Video killed the American President
VANCOUVER (CUP) -- Unassuming in his black suit, Gabriel Range stands a slim six feet tall, and speaks politely in a soft voice. He doesn't exactly fit the image of a man accused of killing the president of the United States, something he freely admits to and is only too willing to talk about.
Set in the near future (October 2007), Range's dramockumentary Death of a President (DOAP) examines the effects that the assassination of President Bush has on the ongoing response to the “war on terror” and the ensuing rush to judgment.
Not surprisingly, it has generated a lot of controversy: three U.S. theatre chains have already said they won't carry the film, several newspapers and television outlets won't advertise it, and there has been a general outcry from the political right in the U.S.
So how does a congenial fellow like Range go about committing a capital crime on celluloid?
“I just didn't wake up and say ‘Shit, I'm going to kill President Bush,'” laughs Range, a Brit.
“Presidential assassinations have a peculiar significance in the U.S. given the history and there are very emotive and striking ways of looking at what's happening today using the lens of the future. [Bush's assassination] seemed to be a good way to examine how the war on terror has been handled.”
The film, originally written for Britain's Channel 4, is now screening in North America. The U.S. response, however, has been decidedly less welcoming than that of other countries. Range notes nonchalantly, “there were some death threats and there was some very clear anger . . . [when] the film was announced,” yet he's still a bit confused about the backlash.
“I was surprised. I mean that initial knee-jerk reaction was very much based upon the notion that the film is some kind of polemic that would be reveling in the moment of President Bush's assassination.”
Anyone expecting a Zapruder-like spectacle will be sadly disappointed: the shooting scene is as brief as it is bloodless.
“It was very important that the assassination was a horrific event, but also that it wasn't gratuitous in the way that it was shown,” says Range. “The more recent reviews in the American press have been that it's sensitive, compelling, thought-provoking, and not this disgusting rant.”
While the bulk of the film's protest scenes were culled from archival footage of protests against the Iraq War in Chicago in 2003 and 2006, key sequences with “battles” between police and demonstrators were staged.
This required obtaining the requisite film permits, and Range approached the challenge of walking into the city offices and saying that he wanted to film Death of a President by being forthcoming -- sort of.
“Generally we would go by the name DOAP and very few people would ask what it stood for.”
He clearly realized that a detailed synopsis wasn't an option.
“It would have been very hard indeed to make this film in Chicago if the world knew we were making a film about the assassination of President Bush.”
The acronym -- DOAP (pronounced “dope”) -- wasn't a deliberate pun, Range said.
“A total fluke actually,” Range says with apparent glee. But it didn't stop the crew from having fun with passersby.
“A few people asked the crew in Chicago what it stood for. Generally the answer was it was a British movie -- ‘Ducks on a Pond' -- and they imagined it was some kind of romantic comedy.”
The interviews in the movie were the “second hardest” part of the shoot, Range says.
“It's a very unforgiving form of acting because we as an audience are used to seeing real people talking to the camera, so our bullshit detectors are turned up really high when we watch an actor do it and we're really looking for any crack in the performance.”
Ensuring believability is crucial to the story -- if the audience doesn't buy the interviews, the premise is compromised. Range and his crew were keenly aware of this and sought out an “unknown” cast.
“When you recognize a person as ‘that actor,' I think the illusion is shattered.” It also proved to be a challenge for the actors as “it's a very unforgiving kind of acting as you have none of the tools normally available to an actor.”
Actors were given a basic idea about their character, and enrolled in workshops. When they were finally given a script a short time before filming, they were instructed to “read it a couple of times but don't learn it.”
Range says he hopes the movie makes people “really question the way the war on terror is being handled . . . and how 9-11 has been connected with the war in Iraq.”
“The jury in Toronto [at the Toronto International Film Festival] said . . . that the film distorted reality to reveal a greater truth. If that's what an audience feels when they walk out then I'm thrilled.”
Set in the near future (October 2007), Range's dramockumentary Death of a President (DOAP) examines the effects that the assassination of President Bush has on the ongoing response to the “war on terror” and the ensuing rush to judgment.
Not surprisingly, it has generated a lot of controversy: three U.S. theatre chains have already said they won't carry the film, several newspapers and television outlets won't advertise it, and there has been a general outcry from the political right in the U.S.
So how does a congenial fellow like Range go about committing a capital crime on celluloid?
“I just didn't wake up and say ‘Shit, I'm going to kill President Bush,'” laughs Range, a Brit.
“Presidential assassinations have a peculiar significance in the U.S. given the history and there are very emotive and striking ways of looking at what's happening today using the lens of the future. [Bush's assassination] seemed to be a good way to examine how the war on terror has been handled.”
The film, originally written for Britain's Channel 4, is now screening in North America. The U.S. response, however, has been decidedly less welcoming than that of other countries. Range notes nonchalantly, “there were some death threats and there was some very clear anger . . . [when] the film was announced,” yet he's still a bit confused about the backlash.
“I was surprised. I mean that initial knee-jerk reaction was very much based upon the notion that the film is some kind of polemic that would be reveling in the moment of President Bush's assassination.”
Anyone expecting a Zapruder-like spectacle will be sadly disappointed: the shooting scene is as brief as it is bloodless.
“It was very important that the assassination was a horrific event, but also that it wasn't gratuitous in the way that it was shown,” says Range. “The more recent reviews in the American press have been that it's sensitive, compelling, thought-provoking, and not this disgusting rant.”
While the bulk of the film's protest scenes were culled from archival footage of protests against the Iraq War in Chicago in 2003 and 2006, key sequences with “battles” between police and demonstrators were staged.
This required obtaining the requisite film permits, and Range approached the challenge of walking into the city offices and saying that he wanted to film Death of a President by being forthcoming -- sort of.
“Generally we would go by the name DOAP and very few people would ask what it stood for.”
He clearly realized that a detailed synopsis wasn't an option.
“It would have been very hard indeed to make this film in Chicago if the world knew we were making a film about the assassination of President Bush.”
The acronym -- DOAP (pronounced “dope”) -- wasn't a deliberate pun, Range said.
“A total fluke actually,” Range says with apparent glee. But it didn't stop the crew from having fun with passersby.
“A few people asked the crew in Chicago what it stood for. Generally the answer was it was a British movie -- ‘Ducks on a Pond' -- and they imagined it was some kind of romantic comedy.”
The interviews in the movie were the “second hardest” part of the shoot, Range says.
“It's a very unforgiving form of acting because we as an audience are used to seeing real people talking to the camera, so our bullshit detectors are turned up really high when we watch an actor do it and we're really looking for any crack in the performance.”
Ensuring believability is crucial to the story -- if the audience doesn't buy the interviews, the premise is compromised. Range and his crew were keenly aware of this and sought out an “unknown” cast.
“When you recognize a person as ‘that actor,' I think the illusion is shattered.” It also proved to be a challenge for the actors as “it's a very unforgiving kind of acting as you have none of the tools normally available to an actor.”
Actors were given a basic idea about their character, and enrolled in workshops. When they were finally given a script a short time before filming, they were instructed to “read it a couple of times but don't learn it.”
Range says he hopes the movie makes people “really question the way the war on terror is being handled . . . and how 9-11 has been connected with the war in Iraq.”
“The jury in Toronto [at the Toronto International Film Festival] said . . . that the film distorted reality to reveal a greater truth. If that's what an audience feels when they walk out then I'm thrilled.”
