoma City bombing for a scene in which the president responds to an entirely fictitious bombing; but of course, Contact is arguably the more irresponsible film, on that level, because it exploits emotionally volatile content in the name of a story that has nothing to do with the original historical context of that content, whereas Death of a President can at least present itself as a commentary on the real-life events that it recontextualizes.
And then, of course, there is the question of what purpose is served by creating a highly believable visualization of the assassination of an unpopular president. Perhaps the film does demonstrate that such an act would be irresponsible and have terrible consequences, but that doesn’t mean it won’t encourage anyone who might be thinking of it, or actions like it. The film never leaves you in any doubt that Bush deserves to die.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In