Death of a president, Controversial new movie. Options

[sakaitone]

I couldn't find any topic on this and I didn't really think that this topic should go into entertainment because it's more of a debate but if you think otherwise, you can move it.

Two major U.S. cinema chains say they will not show a controversial new movie that depicts the assassination of President George W. Bush, while the film's distributor defended it as a thoughtful political thriller.

A third major chain said it was undecided on whether to show "Death of a President."

The movie is scheduled to open in U.S. on October 27 and its backers said they are booking it into many regional venues and art houses, despite being shunned by the large chains.

The fictional film is told like a documentary that tracks the political drama behind an investigation into Bush's murder in October 2007. It has raised a ruckus because it uses digital technology to depict Bush being gunned down.

Regal Entertainment Group, the No. 1 U.S. cinema operator with more than 6,300 screens in 40 states, will not show the movie because of its subject matter, Regal spokesman Dick Westerling said.

"We do not feel it is appropriate to portray the future assassination of a president, therefore we do not intend to program this film at any of our cinemas," he said.

Westerling said Regal has received "numerous phone calls and e-mails" supporting the company and even if the film became a hit in other venues, Regal would stand by its decision.

Cinemark USA, which operates roughly 2,500 screens in 34 states, told show business newspaper The Hollywood Reporter it would not screen the film.

A spokeswoman for AMC Entertainment, which runs 5,600 screens, told Reuters her company had yet to make a decision.

The film, which was directed by Britain's Gabriel Range, made its debut at September's Toronto International Film Festival to a barrage of media coverage. It won an award from critics and was acquired for U.S. distribution by Newmarket Films.

It is scheduled to air on British television next week.

Richard Abramowitz, who is consulting with Newmarket on the film's distribution, said "Death of a President" has been booked into more than 100 venues and he expects that number to rise as he expands his sales effort into other regions.

"In certain cases, there has been a rush to judgement," Abramowitz said. "The fact is the film is not about what people are suggesting it is about. It is a thoughtful film and a political thriller."

Typically, a film like "Death of a President" would play mostly in art houses but increasingly the major movie megaplexes such as those run by Regal, Cinemark and AMC have begun screening low-budget and independently made movies.

"Death of a President" is not Newmarket's first controversial film. In 2004, it released Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." ...

- Death of a president, showbiz report

and
a trailer of the movie =Death of a president trailer

plus a plot-spoiler article=Death of a president-wikipedia article

Do you think this movie should be aired in the U.S. or should people shun such a movie?

[orgasm]

This really has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The government's not banning the movie, is it? The filmmakers still made it, didn't they?

It's the theater's own decision not to show the movie, which they have every right to do. If you want to see it that bad, go to where it's playing at.

As for my take on the actual making of the movie...

It would be hypocritical for me to say that filming the future assasination of a president is too violent, because hey... I've seen way more violence than that. But it's the thought of doing something like that. I wouldn't feel right watching the future assasination of anybody, much less our president.

It's a statement, yeah, but singling out one particular person and having them gunned out in a movie is a little too much like a death threat. Why not make a president to represent what Bush stands for and kill him? I think a symbol would be a lot more affective than filming the actual, and current, president being killed.

My opinion.

[NoSex]

This really has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The government's not banning the movie, is it? The filmmakers still made it, didn't they?

It's the theater's own decision not to show the movie, which they have every right to do. If you want to see it that bad, go to where it's playing at.

Well, of course. But, it still, clearly has to do with freedom of speech, that it's allowed to be made and such. I don't think anyone is saying that it is being banned or anything.

As for my take on the actual making of the movie...

It would be hypocritical for me to say that filming the future assasination of a president is too violent, because hey... I've seen way more violence than that. But it's the thought of doing something like that. I wouldn't feel right watching the future assasination of anybody, much less our president.

It's a statement, yeah, but singling out one particular person and having them gunned out in a movie is a little too much like a death threat. Why not make a president to represent what Bush stands for and kill him? I think a symbol would be a lot more affective than filming the actual, and current, president being killed.

My opinion.

I think it is highly more effective as a mockumentary, it brings a level of realism symbols could not invoke. Not to mention, it's meant to be "shocking and controversial," what better way? It's just going to be a sensationalist mess, I'm sure.

[orgasm]

Well, of course. But, it still, clearly has to do with freedom of speech, that it's allowed to be made and such. I don't think anyone is saying that it is being banned or anything.

I think it is highly more effective as a mockumentary, it brings a level of realism symbols could not invoke. Not to mention, it's meant to be "shocking and controversial," what better way? It's just going to be a sensationalist mess, I'm sure.

Hm. Skimming through the thread, I thought I read something like "Where's our freedom of speech?" Maybe not. Or maybe I misinterpreted it. But whatever, seems like our freedom of speech is still intact so, hooray!

Yeah, it's shocking and controversial, and yeah, it'll be affective for all it's worth. I just don't think it's right to personally zero in on our president while he's still in term. Why can't we wait for him to be dead? Or at least out of office?

Are we trying to send a message to the world or to him, personally?

I guess questions like this are always brought up when somebody does something so controversial and sort of unheard of. I really don't have anything against the movie, myself... I think I'm just swimming in the middle ground of wanting to watch the movie for what it has to say and being against the movie because of the natural respect I have for our president as a person.