Why I chose D.O.A.P.

I wanted to see this film for it's near-future exploration of a world that I have grown to know quite well. I did not read the entire description, there were 352 of them for me to get through in three hours, but I did read the following:

"As one might expect, Range is ultimately interested in addressing today's political issues through the lens of the future. Xenophobia, the hidden costs of war and the nature of civil liberties in a hyper-media age all come under the microscope. The film is never a personal attack on Bush; Range simply seeks to explore the potential consequences that might follow from the President's policies and actions.

"It is the very technique of D.O.A.P., finally, that poses the most haunting questions of all. Not only do we feel the authenticity of mass media imagery slipping away, but Range suggests that his manipulation is merely a more radical example of what we encounter every day."

Noah Cowan's description is floating around the 'net, causing a ruckus as it goes, but, what is there to be made of a film that no one has seen? The key word in the description, the one that got me hooked on this film as an idea, was xenophobia. The ruckus that is swirling, or will swirl until the film premieres on 10 September, is linked directly to this: fear of change and the unknown.

I agree with the official statement released by TIFF on 1 September.

"...a highly original film; a falsified history on what would be a tragic event. D.O.A.P addresses a wide array of contemporary issues including the loss of civil liberties, the ramifications of war, and ultimately critiques the overwhelming influence and manipulation of mass media...

"The Toronto International Film Festival is committed to the free expression of ideas and to engaging audiences in thoughtful discussion about issues of the day. D.O.A.P contributes meaningfully to the public discourse surrounding current social issues, demonstrates highly original storytelling techniques and utilizes innovative digital effects. The film is not exploitative in any way and treats what would certainly be a great tragedy respectfully and un-cynically."

And so, storm's a brewin'.

Is the president of the US in a particularly weak position for such a film to be released? Sure, his approval rating hasn't broken 50% since April of 2005. Political assassination is the more effective tool here. For him to leave office disgraced and the nation in a double (or octuple) pitfall may provide the lesson that American "leadership" needs. Will the film have any effect on Americans, with the exception of opening up a new avenue of Canada-bashing? Probably not. Most Americans can't point to Toronto on an unmarked map. Why should they care about anything but the immediate threat to the image of their leader?

Really, it's fiction. Fiction. The film that no-one has seen will have some kind of effect. If it's any good, it might go on TV. If it's no good, it'll be in a ten-dollar-store bargain bin fourteen years from now for $5 in the antiquated HD-DVD format. Talk about your cautionary tales.

The Drudge Report, and several blogs are weighing in. The Daily Mail has published this "What if?" scenario. When I started this article the count was 58 on Google for ""D.O.A.P."+"Death of a President"." By 10:00 (EDT) it'll be over a thousand. It's Saturday, there'll be a bunch of newspaper articles, it's had time to circulate... I am looking forward the the Ideas section of the Toronto Star on Sunday.

So what is left? Are we to contine to expect the worst in constructing our future or to hope for the best? The stringent order has favored the former. Perhaps it's time, Mr. President, to give the latter a shot -- so to speak.