Geeze, even I can't go 'there'...

Since my partner's blogstalker intrigued me enough that I read her blog, as well as visiting all of the right-wing links to other blogs listed--her views, and those of her friends make John Birch look like Jesse Jackson-- I read something that shocked, saddened and sickened me.

I dare say that I actually agree with what I read on one of the blogs.

Director Gabriel Ranges' new film, "The Death of a President," recently premiered at the Toronto Film Festival.

No, this is not another documentary about the assassination of JFK. This is a "mockumentary," that explores the sick notion of, "What if President Bush was assassinated?"

It's a 90-minute film, meant to look like a factual documentary, and it's opening scenes include a crude scene of a supposed Bush (the production team has digitally superimposed President Bush's real face onto the actor playing him) being gunned down, after making a speech and walking through a huge Anti-War protest. British television is going to air the film.

As a supporter of free speech, and as someone who believes in the right to artistic expression--no matter if I agree with the expression, or even like it for that matter--I find this one of the most offensive and potentially dangerous films made recently.

Mel Gibson's S&M tribute to the crucifixion of Christ sickened me, and I refused to see it because of its Anti-Semitic overtones and it's glorification of gore, period. No doubt that the crucifixion was as gruesome as one can imagine, but it felt--to me--that Gibson reveled in the gore, almost to a point of enjoying it a bit too much. And I just cannot stomach Mel Gibson, period. I feel he is a pompous, hate-filled bigot, period. You can see the anger in his eyes.

Gibson is the pin-up-boy for the right-wing fundies, and well he should be. He pontificates about being so righteous and pious, such a strict Catholic, etc., but when he thinks nobody is looking, he gets tanked up, and starts spouting his real feelings about Jews. Many times, alcohol is a truth serum for some. It loosens one up enough to let their "Id" out.

Thus why I now refer to Mel as "Id Gibson."

Anyway, his own right-wing, Opus-Dei, fantasy did not appeal to me, however he had every right to produce the film, and many were moved by it. I decided not to pay good money to see that. I think it's telling that he chose to focus on every bloody aspect of Christ's gruesome death, but does not spend anytime showing Christ's victory over death, His resurrection, and His promise to those who believe. Very telling on behalf of "Id Gibson," if you ask me.

With that said, I feel totally different about "Death of a President," even though I completely loathe the current policies of the Bush Administration, across the board.

I can't even bear to look at Bush, or even hear his "Manchurian Candidate-like" speeches. His cronies, as well, sicken me.

Would I like to see him Impeached? Oh yeah! But do I wish for his murder? Never.

"Death of a President" could prove to be a very sick and dangerous film, period. Whether you identify as Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc., you should know that such a film is beyond bad taste.

Though possibly covered under "Freedom of Speech," I am wondering about legal action at the Federal level, if this director actually gets an American film distributor to show the film in the U.S.?

I would think this might fall under the guidelines of making threats on the life of the President. One can only imagine how this would affect Mrs. Bush, their children, the Bush family. But think about what this film might mean to the whack-jobs out there, who might actually be obsessing about doing the same thing?

Look, we all have the Zapruder Film if we want to view a real president's murder, and that's bad enough.

Again, I am no fan of this administration, and I am pretty fed up with the Democratic party as well, but there is no excuse for such a careless and potentially life-threatening film like this.

Read the details for yourself:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/01/news/shot.php

The filmmaker has a right to make the film, but it's should have stayed as a "What If?" question.

In this volatile political season, this is not something we need, period. I'm going to write to the British TV channel, who is going to air the film, and respectfully ask them to rethink that decision.

If you feel the same way, I encourage you to do the same.