Home / Reactionary Protester Syndrome

Reactionary Protester Syndrome

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

A docudrama is a fictional account of a past event told in the style of a documentary. It is not something that is pure fiction or something set in the future. That would be science fiction in most cases and just plain fiction in all others. There is no instance where you can call something a docudrama if the event it deals with has never happened. This is the case of a new television movie event hitting England very soon.

Death of a President is a honest attempt at discussion done in a very sick and twisted way only serving to color the audience who will tune in. It is a story set after the October 2007 assassination of President George W. Bush as he leaves the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago. The purpose of this drama is to bring up the subject of the War on Terrorism and how much of it is Bush’s private crusade and how much is in America’s real interest. Peter Dale, who heads More4, which is the channel airing this movie, has said it was a “thought-provoking critique” of America today.

It is an extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work, a drama constructed like a documentary that looks back on the assassination of George Bush as the starting point for a very gripping detective story… It is not sensationalist, or simplistic but a very thought-provoking, power drama. I hope people will see that the intention behind it is good.

I believe in their intent, but not in their delivery. I think they have used the wrong term to describe their work as I have already explained. This is fiction, not a docudrama. They are trying to provoke another case of “Reactionary Protester Syndrome.” That is why the makers of this film are marketing it in the manner they are, of course. A docudrama is always taken more seriously than a fictional drama.

“Reactionary Protester Syndrome” is a term I have coined to explain why people seem to bring success to things they wish to stop. It is almost reflexive for them at times. A compulsion they just cannot help. Sometimes I almost think the producers of these works affected by RPS are actually the ones behind these protests just for the free publicity, but sadly it is probably not the case.

The people who will protest this movie are the same people who protested Passion of the Christ and got the Reagans and Book of Daniel taken off the air. These magical people have the gift of determining what is of value to an audience based off of a shooting script and a few scenes. These people went into the wrong business. They could have done better working in Hollywood instead of whatever it is they do now.

What ever happened to the days of waiting until you were actually offended by something before the drama began? We now have pre-emptive drama. This is ridiculous. The protesters only serve to increase awareness of the thing they hate.

This is the central curse of "Reactionary Protester Syndrome". It is usually a case of a small group of people so morally outraged by the very idea of something that they bring it to the forefront and inspire curiosity. Those who suffer from RPS usually bring the exact success they so fear.

Personally, I look forward to seeing this movie to see where it goes with the plot. They should have used a different President’s name rather than a sitting President. There are still issues about portraying the death of a sitting President, but the overall plot sounds interesting to me. It is all up to how they handle it. I would hope they deal more with the reasons behind such a plot and who would profit and such. I doubt they will make a movie where the sun suddenly shines as Bush is buried or anything like that.

Here is a novel idea: why don’t we wait to actually see it before we get offended by it? I saw Passion of the Christ before I opposed it. Yes, I did not like it or Mel Gibson after I saw it, but at least I went with an open mind and came to my own conclusions about it. All I ask of others is the same respect for this and anything else that sounds like something they may not like.

Powered by

About Brad Schader

  • The basic premise is the problem, and you have the publicity still which entirely establishes the problem, no matter what else they do with it. It is asinine to dramatically depict the death of the real sitting US President in this manner, no matter what bullshit they come up with to justify it.

    Protesting it is counterproductive, as this is just the kind of publicity these fools are counting on to promote their “art.”

    Still, this is cheap publicity seeking in a manner clearly against the better interests of the free world. It’s nasty porno for Bush haters. There being legions of them, I’m sure there’ll be a fine audience for their nonsense.

    You could explore any real public issues with a fictional president. What happens if President John Smith was killed? But that wouldn’t make the haters come down their leg though, would it?

  • “It’s nasty porno for Bush haters.”

    This is what I am talking about. I have said they should have used another name, but they didn’t. You have already dismissed anything they have to say because you have assigned a value to this without ever seeing one second of it.

    How about seeing it first, then coming to an opinion on it?