'Death Of a President' - are the British hypocrites?

Question

A British company has produced a sordid little flick - filled with wishful thinking - about the death of Bush.
Certain cinema chains are doing the correct thing, and refusing to show it. Now some of the Brits are whining about censorship.

In 1975, Rod Steiger acted in a film called 'Hennessy', about an IRA plot to blow up parliament and kill the Queen.
Dramatic footage was intercut with footage of the Queen and Parliament in session.

The film was banned in Britain.

All these answers saying it's not hypocritical. Not one says why not.

'Hennessy' is still banned in Britain. Don't tell me times have changed.

When did the USA fund the IRA? I smell another conspiracy theory.

I love the way everyone tiptoes around this issue, splits hairs and says it's not the same thing.
It's EXACTLY the same thing.

The IRA was never funded by the US government.
What private citizens do is their own business.

Answer 1

I think it is just plain bad taste.

Answer 2

How is it hypocritical? you don't say how Bush dies in the film, so without that piece of info who's to say?

In the seventies the IRA were very active, and the possiblity of them going for a high profile target like the Queen was always feared. Of course a film depicting that would have been banned in the UK in 1975.

Of course, all the US did about the IRA was fund them, so they would make a film like that.

EDIT - The US Government did not fund the IRA, sorry if I didn't make that clear, however, it is a well known FACT that the majority of the IRA's funds came from US citizens in the USA.


EDIT 2 - having now looked up both films, I would say that it's down to the way the plots work. 'Henessey' follows a man building up to kill the queen in revenge for his family dying (even though the Queen did not kill his family), and 'Death Of a President' follows the investigation into how the President was killed.

'DOAP' is completely hypothetical and looked at from the 'good guy's' point of view, and 'Henessy' is done from the point of view of a Terrorist organisation that was active at the time. That is the difference.

Answer 3

I don't think it's hypocritical. You can't tell me that all films produced in the USA are in the best of taste either. The USA produces programmes and films about our country and our Royal Family which are often works of fiction passed off as fact, and we can do nothing about it. Either we have heavy censorship or we don't. Personally, I don't think the Da Vinci Code should have been allowed, but I am aware that my opinion isn't shared by everyone. We have to put up with things we don't like or don't agree with. That's life!

Also, talking about a film produced in 1975 isn't really appropriate as times have changed a lot since then and things are shown now which would never have been allowed back then.

Answer 4

I trust that if "Hennessy" was banned in the UK it was for good reasons- as Leo pointed out, it was made from the POV of a terrorist organisation and was depicting the Queen as having killed someone's family, which she didn't. That is political propoganda, not just bad taste.

Censorship in the UK is nowhere near as extreme as it is in America, so I find it difficult to believe they'd ever be hypocritical in this respect. Have you seen both of these films? Because without having seen them I don't think you can really make this judgement. The banning of films is a judgement call made by people who have seen it and fully assessed it on it's own merits, not by the genre or plot description alone.

EDIT- Hey, no one is tio-toeing. It is a perfectly legitimate argument to say that they are not the same thing. There are plenty of films that have many parallels in genre and plot, but if you watch them you might see that they are nothing alike.

I'm suggesting that without seeing BOTH these films, you have no right to dismiss them as "exactly the same thing", and certainly no right to judge the informed opinion of someone who has. Open your mind a bit, not everything is so black and white.

Answer 5

The film is not on release for the cinema, it is a made-for-tv drama, and does not claim to wish President Bush dead (I do), it simply attempts to examine the repercussions if such a thing did happen. A 'what-if' scenario, and as you have such a poor record of protecting your Presidents it is not an unimaginable one.
The US also had Harrison Ford saving Mr Fox (I have found that many Americans actually believe the Fox acting dynasty ARE part of our monarchy) from evil IRA-renegade Sean Bean, yet they would only have a renegade IRA member carrying out such an act, because the IRA were nice chappies, who dress like leprechauns on St Patricks Day, and give sweeties to children. Oddly the IRA are a communist based organization with strong links to Moscow, who committed acts of terrorism, and were funded by US business, Congressmen, & citizens, to kill people in both N Ireland & the mainland UK (I had a friend killed whilst shopping in Warrington). Now America says terrorism is bad, that's real hypocrisy.
Incidentally, the Eireann leader of the IRAs political wing was filmed last year, in Moscow, buying fake 'Super-Dollars' from the Russian mafia. These 'super-dollars' are produced in North Korea. Nice to see the IRA helping our new nuclear powers economy. We can't deport him, and the Irish can't touch him because of his politlcal status.
And. of course, where did the IRA go for their training? Oh yes, those same Islamic terrorist training camps that trained your 9/11 bombers, in Syria and Libya. Don't you pick your friends well!

Answer 6

I don't think their decision to show it is hypocritical in light that the Hennessy thing happened over 20 years ago. That WAS 1975 and times have changed - I think the media have fair reign over here and you'd agree if you saw the stuff on English TV, they really do cut to the bone.

I can't wait to see this flick.

Answer 7

Obviously times have changed. What was considered bad in 1975, isn't bad these days. They show films about Guy Fawkes trying to blow up Parliament every year around Guy Fawkes or Bonfire day.
I guess showing Brits Bush getting assassinated, wont lead to many actually going out and doing it, but showing it happening to the Queen might lead to internal problems.

Answer 8

Nope, there is diversity of opinion everywhere. I'm sure there are film producers here in America that would love to make that film as well, but know better. The Brits don't always agree with us, and we're not always right to start with, but when the chips are down I think each country knows they can count on their "cousins across the pond" when needed.

Answer 9

Like so many other issues blamed on this country or that, it is not a matter of censorship, it is a matter of responsible business decisions. If I am a theater owner, why would I want to show something my customers may not want to see? Placing any business on one side or the other of a political argument will eliminate potential customers from the opposing side. That is not good business. It’s not an American / British thing. It’s straight up, responsible business decisions.

Answer 10

It is hypocritical. I think it would be a good movie to watch. Why is it the correct thing to not show it? Censorship is lame. Let the theaters show it and if people want to see then they will go. If you don't want to see it then don't go. Censorship is what communist countries do, like China.

In democratic forms of society we are grown up enough to decide what is suitable for us and what isn't. We don't need some other group of people telling us what we can and can't watch.