what this wasteful imaginary Death of a President make me think...

i just finished watching Death of a President, which i bought months ago. why it took me so long to finally grabbed it from my DVD's shelf and decided to play it, i don't know. i think it's either i had less time to watch DVD lately, as i spent recent weekends watching new-released movies at cinemas, or i was not in the mood yet to watch a fictional futuristic TV documentary about a catastrophic event in October 2007; the assassination of President George W. Bush.

yes that's it. simon finch produced and wrote this overtly political movie, directed by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, for reasons i will never understand. i still wonder why someone would even consider making such movie -- which seems like hoping to recall the assassination of john f. kennedy and replacing him with George W. Bush in the middle of 21st-century-ish issue on terrorism -- without which the world would still know that Kennedy was much more loved than Bush.

but that was the initial reason i watched it. i wonder how would they create a scene to kill the so-called the worst american president in history. at the beginning at the movie i was taken aback by the almost real presentation of the documentary, combining archival footage and carefully composed interviews of people closest to the president, investigators and the suspects, presented in a respectful and dignified manner.

i thought the way those people described the sudden violence in a protest rally during Bush’s visit in Chicago was rather exaggerating. the moviemakers picked the images of a real demonstration, of course, but presented it in a more hateful and extreme way. a hidden sniper shot Bush when he exited the Sheraton Chicago, where he delivered a speech, and was about to enter his limousine.

situation heated up when investigators searched for the assassinators, who was believed to work at the building where the gun supposedly pointed from. impulsively, they looked for a muslim name and found one. they arrested Jamal Abu Zikri who happened to work there. no forensic evidence could directly prove his involvement in the shooting. however, the fact that he was once got lost in an Al-Qaeda terrorist camp in Pakistan -- where he mistakenly thought that he would find a proper job suggested by a friend he believed -- was enough to make every one believe that he committed the crime.

Jamal’s lawyer decided to appeal against the court's verdict, which found him guilty. this extended his days in detention, even after Afro-American veteran Casey Claybon claimed that his father, Al Claybon had murdered Bush before he committed suicide. Casey presented his father’s suicide note which stated that he had murdered Bush for “killing his son” David by sending him to Iraqi war.

Later, casey found evidence linking his father to the assassination, a top secret document of Bush’ schedule during the visit and a Chicago map.

however, learning how Claybon obtained these document, instead of releasing Jamal Zikri, was the only thing on the investigators’ mind, as they hardly believed that such confidential papers could slip into Claybon’s hand.

however mean the movie could be; supposing Bush’ murder in the middle of widespread-hatred upon him, pity will pour to Zikri’s wife, who opened and closed the movie speaking in tears:
when I saw what terrorist had done on 9/11, I cried. I cried like all the American cried. for three days I sat watching CNN, I couldn’t believe what they had done. I know a lot of people from my country who said; “so what? Americans always have safety and security, why shouldn’t they taste the fear we live with all our lives?”
but those people weren’t thinking or seeing ahead. if I could only talk to him, I’d just ask him, didn’t you think and stop for a moment? when the gun was in your hand, when the finger was on the trigger, how couldn’t you think of the consequences of your actions?

those lines make me reconsider judging the film as a mere wasteful imaginary. the filmmaker relates Jamal's wife regret on Claybon's crime, which had endangered her husband, to a wider context: fears and insecurity of muslim in America (and around the world) of suspicion and hatred upon them since 9/11.

Gabriel Range might direct it due to his dystopian-film making hobby. critics may give no applause for this movie since the obviously political, over-dramatic footage and so-so special effect disappoint the promise of sensational story of a real president assassination. realists may say that US hatred upon muslim would still have worsened had the Al-Qaeda not crashed into WTC. but the film makes me think; honestly, don’t we (muslim) miss the day when news did not link the word “terrorist” with “Islam’? don’t some men get tired of worrying the possibility of US embassy holds their visas just because they have “Muhammad” in their names? don’t we (people of all faiths) want to go back to the 20th century when the guards don’t check our handbags or shoulder bags when entering malls or hotels?