Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Toronto: Politics, Truth & Consequences

Death of a President
UK, USA. Dir. Gabriel Range
Shut Up and Sing
USA. Dir. Barbara Kopple, Cecelia Peck.
Hype hurts the morning after, and journalists who queued up to see DEATH OF A PRESIDENT in the too-small cinema are feeling a bit snookered. Festival programmer Noah Cowan called this “what if?” docu-drama directed by Gabriel Range the “most dangerous and breathtakingly original film” he’d encountered this year; advance press served to fan the flames of controversy and a quick sale to Newmarket Films. For about 30 minutes, D.O.A.P. carries real tension: Set in 2007 Chicago, the site of a presidential visit and angry war protests that get out of control, the movie uses news footage, plus visual effects, plus CCTV footage, plus TV-documentary-like talking heads, to tell the story of the night the president (Bush) was assassinated. But once the deadly event occurs, and the inevitable frameup of a Syrian-born IT engineer begins to unfold, D.O.A.P. never follows through on its premise of showing how the assassination effects the country at large. All windup, no pitch. (As unsettling as the idea is, how would anything change if Cheney were president? Hasn’t it been made clear, in the latest round of 9/11 and Iraq documentary/remembrances, much he already runs the show?


Far better at dramatizing and the truth and consequences of unpopular political speech in this chilly climate is the Dixie Chicks documentary, SHUT UP AND SING. Directed by Barbara Kopple and Cecilia Peck, the doc will be released soon by the Weinstein company. As both a backstage film and an examination of what happens when public figures speak their minds – and lose fans – the film plays brilliantly. More delightfully, it rocks.

By the way: In the mood for a real “what if?” faux documentary? See IT HAPPENED HERE (1966), directed by Kevin Brownlow and Andrew Mollo, which wonders, all too convincingly, what might have happened under a post WWII occupation of Great Britain.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon