MovieChat Forums > Death of a President (2006) Discussion > Double Standard or what?

Double Standard or what?

posted 12 years ago by EIABoy
17 replies | jump to latest

I saw several posts that made a great point about doing this movie and using a sitting president (which most of hollyweird doesn't like) is pretty sketchy. When I first read the summary of this film on Netflix my very first thought was "they would NEVER have made this film about Obama".

As a point of clarification, I have not watched the movie, yet. I intend to. I am challenging the premise here. It comes across pretty clear here in the heartlands that hollywood leans FAR left and there is a double standard which allows for a movie with this premise to come out.

I have another point, they also wouldn't have used Clinton, he is too beloved by the left. They MIGHT have gotten away with Reagan under the premise that he died after hinckley shot him and then replaced hinckley for their story.. But even that would have been sketchy..

If a right leaning film maker had proposed such a film of Obama he would have been pilloried as a bashing the president, a recist, and anti-american but if a left leaning film maker does EXACTLY the same thing, its ok and actually GETS MADE..

Does anyone see a problem with that?

Like or dislike Bush, like or dislike Obama, a film with this premise released during their presidency's are especially inappropriate.

An actual president was not necessary and I look forward to posting again after I watch it.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PsychoDingo 12 years ago

In all fairness, Obama didn't needlessly cause the deaths of over 4500 American soldiers, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians or cause millions to be driven from their homes and country, spending $1 trillion in the process, in return for absolutely nothing but increased ill will toward America.

Even though the American right-wing is angry that Obama has embraced GOP foreign policy and GOP fiscal policy, Obama hasn't really done anything likely to instigate a assassination, except...be black.

The ironic thing is that coconuts are, in fact, migratory.

[–] EIABoy 12 years ago

I'm a little fuzzy on your point.

So by your standard, if Obama had done this it would have been ok?

I'm taking a much simpler perspective. That no matter what your political perspective is making a movie like this *during* a presidency is inappropriate.

My further perspective is that such a movie would not have been made about a democratic president especially not a sitting one.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PsychoDingo 11 years ago

the point is that this isn't a case of a double standard, given that:

a) this isn't an American film. it is a British film. therefore has nothing to do with the politics in Hollywood or the American political parties and their members, and the production companies that made it have no duty to uphold American ideals of appropriateness with respect to our presidents

b) the presidencies of Dubya and Obama are not equivalent, mutually standardized cases, therefore it isn't reasonable to expect that they would be handled with equivalence to one another in the realm of entertainment media

c) your double-standard claim is based on a hypothetical left wing response to a film that hasn't been made, featuring pillory and outrage that thus far exist only in your imagination. your prediction of potential future outrage is not a valid premise, and given that your argument relies on that invalid premise, the whole thing falls apart

Who cares about stairs? The main thing is ice cream.

[–] bbraat 12 years ago

That's BS. Every American president did something likely to instigate an assassination by being the American president. Yes, Bush sent troops to two Asian countries one of which was tied to 3000 deaths in New York. You neglect to mention that Obama sent US troops to THREE African countries, none of which was tied to an attack in the US, solely to prevent a refugee problem in Southern Europe. The result of that was that Europe got American financed defense and hardline, muslim law systems rule in those countries that repress women, gays, Jews, and Christians.
I'm getting a little sick of people bringing up the fact that Obama is a victim of racism when people disagree with his policies.

If this movie is not a big deal (with Bush as the dead president) then remake it every four years.

[–] bbraat 11 years ago

god you are dumb. nothing to instigate an "assasination except...be black."

first- a psycho does not need a reason to try to assassinate the president. sometime the psycho is just a psycho and is looking to impress Jodie Foster (Reagan) or Charles Manson (Ford). What did Kennedy do? All three of these presidents didn't go to war when they were shot at by people and YET all were what be considered WHITE!!!

second- Obama does have blood on his hands thanks to his drones and bombings in Lybia. Lybians were the people who cheered the American plane going down over Scotland so why wouldn't one of Obama's victims in Lybia try to take him out.

Oh, but this must be a case of racism. you're an idiot who'll cry racism rather than make a reasoned argument.

[–] RoyWilliamsbeatsCoachK 9 years ago

Actually Obama has continued foreign policy that has been very destructive. Maybe you should read Jeremy Scahill's "Dirty Wars" if you think Obama is this peace loving president.

I don't mind the movie because I don't support the Two party dictatorship that has destroyed this country for far too long, but obviously if there was a movie about Obama being assassinated the media and his followers would cry racism and treat it as a national outrage like they do for every other criticism of Obama.

[–] PsychoDingo 9 years ago

Maybe I'm naive, but I didn't realize that when people talk about "the níggér president and his gorilla wife" it's merely a criticism of Obama's foreign policy.

And maybe you are also naive, or are just somehow isolated from the deluge of criticism of many Obama policies and appointments by Democrats and other progressive-minded people. Maybe it's just that you aren't getting your information about what your left-leaning countrymen are saying from the people themselves, but instead from dishonest sources.

He was so crooked, he could eat soup with a corkscrew.

[–] glen-493-944508 8 years ago

"Maybe I'm naive, but I didn't realize that when people talk about "the níggér president and his gorilla wife" it's merely a criticism of Obama's foreign policy. "

Nice strawman argument. And complete BS. No, the criticism of Obama's policies is real criticism of his policies. Good of you to be intellectually dishonest, instead of making a real, valid argument. But such is the way of the progressive.

[–] PsychoDingo 8 years ago

So, you're saying that I have not heard people speak of the President and First Lady in that manner, and that I just made it up?

[–] freemanpatrick7 11 years ago

Bill Clinton *beep* a cow!

Not really. But Joe Eszterhas (screenwriter for Basic Instinct) wrote a script about a President who got caught *beep* a cow in his barn. The script doesn't say or even imply that the story was about Bill Clinton. But at one point Spielberg was ready to produce it but he got cold feet. Too many people who read the script were afraid that it would make Clinton look bad. So the project got killed.

That sounds like a double standard to me.

You can read all about it here

http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Guide-Hollywood-Screenwriter-God/dp/B001O9CAJA/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376717274&sr=1-2&keywords=joe+esterhaus

[–] Strawberry_Typhoon 10 years ago

Or maybe just, nobody made that movie. What would happen if they did? A movie? People would bitch, just like a lot of people bitched about this movie. But what's going to happen to a person that makes a piece of fiction about the assassination of Obama? Nothing, beyond having their feelings hurt. There is no double standard, here. If somebody wants there to be a film about the faux assassination of president Obama, stop bitching and make it. We live in America where you can pretty much make any movie you want, if you have the money and the know-how, without being imprisoned. It's just that, some people have the misconception that freedom of speech means the freedom to say whatever you want without criticism, which isn't true. If a person wants to make a movie about a faux assassination of president Obama, they are free to do so, so long as they can absorb the criticism without crying about it and acting like some kind of martyr.

"Nothing says "OBEY ME" like a severed head on a fence post."

[–] EIABoy 10 years ago

Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want (almost), and you are correct, it does NOT mean that you are free from criticism.

On the other hand I don't think I can agree, if someone made a movie like this about Obama, I have a REALLY hard time believing that they wouldn't go after that person with everything they could. Its one thing to take criticism, which you would have to expect, it is another to have every action put under a microscope looking for something to jail you on. I would expect nothing less from this administration. And given how far left Hollywood is it really is hard to believe there isn't a double standard.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kariann1964 9 years ago

It's a British film, right? I actually thought the film presented Bush more favorably then some Hollywood types would have. This is a film that should be watched twice. There are a lot of people commenting who haven't even seen the film. Hmmm...

[–] johnston.scot 8 years ago

Just to emphasize, and amplify, what others said: having been made in Britain, the movie was obviously not from "Hollyweird" (or even Hollywood). Moreover, not only did Hollywood not make the movie, they refused to have anything to do with it, i.e. none of the major distributors would touch it. Newmarket - which is an indie - distributed it in America, but just barely: it only played for a couple of weeks on under 200 screens.