Death of a President.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Anybody seen it?

What are your opinions?

[August1991]

First, I think this thread should be in "Moral and Religion" until Greg grants us a category for cultural questions.

Second, I haven't seen this film and while I often go to the cinema or rent DVDs, I think I'll give this one a pass. It seems to me that it's in very poor taste.

On a related note, I don't know if I'll see Borat either.

I am tired of "iconoclastic" movies that seek attention by somehow breaking Western Taboos. It's so 1960s. Real iconoclasm means taking on the real taboos. Not the safe, fuzzy ones.

From what I understand, Borat never ridicules any Muslim. Why? It is easy to ridicule Americans. It takes courage to ridicule Muslims. (Galileo had courage to stand up to the Catholic Church.)

What would happen if someone made a movie about assassinating an Iranian politician or Saudi royal?

[ft.niagara]

From what I understand, Borat never ridicules any Muslim. Why? It is easy to ridicule Americans. It takes courage to ridicule Muslims. (Galileo had courage to stand up to the Catholic Church.)

What would happen if someone made a movie about assassinating an Iranian politician or Saudi royal?

Perhaps Islim being a younger religion has not evolved as yet to coexist in a secular western world. The problem is it might take another five hundred years to do so.

If someone made a movie critical of Islim or a high leader's assassination, they would have to go into hiding like Salmon Rushtie. Not much fun in that.

[jdobbin]

From what I understand, Borat never ridicules any Muslim. Why? It is easy to ridicule Americans. It takes courage to ridicule Muslims. (Galileo had courage to stand up to the Catholic Church.)

Galileo recanted.

[jdobbin]

There has been several movies about political assassination in the past.

Apparently the reviews for this latest one have been quite good. It might be distasteful to some as it is a real life leader but I don't think think people can assume this is some sort of wish fulfillment. Afterall, what does it get? President Dick Cheney.

It is just a drama.

[ft.niagara]

It is just a drama.

Yes it is drama with a profit motive. The boundries of propriety is the issue or nonissue. Lucile Ball was the first to be seen pregnant on TV. The streaching of propriety has been ongoing for fifty years or more. The latest big one was gay marriage, before that legalized abortion. In I someways I admire Islim because there are strict taboos against the streaching of propriety. I guess when Islim takes over, they will really have a lot of butt to kick.

[August1991]

From what I understand, Borat never ridicules any Muslim. Why? It is easy to ridicule Americans. It takes courage to ridicule Muslims. (Galileo had courage to stand up to the Catholic Church.)

Galileo recanted.

Are you suggesting that Hollywood is recanting too?

Galileo at least knew he was right when he recanted.

[jdobbin]

Are you suggesting that Hollywood is recanting too?

Galileo at least knew he was right when he recanted.

Actually Galileo was wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo

"In modern scientific terms, we consider Galileo's views on heliocentricity to be no fundamental advance. The heliocenticity model that Galileo presented was no more accurate than the Tychonic system model, the main competing theory at the time. Stellar parallax, the first evidence from outside the solar system that the Earth does indeed move, would not be observed until 1838 (Consolmagno 150-152). Today, we know the Sun is no more the center of the universe than the Earth is, as it has its own orbit in the Milky Way Galaxy, just like the Galilean moons of Jupiter have orbits around Jupiter while Jupiter orbits the Sun."

[August1991]

Actually Galileo was wrong.

Galileo wrong because the Sun is not really the centre of the universe?

Dobbin, you are the ultimate Leftist. You are like the Jew who went to the gas chamber kibbitzing about how his name was spelled wrong on the official document. "You've made a mistake. I shouldn't be in this group."

----

When George Clooney or Michael Moore makes a movie that ridicules or portrays in a sinister manner a senior Muslim figure in the world, past or present, then I'll pay serious attention to what the US Left has to say.

Jesus Christ, Roger Smith, Joe McCarthy, George W. Bush and the American people in general are easy targets.

[jdobbin]

Galileo wrong because the Sun is not really the centre of the universe?

Dobbin, you are the ultimate Leftist. You are like the Jew who went to the gas chamber kibbitzing about how his name was spelled wrong on the official document.

----

When George Clooney or Michael Moore makes a movie that ridicules or portrays in a sinister manner a senior Muslim figure in the world, past or present, then I'll pay serious attention to what the US Left has to say.

Jesus Christ, Roger Smith, Joe McCarthy, George W. Bush and the American people in general are easy targets.

I don't know how Galileo being wrong in his theory has to do with being politically left or right. You said he was right to challenge the Catholic Church. He was neither right nor did he continue challenging the church.

As for the rest of your description of me, I find it a bit odious.

Hollywood makes all kinds of films. However, they didn't make Death of a President . It's a British film.

[August1991]

Hollywood makes all kinds of films. However, they didn't make Death of a President . It's a British film.

There you go again, Dobbin. Who cares whether it's a US or British film? You are the literalist Jew who argued about the spelling of his name while being arrested. You are missing entirely the point.

I'll try to be blatantly direct for you: No one in the West makes movies ridiculing Muslims or about assassinations of Muslim leaders.

[jdobbin]

There you go again, Dobbin. Who cares whether it's a US or British film? You are the literalist Jew who argued about the spelling of his name while being arrested. You are missing entirely the point.

I'll try to be blatantly direct for you: No one in the West makes movies ridiculing Muslims or about assassinations of Muslim leaders.

I can't help wondering what the point is when you make accusations. I see no need to personalize things.

The west does make films that ridicule and paint Muslims as enemies. The Naked Gun did so with a fist fight between Leslie Nielson and Khomeni. The movie True Lies demonized and made humour of Muslim terrorists. The Sum of All Fears, Executive Decision and The Siege cast Muslims as the enemy. The West Wing has an episode where the President had a Muslim leader assassinated.

George Clooney in the movie Three Kings is tortured by an Iraqi. They use the words "camel jockies" and "towel heads" in that movie.

The movie Rules of Engagement casts Muslims as the enemy. The movie Delta Force does the same.

[August1991]

I can't help wondering what the point is when you make accusations. I see no need to personalize things.

That's what's so frightening, Dobbin. You don't personnalize.

I'll repeat: You argue about spelling mistakes.

The west does make films that ridicule and paint Muslims as enemies. The Naked Gun did so with a fist fight between Leslie Nielson and the Khomeni. The movie True Lies demonized and made humour of Muslim terrorists. The Sum of All Fears, Executive Decision and The Siege cast Muslims as the enemy. The West Wing has an episode where the President had a Muslim leader assassinated.

George Clooney in the movie Three Kings is tortured by an Iraqi. They use the words "camel jockies" and "towel heads" in that movie.

The movie Rules of Engagement casts Muslims as the enemy. The movie Delta Force does the same.

Naked Gun? Huh? OJ Simpson?

Three Kings is critical of the US military, it's a remake of a WWII movie and it's placed in Gulf War I. It's not graphically anti-Muslim like "Death of a President" is, uh, graphically anti-Bush.

Your cites are largely movies pre-September 2001 - I think. (Naked Gun? Did James Belushi have a role?)

Dobbin, you know it as well as I do. James Bond fought the Soviets but he won't fight al-Qaeda. There is a fear in the West and no Hollywood producer will take on the Imams.

Need an enemy? White European diamond smugglers in Africa with a German or British accent are better. Russian mafia? OK. But not Arabic, not Muslim. Not since September 2001.

"Borat" and "Death of a President" are dramatic evidence of the change.

If a producer wants to make money around the world, the obvious target is to ridicule a Christian American or a Jew. Only a lunatic would ridicule an Islamic Arab. There's no money in it, only the chance of death. As they say in Hollywood, "Who needs it?"

[jdobbin]

That's what's so frightening, Dobbin. You don't personnalize.

I'll repeat: You argue about spelling mistakes.

Naked Gun? Huh? Three Kings is critical of the US military, a remake of a WWII movie and placed in Gulf War I. It's not graphically anti-Muslim like "Death of a President" is, uh, graphically anti-Bush.

These are largely movies pre-September 2001.

Dobbin, you know it as well as I do. James Bond fought the Soviets but he won't fight al-Qaeda. There is a fear in the West and no Hollywood producer will take on the Imams.

Need an enemy? White European diamond smugglers in Africa with a German or British accent are better. Russian mafia? Ok.

But not Arabic, not Muslim. Not since September 2001.

Borat is dramatic evidence of the change. If a producer wants to make money around the world, the obvious target is to ridicule a Christian American. Only a lunatic would ridicule an Islamic Arab. There's no money in it.

I think you were the one that has said people who personally attack should be banned. Do you disagree with that now?

You keep making inaccurate points. First about Galileo, then about Hollywood movies and Muslims. I pointed out that you were inaccurate about both. Now you say that there hasn't been anything made portraying Arabs as enemies since 2001. I would point to Flight 82 and Munich as being made after 2001. The West Wing episode was post 2001 as well. The Unit often has Muslim and Arab terrorists as did The Agency, NCIS and JAG. All post 2001.

Death of a President is, by all accounts, not anti-Bush. Read a review.

[August1991]

I think you were the one that has said people who personally attack should be banned. Do you disagree with that now?

Have I personally attacked you?

No. I have simply said that you lack humanity. You argue about trees while you miss the forest.

You keep making inaccurate points. First about Galileo, then about Hollywood movies and Muslims.

Galileo? Hollywood movies?

If you don't see the point about Galileo, then that's a sad state of affairs.

----

Dobbin, you seem to be a person who takes an active in Canadian politics. OTOH, you lack a sense of humour. And you lack an ability to use html to post links with quotes. Worst, you are unable to understand when you are being made a fool.

Some of us are rich, some of us poor. But I was taught to be foolish only in private.

[jdobbin]

Have I personally attacked you?

No. I have simply said that you lack humanity. You argue about trees while you miss the forest.

Galileo? Hollywood movies?

If you don't see the point about Galileo, then that's a sad state of affairs.

----

Dobbin, you seem to be a person who takes an active in Canadian politics. OTOH, you lack a sense of humour. And you lack an ability to use html to post links with quotes. Worst, you are unable to understand when you are being made a fool.

Some of us are rich, some of us poor. But I was taught to be foolish only in private.

Your arguments touched on Galileo and Hollywood movies. If your point was that Death of a President was distasteful, I already agreed that it was. Your other arguments didn't make any sense.

As for personalizing, you are doing it here right now. What is with the hostility? You didn't make a point on this movie that was valid in my opinion.

I don't use quotes using html from links because I find them annoying visually. As to my sense of humour, you know nothing of me personally. Why all the attacks?

[August1991]

As to my sense of humour, you know nothing of me personally. Why all the attacks?

I meant no attacks. Sorry if you thought so.

In fact, I enjoy reading your posts.

[Remiel]

Apparently Bush allowed to have footage filmed of him for the movie while he was in Chicago (I believe). He never bothered to ask the title of the movie it was going to be used for, hehehe...

[jdobbin]

I meant no attacks. Sorry if you thought so.

In fact, I enjoy reading your posts.

Personally, I won't be rushing out to see either Death of a President or Borat because I find them to be rather distasteful. President, for the fact that it has a live person as the subject of an assassination plot and Borat because I don't like the actor or his characterizations.

Filmmakers often choose provocative subjects for their films. I will defend their right to do so and I would defend someone's right not to go and see their films.

I always read your posts because they often have good points on a variety of subjects. For different reasons, we both aren't about to see this film.

[Ladyjen]

Apparently Bush allowed to have footage filmed of him for the movie while he was in Chicago (I believe). He never bothered to ask the title of the movie it was going to be used for, hehehe...

[ft.niagara]

Apparently Bush allowed to have footage filmed of him for the movie while he was in Chicago (I believe). He never bothered to ask the title of the movie it was going to be used for, hehehe...

You find that funny? HOW can anyone find abuse of a courtesy FUNNY? Perhaps it is a political persuasion thing?

[jbg]

From what I understand, Borat never ridicules any Muslim. Why? It is easy to ridicule Americans. It takes courage to ridicule Muslims. (Galileo had courage to stand up to the Catholic Church.)

What would happen if someone made a movie about assassinating an Iranian politician or Saudi royal?

Most people value their lives. And remember, Muslims are angry about their treatment by the West. Of course, Jews have some right o be as well, but put that to one side.

[jbg]

From what I understand, Borat never ridicules any Muslim. Why? It is easy to ridicule Americans. It takes courage to ridicule Muslims. (Galileo had courage to stand up to the Catholic Church.)

Galileo recanted.

He never "undiscovered" his discoveries. Sort of like who tells his daughter "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus".

[jdobbin]

He never "undiscovered" his discoveries. Sort of like who tells his daughter "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus".

He recanted his arguments. In the end, he was wrong about what he thought he discovered anyways.

[Drea]

Actually the sun revloves around the earth, which was created 6.000 years ago.

Dinosaur bones are tricks placed there by satan to throw us off and make nonbelievers of us.