DEATH OF A PRESIDENT

Whether you are Democrat or Republican or Anarchist, you probably have reason to believe that the faux documentary about the assassination of President George W. Bush will get you all riled up. After all, the film was banned from many U.S. theaters, despite winning an award at the Toronto Film Festival. If you look at the official website, you'll see that it was condemned by many who hadn't seen it, including such political luminaries as Hillary Clinton and, well, Kevin Costner. But if you are like me, curiosity will get the better of you, and you may find yourself checking out the movie for yourself.

The surprising truth of the matter is that Death of a President is far less sensational than half an hour of your evening news, and it is in fact a sobering look at the hysteria that would follow such an event. As far as mimicking a straight-faced documentary, it also works surprisingly well... by that I mean that after a half hour or so, I was entering the familiar sleepy-time of watching earnest and snooze-inducing History Channel documentaries.

Death of a President "documents" the night that George W. Bush got shot after a speech in Chicago in October 2007. The tension builds surprisingly well in the early parts of the film, using real footage of protestors gathering outside, interspersed with staged moments by actors. According to the director, the tension in the build-up was meant to mirror real-life protests that Bush encountered in his roughest cities, like Seattle (woo-woo!) and Portland. In fact, says the director, Bush even had referred to Portland as the "Beirut" of cities when it came to protests at his public appearances.

With "interviews" with Bush's staff members and close advisors, it is clear some breach of security happened that night. While working a rope line outside the hotel on the way to his car, Bush is hit by a sniper. Heads duck, the President is pushed into a car, and the limo speeds toward the hospital in the midst of chaos. For those who are squeamish, this scene is less graphic that any of the stills that advertised this movie. It is all done in a hand-held camera way, in the midst of confusion, without any real focus on the center of what proves to be a fatal moment.

After this admittedly explosive build-up, DOAP seems to straggle on a bit. The investigation immediately fingers a Muslim immigrant, who becomes the main suspect. At the same time, the film's "documentarians" point to a couple other major suspects, including a disgruntled military vet. Where there should be conspiracy and shock, I ended up feeling more of a "ho-hum" response to the revelations that the film presented in it post-assassination research. Is it jaded to expect that the government would try and convict the wrong guy? Would that really surprise anyone these days?

So my revelation at the conclusion of Death of a President is that it didn't shock me as much as it could have (or should have). The fictional event seemed entirely (and frighteningly) plausible, as well as the hysterical aftermath. Maybe DOAP's only failure is that in this world of terrorism and violence, what should shock us turns out only to be anti-climactic. Perhaps we are so jaded... and that is truly terrifying.