Creative Differences

The White House has expressed its displeasure over a new feature film that technologically inserts President Clinton into the action, manipulating his appearances in real-life events so that he seems to be playing a role in the story. The film, called “Contact,” is about efforts to communicate with extraterrestrials. Having Clinton appear is the kind of trick used earlier in such movies as “Zelig” and “Forrest Gump,” only this time it involves a sitting president and uses his actual words in what might appropriately be called an alien context. This sets a precedent that, not unreasonably, has the White House concerned.

Presidents are public figures, and contrary to what White House spokesman Mike McCurry maintains, it’s hard to make a persuasive argument that a president’s image is “his alone to control.” If that were the case, editorial cartoonists would have to put away their pens, comedic impressionists--David Frye doing Richard M. Nixon, say, or Rich Little doing every chief executive within living memory--would pretty much have to stick to aping John Wayne and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a mainstay of satirical skits on late night television would disappear.

What can be argued is that there’s an obvious difference between drawing a caricature or doing an imitation of a president and manipulating film of a president’s public appearances so as to have him doing things he never did. In the first instance no one is likely to confuse artistic license with the real thing. In the second instance, the real thing may not be so easy to separate from the fictional situation.

The potential for going beyond acceptable boundaries is obvious. New technology has greatly expanded the ability to create marvelous illusions on film, and popular entertainment can be more fun because of that. But when dealing with historic figures--and especially sitting presidents--restraint and taste in how that technology is used should govern. There are, after all, plenty of actors who are capable of playing the president. Given that, is it really necessary to cast an actual president in a role that he never auditioned for?