Death of Imagination

THE DEATH OF A PRESIDENT (2006)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I am no prude of any existing order. If a film's subject offends me, then it means it is working to some degree - it is asking me to question why I find it offensive (and this is before I even see it). Some films are morally objectionable in that regard but only if one is prudish and perhaps one may find that there may be more than meets the eye after seeing it. That is to say, the objectionable material that one deems offensive may only be of secondary or tertiary importance. "Pulp Fiction" is a good example of a film that is seemingly amoral and extremely violent; looking back, the film is actually more morally grounded than its infinite copycats and its violence is hardly the subject of the film. Then there are films that are morally problematic - "Birth of a Nation" may be the most famous example of a film that offends because it is racist and had inspired more people to sign up for the KKK than any other. Purposeful or not, it offends our sensibilities because its unflattering and stereotypical view of black people (who are mostly played by whites in blackface) is meant to draw a superiority complex. That is what one can infer as the primary subject of the film.

The same can be said of "The Death of a President." This is a film that is about the fictional assassination of President George W. Bush. Although the film uncovers an FBI investigation into the matter and a Muslim man from Syria as the probable assassin, "Death of a President" is only interested in the assassination per se - it never evolves into anything else. Yes, there are interviews with Dubya's closest advisers and the disgruntled FBI men and some of this is convincing in its faux-documentary style but it gnaws at you for what the set up is, and the set up is wrong in theory. A fictional president would've been more noteworthy for what is a fictional assassination. To use (at the time) an actual sitting President as the basis for a worthless film exercise is more than offensive - it feels like downright heresy. This is something that not even Michael Moore would attempt, and his "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary was about as anti-Bush as anyone could get. There are some not so subtle references here to JFK's assassination and the notion of a lone gunman as well, and not much more I am afraid.

The end titles reveal that the Patriot Act III will come into fruition (Vice President Cheney becomes the sitting President - talk about heresy) and these laws will further limit the civil liberties of the average American citizen. If the filmmakers had the balls to make a film that deals with our civil liberties post-9/11 and sans a pretend assassination, then it would have made for a powerful political commentary. All we get is an assassination and the death of imagination.