It's funny how sometimes reporters can find cool objectivity when the subject is wildly inflammatory. Kevin Sullivan's review of the Bush-assassination-scenario movie for Saturday's Washington Post calmly presents the question of tastelessness as an either-or scenario: "The film, "Death of a President," has been alternatively derided as a tasteless publicity grab and defended as a serious look at a plausible event that could have dramatic ramifications for the world." The real standout lines were here:
Rod Liddle, a newspaper and magazine columnist who also makes documentaries for Channel 4, said he thought the Bush film gave voice to a common sentiment in Britain. "You will never, ever be able to overestimate the degree to which the British people loathe George Bush," Liddle said. "It will be a free round of drinks in every pub for the person who plays the assassin."
The headline was simple and a bit light-hearted in tone: "Bush 'Assassination' Movie Makes Waves Across the Pond." Predictably, the network chieftain responsible for airing this tasteless film, Peter Dale of the More4 satellite channel, denied there's any harsh ideology or hate in it:
"It raises questions about the effects of American foreign policy and particularly the war on terror," said Dale, who denied criticism that the film made an anti-Bush or anti-American political statement. "It's a fairly attention-grabbing premise, but behind that is a serious and thought-provoking film."
Credit Sullivan for noting that the More4 channel also is planning to attack British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his role in war with Iraq:
Prime Minister Tony Blair will get a roasting of his own in November, when the channel plans to air the comedy "The Trial of Tony Blair." Dale said the film was a satire depicting Blair's life after he leaves office, including an arrest on charges of waging an illegal war in Iraq.
Brought in to object to the film as "obviously tasteless" was British media critic Roy Greenslade:
Greenslade said the photos are so realistic that for a second he thought Bush had actually been assassinated. He said creating such a realistic image of Bush being killed "could convince crazy people that this might be a good idea."
"I'm sure they will cloak it by saying there's a serious point to be made," Greenslade noted. "But isn't there another way? If it had been a fictional president, wouldn't it have made the same point? It just beggars belief that this is the best way to make a serious point."
The real question for a Post reader to ask: Would the Post have seemed so nonchalant if the faux-assassinated president were Bill Clinton instead of George Bush?
