Major chains refuse to play Bush death film

[BoogyMan]

Link Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061006/en_nm/president_dc)

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Newmarket Films set itself an unusual challenge when it decided to release the controversial faux investigative documentary "Death of a President" just six weeks after acquiring the movie at the Toronto International Film Festival last month.

But it might face an even more formidable obstacle because several major theater chains are refusing to play the film, which mixes real news footage with dramatized segments depicting the fictional 2007 death of President Bush.

Newmarket, the 12-year-old Los Angeles-based film financing, production and distribution company, plans to open the film October 27, just in time for the November 7 election.

"Yes, it's controversial," Newmarket co-founder Chris Ball said. "It's quite a compelling political thriller. In many ways it is sympathetic to George Bush. It talks about a rush to judgment. In no way is it a call for violence."

But the country's largest theater chain, Regal Entertainment Group, has passed on playing the film, citing the subject matter as the primary reason. "We would not be inclined to program this film," Regal Entertainment Group CEO Mike Campbell said. "We feel it is inappropriate to portray the future assassination of a sitting president, regardless of political affiliation."

Texas-based Cinemark USA also has declined to play the indie film, corporate spokesman Terrell Falk said. The circuit, which recently completed its acquisition of northern California-based Century Theatres, will not allow the regional player to book the film either. "We're not playing it on any of our screens," Falk said. "It's a subject matter we don't wish to play. We decided to pass on the film."

Boston-based National Amusements, controlled by Viacom Inc. chief Sumner Redstone, still is in negotiations as to whether it will play the R-rated film from director Gabriel Range, who reportedly was the subject of death threats before the film's debut in Toronto.

"We're currently in discussions with the distributor of the film," said Wanda Whitson, director of corporate communications at National Amusements. "The availability of the film in our markets is an important factor affecting this discussion. Our film department does consider all films, and we've run controversial films in the past."

Newmarket distribution consultant Richard Abramowitz insisted he was having no trouble booking the film, which initially will open in several hundred locations. "Every day during a busy time we are picking up plenty of screens," he said, citing the Landmark Theater chain as being supportive.

Abramowitz declined comment on problems with theater bookings. "We're getting a good reception in a lot of places. No matter how tight the screens are, once a film has success, it's always easier to get more screens."

Although a consortium of distributors led by Miramax Films' Harvey Weinstein pushed the politically polarized "Fahrenheit 9/11" into theaters very quickly in summer 2004, and Paramount Vantage took only four months to open Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," it is rare that a film goes from acquisition to release so quickly.

One distribution executive questioned the wisdom of rushing "President" into cinemas in advance of the election. "In the midst of all the backlash and controversy it seems to make sense to ride the moment," he said. "The film is so topical and incendiary, you'd think that to wait is to waste it. But the film may not have enough time to gestate and get the best theaters booked. They are finding out how difficult and crazy this timing is."

"President" marks Newmarket's bid to reclaim its title as a champion of product other distributors deem untouchable. The distribution arm was built from the ground up in 2000 surrounding the release of Christopher Nolan's "Memento" when other distributors passed on the film. It eventually took the movie to a $25 million North American gross and went on to a winning streak with "Whale Rider," "Monster" and Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

[Nitrus]

I dont really see why they refuse to show it.. unless Bush himself opposes then why not show it to the world?

People are probably scared of conspiracy surrounding the issue.

[sbannon]

Isn't it silly when declared fiction becomes political cannon fodder? Just how uptight can we get in America?

[BoogyMan]

I think the issue is the propriety of the content. Is there nothing that the unhinged among us wont do?

Had someone made a film like this about a sitting democratic president there would be a left leaning uproar just as there is a right leaning uproar now.

[Elrathin]

I think the issue is the propriety of the content. Is there nothing that the unhinged among us wont do?


It's called a movie. Is there nothing that people won't protest about in this country?

[BoogyMan]

I think the issue is the propriety of the content.Â*Â*Is there nothing that the unhinged among us wont do?


It's called a movie.Â*Â*Is there nothing that people won't protest about in this country?


Pishtosh, this is the political dream of a sick piece of trash who would like to see his vision lived out.

[Elrathin]

Pishtosh, this is the political dream of a sick piece of trash who would like to see his vision lived out.


It's amazing how much of a fit conservatives are getting in over this movie, however, they give a pass for Ann Coulter to spout her trash off everyday (one ranting that says the new york times building should have been hit by terrorists) without a bat of the eye. Truly hypocritical.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But the maker of this kind of film should be fined and imprisoned.
2. Projecting his desire, of an out come towards any leader of the Free World, shouldn't be poo pooed.
3. There are some limits to how far a film maker should push the envelope.
4. In no way should this kind of film be shown, to Canadians and or Americans.
5. But the libs love this I bet.
6. Ahh its just a movie they say.
7. This is why the libs can not be trusted, they have no common sense these days, and or a moral compass.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

1. But the maker of this kind of film should be fined and imprisoned.

7. This is why the libs can not be trusted, they have no common sense these days, and or a moral compass.


You do know this is a foreign film right? Not an American film. How you gonna fine and imprison someone that is making this movie in another country? Sounds to me you just like to liberal bash without even RESEARCHING COMMON INFORMATION about this film.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But there are libs up there in Canada too.
2. And yes I am aware of where it was made, thanks.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

2. And yes I am aware of where it was made, thanks.



And something tells me you wouldn't be bothered by a film that has an assasination of another leader instead Bush. So freedom of speech is only as good as long as YOU like it right? :rolleyes:

[BoogyMan]

Pishtosh, this is the political dream of a sick piece of trash who would like to see his vision lived out.Â*Â*


It's amazing how much of a fit conservatives are getting in over this movie, however, they give a pass for Ann Coulter to spout her trash off everyday (one ranting that says the new york times building should have been hit by terrorists) without a bat of the eye.Â*Â*Truly hypocritical.


Hold on right there. Many conservatives, myself included, cannot stand Ann Coulter and have repudiated her commentary. She is more of a joke than anything else.

Don't sling that hypocrite term until you know it fits.

[Elrathin]

Hold on right there. Many conservatives, myself included, cannot stand Ann Coulter and have repudiated her commentary. She is more of a joke than anything else.

Don't sling that hypocrite term until you know it fits.


MAybe so, but do you ask for her not to be shown or heard? No, you don't, yet many conservatives are calling for this movie to not be shown. See the hypocrisy now? The term fits quite well to many conservatives in this case.

If you don't ask for Ann to be censored, why are you asking for this movie to be? This question is for the conservatives, that fit this bill, to answer.

[BoogyMan]

Hold on right there.Â*Â*Many conservatives, myself included, cannot stand Ann Coulter and have repudiated her commentary.Â*Â*She is more of a joke than anything else.

Don't sling that hypocrite term until you know it fits.


MAybe so, but do you ask for her not to be shown or heard?Â*Â*No, you don't, yet many conservatives are calling for this movie to not be shown.Â*Â*See the hypocrisy now?Â*Â*The term fits quite well to many conservatives in this case.

If you don't ask for Ann to be censored, why are you asking for this movie to be?Â*Â*This question is for the conservatives, that fit this bill, to answer.


A joke like Ann Coulter doesn't compare to showing a movie about the murder of the leader of the free world. If you can equate the severity of one to the other your equater is broken.

[Alonzo]

The movie also shows how his murder would turn into a nightmare, with the rise of Cheney's america.

I don't see how a movie that shows that killing bush would result in everything going to hell is as bad as some people make it out to be.

[BoogyMan]

It requires a functioning sense of propriety Zo.

[Alonzo]

The same sense of propriety that denies homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals? I don't see why I should care about a movie when there are still real issues affecting real americans.

Unless you have some reason to believe an assisination will take place due to this film, I don't see why people even care.

[Elrathin]

A joke like Ann Coulter doesn't compare to showing a movie about the murder of the leader of the free world. If you can equate the severity of one to the other your equater is broken.


Of course, you only believe in free speech when you like it.

Tell me would you feel this upset if there was a movie that depicted Chavez killed?

[BoogyMan]

A joke like Ann Coulter doesn't compare to showing a movie about the murder of the leader of the free world.Â*Â*If you can equate the severity of one to the other your equater is broken.


Of course, you only believe in free speech when you like it.

Tell me would you feel this upset if there was a movie that depicted Chavez killed?


As I have stated many times when liberals drag some nut like Chavez into the discussion. I would not lend my approval to ANY media that would present the murder of a world leader.

You assumed AGAIN and assumed in error.

[BoogyMan]

2. And yes I am aware of where it was made, thanks.



And something tells me you wouldn't be bothered by a film that has an assasination of another leader instead Bush.Â*Â*So freedom of speech is only as good as long as YOU like it right? :rolleyes:


More assumption without clarification.

[Elrathin]

As I have stated many times when liberals drag some nut like Chavez into the discussion. I would not lend my approval to ANY media that would present the murder of a world leader.

You assumed AGAIN and assumed in error.


Well your consistant in your views at least, so I withdrawl the hypocrite label gladly with apologies. However, I still don't take your view and I view this simply as free speech and fiction.

I think some conservatives need to grow thicker skins when it comes to things like this.

[lily]

Sorry bout that,

1. But there are libs up there in Canada too.
2. And yes I am aware of where it was made, thanks.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


It's a British movie.

[BoogyMan]

As I have stated many times when liberals drag some nut like Chavez into the discussion.Â*Â*I would not lend my approval to ANY media that would present the murder of a world leader.

You assumed AGAIN and assumed in error.


Well your consistant in your views at least, so I withdrawl the hypocrite label gladly with apologies.Â*Â*However, I still don't take your view and I view this simply as free speech and fiction.

I think some conservatives need to grow thicker skins when it comes to things like this.


I can respect that! :) I completely disagree but can respect your view.

[lily]

Let's take a look at what we are discussing, shall we? Now I don't know about all of you, but this sounds like a good thriller. In all honesty I can't see what everyone is so upset about, what is more than likely a one minute scene out of an hour and a half movie.

Link (http://turnleft.theworldoutthere.com/?page=701/mouton3)

A new documentary depicts what might happen in the U.S. if President Bush
were assassinated. (september11news.com)
An American President walks out of a Chicago building, flanked by secret
service agents, when shots ring out and the President crumbles into the arms
of a secret service agent. Such begins "The Death of a President," a British
documentary that provides a retrospective look at events before, during, and
after the assassination of the President. It examines the increasing
paranoia and the development of a witch-hunt, as authorities search for the
sniper who killed the head of state. A Syrian born man is soon arrested as a
key suspect, as additional men of Middle Eastern descent become suspects and
the post-9/11 culture of fear intensifies.
The film uses stock footage and interviews, and the assassinated President
is not Lincoln, Kennedy, Garfield or McKinley. Neither is it some
lack-luster composite of President George W. Bush. Rather, it is George W.
Bush, himself, courtesy of computer imaging, crumbling to the ground. The
film was created by a British film company as a critique of the post-9/11
culture in the US. It uses a retrospective documentary style to focus on the
aftermath of the fictional October 2007 assassination of President Bush, and
the response that it engenders in the US. According to a spokesman for the
film, "It is about the polarization of America in all the events post 9/11."
The White House has refused to "dignify" the movie with a comment. Many
Americans are outraged at what seems to be a glorification of the death of a
sitting head of state.

The film is set to premiere at the Toronto Film Festival at the end of
September and will be broadcast on the British channel 4 and its fledgling
cable channel, More4, in October. The film is neither the first nor the last
of its kind by the filmmaker and channel. The filmmaker, Range, has worked
on two other fictional documentaries for the BBC, "The Day Britain Stopped,"
about two passenger airplanes crashing above Metropolitan London, and "The
Man who Broke Britain," about a stock broker who causes a national
recession. Other projects for More4 include a satirical dramatic series
about Saddam Hussein's fictional daughter. The channel has also said it will
look further into topics on the War on Terror and its implications for the
United States.

[BoogyMan]

Its inappropriate Lily, simple inappropriate.

Were someone to have done this to President Clinton, Carter, etc, you would be having a hissy and expressing the same concerns.

[lily]

No, actually boogyman I wouldn't. This film won numerous awards. I loved the series Sleeper Cell, where the Americans went after and caught he terrorists.......I know I'd like this move and hope I get a chance to see it.

You're just stuck on one scene.

[BoogyMan]

Its inappropriate. Its a sad outlet for frustrated liberals without a sense of propriety to gain a bit of mindless satisfaction.

[Elrathin]

Were someone to have done this to President Clinton, Carter, etc, you would be having a hissy and expressing the same concerns.



I doubt that Boogy, and if that happened, I would tell them the same thing I told you.

In fact if you look on the forums here about the 9/11 movie, I said that dems need to shut the hell up about it, as long as the movie is labeled a dramatization I would have no problem with it. Of course there is gonna be some exaggeration with it, it is a made for T.V. movie. Dems and others needed to just deal with it.

What I have problems with is people claiming something is a documentary when it isn't. I had no problem with Michael Moore's movie until some started labeling it a documentary and then I spoke up against it. Once it was finally agreed upon it was a dramatization and not a documentary, I went back into my free speech mode.

The only other thing that Hollywood, and other studios, produce that makes my blood boil is so called "reality shows" that aren't reality, but just scripted. I also have spoken up against that.

Bottom line though, if it is fiction or a dramatization I have no problem with it and the people should be the deciders of whether it is good or not by expressing that with their money. If the majority of people hate something, they will not make any money on it.

[Elrathin]

I will add this as well. I also support distributors in NOT showing this movie if they feel not to. It is their choice to do so. I do not agree with them doing that, however it is their choice as well.

It works both ways.

[lily]

This movie is now out on DVD. I highly recommend it. Very interesting.