> AFAIK that barrier of good taste has never been crossed by Hollywood before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President_%282006_fi...

I'm sure there are earlier precedents too, but this one comes to mind immediately.

Oh, another one: Team America: World Police... which actually did depict a mission to go kill Kim Jong Il (while he was still ruling North Korea). Though to be fair they didn't actually manage to kill him, since in that movie he turned into a cockroach and fled in a spaceship.

Death of the Jackal! I think Hitchcock's 39 steps can count too, even if its not about a major figure. They're both great though. Political assassination has been a fiction trope since early literature, no?

You meant The Day of the Jackal, the thriller about the assassination of de Gaulle, right?

Yes, my bad. Thanks for catching that! I wish I could go back and edit.

Except death of a president and Day of Jackal are not saying haha we are going to kill the leader of a country.

Charles de Gaulle was president of France. I don't think tone matters here. I think we'd still be here if it was a Michael bay snoozer.

Edit: It's actually "Day of the Jackal". Sorry HN!

Thanks for the link, I never heard of that movie. Interesting.

Wikipedia says it pretty well : "was much criticised by those who believed it exploited the subject of presidential assassination, and that by doing so, was in bad taste"

There's a quote by Hillary Clinton, like it or not, likely to be our next president, describing that movie as "despicable". I never thought I'd agree with her on absolutely anything, but here I am.

(and again I state two wrongs don't make a right, etc)

If you haven't seen the movie (which she probably didn't either), then what's your basis for calling it "despicable"?

FWIW, I did see it at the time, and thought it was a fairly intelligent and sensitive depiction of what might happen to American society if Bush were murdered. In any case, why should such a "what if" scenario be off-limits to artists?

>There's a quote by Hillary Clinton, like it or not, likely to be our next president, describing that movie as "despicable".

And she's a despicable person. Sadly, she's probably going to be the best candidate in the next election, but she's a horrible person whose opinion counts for nothing.

>> "advocating assassination of a current world leader by name"

It's a movie. It's make believe. There were two movies last year depicting the White House getting attacked. Were they advocating attacking the White House?

There was a 2006 British mockumentary, Death of a President, which depicted the death of President George Bush (in a much tamer fashion that the explosions in The Interview). The film was criticized by both Republicans and Democrats. Two U.S. cinema chains refused to screen it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President_(2006_film...

There has been a long evolution by international organisations to pressure global culture into "respecting" their ideology. Islam is best known for this [1][2], but Russia, China and half of Africa and South America are on the side of the "global censorship"-cabal. Depending on whether it applies to religion (e.g. islam), political ideology (e.g. socialism/communism) or people (dictatorships, or royal family or ...) it refers to "defamation of religion" laws or ...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_...

[2] Don't feel I have to include links, they'd detract from the discussion, but we all know the massive international protests and even murders against cartoons, films, books, ... that muslims keep throwing every 5 years or so.

(yes, it's called defamation of religions, but it covers a hell of a lot more than just religions. Mostly mentioning islam here because it's the driver behind these horrible laws)

But here's the thing Americans don't seem to understand. Number of people in favor of real freedom of expression* : 60% of the US, 5% of the rest of the world.

* irrespective of the subject, which excludes most of Europe. Europe is only in favor of freedom of expression where it doesn't interfere with religion, (some) policies, a few families, ...

For that matter, Death of a President had GWB actually being assassinated. I remember it causing a stir, but it did see release in the US.

OTOH what represents the white house won in the end. Does the same thing happen in this movie?

From what I've heard, North Korea would be less than happy with the end.

I suspect few would be as cool with this reasoning if a comedy came out of Asia featuring a climax where Obama is lynched.

Those among us with a bit of perspective would be. Do you imagine that the leader of our nation would call for the movie to be banned? Don't think so.

I don't think the president would call for it to be banned, but I would expect protests, cries of racism, and possibly violence at theaters to follow even here in America.

Idoubt the latter, but sure, there would be a group of vocal detractors. That's the greatness of living in a free country; people are free to have their own opinions, but we still get to watch the movie of we like (or, at least, we used to be able to...).

My point was that of the group of 'vocal detractors', most of them are going to be the same people who are currently saying "Hey relax, it's just a movie, a comedy".

Hilary Mantel's short story about the (ahistorical) assassination of Margaret Thatcher was almost banned in the UK.

A contemporary story about the assassination of David Cameron would be unlikely to make it to the BBC.

A contemporary movie about same would never be funded.

The BBC is going to (or already did?) air the story on Radio 4's "Book at Bedtime" which is the furthest thing from being banned that I can think of.

Mind you they've received a share of vitriol for doing so.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/dec/14/hilary-mantel-a...

Hilary Mantel's short story was certainly controversial amongst the expected critics, but it was not "almost banned", or even considered for such a ban by anyone who could effect it.

So you have one instance of something _almost_ being banned in the UK (is that even true?), followed by two hypothetical situations.

Aside from being a rather flimsy argument in general, what does any of that have to do with the US? The parent referenced President Obama.

>AFAIK that barrier of good taste has never been crossed by Hollywood before. Close, but advocating assassination of a current world leader by name?

How many people does a dictator have to send to a concentration camp before they lose the right to complain about such a movie being in bad taste? Personally, I think the answer is 1.

North Korea's previous leader, Kim Jong-Il, was killed in 'Team America: World Police'. Impaled, actually.

So not only has this precedent been set, but it was done to the same country's leader by producers and directors in the United States.

Edit: This was done a decade ago.

The vomit scene was awesome. I saw it with my grown up daughter. She laughed so hard she couldn't stop. Then people around her started to go out of control laughter, too. Then she bolted. Apparently she was laughing so hard at the idea of a scene where a puppet vomits unceasingly that it triggered her gag reflex!

It's a comedy. It's satire. Also, none of us have seen it yet, so it's impossible to say it advocates anything until we've seen it.

Can anyone argue that it would not be a good thing if Kim Jong Un were assassinated? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_North_Korea

The horrors of North Korea wouldn't suddenly stop just because the guy at the top got killed.

There is no silver bullet, but that situation cannot get much worse than it already is. Even if the country collapsed into anarchy, the chaos would at least provide the opportunity for some to escape.

Organized evil is more harmful than any sort of chaos. The only exceptions involve WMD deadman switches.

I doubt it would collapse or even undergo anything much of note. I imagine if Kim Jong Un was assassinated, he would "retire" and be replaced with someone else. The government is much more than just the one guy.

Not suddenly, but maybe after the 4th or 5th replacement got assassinated in short order. Keep killing them as long as they remain hostage takers who don't surrender.

There are easier and better ways to start a war with North Korea.

Freeing little kids from prisons isn't in good taste?