Comments:

Smed - 2006-09-18 13:42:33 - http://smedindy.diaryland.com
I think you have it wrong. There have been movies made about assassinations and attempted assassinations of presidents well in the past. The political thriller has always been part of the cinema landscape. Don't paint us (the left) with a broad brush then complain about the right being painted with the same brush. Same goes with the Muslims. I don't see a lot of counter protests when Falwell says idiotic things about other religions, but I know if there was one that was organized I'd be there.

===

Brin - 2006-09-18 13:49:59 -
Dave's point was that it's a sign of disrespect to portray a sitting president in office as the victim of a fictitious assassination. And fwiw, *I* happen to think it's the height of stupidity and bad taste to do this in light of world events since the new century began.

===

Dave - 2006-09-18 13:51:15 -
Yes indeed, such movies have existed. And I agree about the political thriller. BUT...a movie about an assassination of the current SITTING President? Re Islam: if there are Muslims who are upset about the violence, why aren't THEY stepping up?

===

Smed - 2006-09-18 14:44:38 - http://smedindy.diaryland.com
For one thing, the US is remarkably peaceful compared to many other countries and areas. There have been riots and violence for years and years and years over the most insignificant trifles, such as opera and art. Also, it's not disrepspect, it's art as well. Change the name of the president and the idea is still the same - assassination of the president in office.

===

Dave - 2006-09-18 15:24:04 -
But they DO change the name. AFAIK, there has never been a movie about a presidential assassination that 1) uses the name of the sitting President, and 2) deliberately uses footage of THAT President to make it look real.

===

tou-mou - 2006-09-18 16:02:01 - http://tou-mou.diaryland.com
I think he's right on both counts. Nothin' like proving you're peaceful by raping, pillaging and murdering, eh? Not that the Christians have a much better history with the whole conversion-by-the-sword bit, but at least most of them have knocked that crap off in the last century or so. And while I'm an avowed Bush-hater, I don't think killing him off in the movie is appropriate. If they want to explore themes of assassination, why not do so with a fictional prez, even one who's barely fictionalized and clearly represents Bush?

===

add your comment:

back to the entry - Diaryland