Categorized | Movies

W.

[See It $10]

W. 
Did O-Stone jump on the Bush Bashing Bus or is W. a fair crack at the 43rd President of the United States?

For those of you that don’t know, Oliver Stone, the mastermind behind JFK and Nixon has fired out a new Presidential film with what he describes as "a fair and true portrait…" of the highly criticized George W Bush. 
It’s true that Stone doesn’t dwell on the overplayed topics of cocaine, Halliburton, 911 or Katrina, but he doesn’t exactly paint Bush as the most apt president in U.S. history.

Before you get all keyed up about Oliver Stones new movie W., lets remember that Ollie probably knows much more about George Bush Jr than any of you (unless George W happens to be reading this review, in which case please take note that our comment section does not have a spell check).

Josh Brolin in WYou may have your own opinions regarding our 43rd President, but the Oscar winning director and Stanley Weiser have done the research that brings to light the person behind the stupid look
The biggest problem I see with this film is that it’s too harsh (too true) of a representation for the shit-kicking Bush lovers and far too empathetic for the left-wing junkies.  Just because the man is our president doesn’t mean he’s perfect nor does it mean he’s completely depraved. 
If you can let go of the conjectures you’ve amassed over the past eight years you might find that you enjoy the movie.

With Josh Brolin’s career exploding, thanks in part to his co-staring role in No Country for Old Men, and performances like this one, he joins Anthony Hopkins and Kevin Costner on Stones growing list of political films.  I’m not sure how Jr. carried himself in his younger years, but Brolin’s eloquent merger of public flaws and subtle mannerisms had my brain believing that it was actually Georgy-boy up on that screen, especially during the presidential years.

From the start we’re introduced to all the Presidents men.  With the voice of reason played out in the overacted role of General Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright), and an equally mechanical performance from Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice, the opening scene felt more like a Saturday Night Live skit than a peek into deliberations at the white house.  Certainly both roles were cast wonderfully in terms of appearance, but whether it be Ollie’s choice, an editing decision, or inexperienced acting, Powell and Rice seemed like impressionists playing off obvious idiosyncrasies, an effect grossly compounded by the outstanding performances by Josh Brolin and Richard Dreyfuss as George W. and Dick Cheney respectively.

The always wonderful Scott Glenn (Donald Rumsfeld) adds to the satirical mood when we see him inappropriately sketching Rice’s portrait during the opening oval office meeting, where Cheney lurks in the background like a sith lord watching over his young president apprentice.

George Bush Sr. and James CromwellEllen Burstyn and Barbara Bush Laura Bush and Elizabeth Banks
The cast is full of other excellent actors such as James Cromwell  (George Herbert Walker Bush), Ellen Burstyn (Barbara Bush), Elizabeth Banks (Laura Bush) and Toby Jones who couldn’t have been a better fit for the role of Karl Rove.

Stone might "claim the high horse and take the low road" on this one, because he definitely knew the message he wanted to paint.  That message reads something like, George W. is an impulsive child suckling at Cheney’s tit and crying for his daddy to notice something other than the fact that he’s a complete waste of flesh that couldn’t even dream of getting excepted to the online University of Phoenix without his family lineage.

Josh Brolin as young George W. Bush in jail I’m not sure if there’s a scene of W’s younger years that didn’t show him with a bottle of alcohol, dancing on a bar, or calling daddy from jail.  But one of the dominating themes of the film was the George Bush/George Bush relationship or lack there of.  With harsh language like, "Who do you think you are, a Kennedy?" and "You disappoint me Jr. deeply disappoint me." it would be interesting to know exactly what kind of interaction these two U.S. presidents had in the past and currently hold today.

The run time is a bit long, and the chronological but non-sequential flow makes the film seem drawn out; right when you think it’s wrapping up you’re brought back to Bushy Jr flipping cards and pounding beers.

Midway through the film George Jr. begins to turn his life around and exchanges one mindless addiction for another when he trades the bottle for
a cross. No need for Jimmy or Jack when you’ve got JC.  Through born-again Christianity and a sober yet cloudy mind, Jr’s ambition peals back the layers of black wool to quell the subcurrent of Jeb’s alpha dog stature in daddy’s eyes.  When Senior’s second presidential run doesn’t earn Jr. the same gleam of respect as the first, G.W.B. tries his own hand at politics with a victory in Texas.  The sweet taste of power and respect help churn Jr’s evangelical mantra "God wants me to be president".

Josh Brolin as George W. Bush

           Most of the film is devoted to the physiology of the man through personal interaction, recklessness, reliance on his cohorts, and conjectures of Jr’s own insecurities regarding failure and living in Papa Bush’s shadow.  It’s interesting to see Cheney subtly cast as the puppet master guiding curious George toward important decisions that always seem to be made over lunch or a leisurely walking of the dog.

"It’s not torture… it’s simulated torture".

"As long as it’s not torture, this country doesn’t torture" (they only simulate torture; whatever that means). 
Ummm, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be torture.  But when we throw a name like "enhanced interrogation techniques" it seems to make sense to Bush.  According to Stone asserting his alpha status whenever he’s pressured by Dick also seems to make sense, "Hey Vice, when we’re in meetings, keep a lid on it… I’m still the President".

Much like Bush’s Presidency, the latter part of the movie is dominated by the decision to invade Iraq.  Consumed to go bigger and better than his more diplomatic father took Desert Storm in 91, Jr. pushes for a reason to overthrow Saddam.  "The date for the war is already set" Bush babbles to Tony Blair (Ioan Gruffudd) in response to a plea to allow inspectors more time to uncover WMD’s.

Back in the operations room Powell vainly attempts to remind everyone that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, while Rumsfeld appeals to Bush’s ego, "we sweep up all the bad guys in one big swoop, related or not". "We’re missing our perspective", Powell reasserts and continues to describe the difficulties that are sure to come with an invasion of Iraq.  Bush and Rove sit smugly behind in the shadows while solid points and valid concerns from Powell are completely disregarded.  What form of government will replace Saddam, what’s our exit strategy?  Two questions that preface the meat and potatoes of the film and incite perhaps my favorite line which encompasses George W. Bush’s narrow minded Roman-esque non-appreciation for foreign culture and government:
"Any kind of government will do, as long as it’s a democracy". 

Of course it will, because that’s all you know, so it must be the best, right?  I know Georgy boy isn’t the sharpest crayon in the box, but somewhere along the line he must have noticed that the American system is broken, for instance, when he was elected.

Josh Brolin as Geroge W. Bush Still in the operations room, Cheney decides to stop pussy-footing around.  Lets talk oil!  If we don’t control the middle eastern oil reserves now, Russia and China aren’t going to be lining up as allies when their own wells run dry.  We need to "develop their (Iraq’s) resources"…Ollie drops a bomb on us here,  "We don’t leave", "there is no exit.  We stay" Cheney sputters with a scowl of pride in unleashing his own little masterpiece plan.  We want to ally with Iran who controls 40% of the worlds oil.  Perhaps this is where Jr. swallows the advise he tried to feed to his father, "Don’t think about it too much, it just screws you all up".

When Bush addresses congress with the need to invade Iraq, we see actual footage of John McCain, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton all clapping at the prospect of war; interesting decision Ollie, what does that mean?

Of course the war begins to go horribly wrong and after visiting disfigured soldiers in the hospital, poor Bushy has the audacity to complain about being born with a silver spoon in his mouth; to calm his anxiety, he’ll go and see CATS his favorite Broadway play.  Of course this all happens in the world of Oliver Stone, but as with The Things We Carry sometimes fiction is closer to the truth.

Some of Bush’s public blunders are used in scenes of private setting, which together with speculative dialog regarding the essence of policies under the Bush administration, provide a more realistic look at actual events, since no one but the parties in attendance know with what candor or stupidity things were discussed; these tidbits add a good flavor to the film without coming across entirely manufactured.

George W Bush Now, do I think Bush Jr. is an idiot?  Well, yes.  But I don’t believe he’s a bad man, and this is what Oliver Stone attempts to imply.  He may have the best intentions for Americans and the United States of America, he just happens to have a very limited capacity to rationalize and an even more limited vocabulary to to express his narrow-minded views.  Even with the stupid things Bush has said in public ("is our children learning"), Brolin delivers them in a context that you actually appreciate the candid effort with which W. tries (and fails horribly) to communicate.  If the man stopped using metaphors and catchy lingo at every turn, he might not have such a difficult time; but such is the way with politicians.  As W. says to Laura in the film, "politics is not a library, it’s a kick ass skull crushing war".  Apparently one more war that Bush is losing.

At the close of the film we see the April 2004 press conference where Bush struggles to define his presidency and the mistakes he’s made.  Brolin does an excellent job capturing the disconcerted president while his cabinet stands by with uneasy concern.  He’s like the friend you don’t want at your parents dinner for fear of what might come out of his mouth.   

The film ends wit
h George W. Bush’s legacy up in the air. 

 

 

15 Responses to “W.”

  1. Joe Fish says:

    If you’re going to rip on someone’s spelling, you should be careful of your own….”(unless George W happens to be reading this review, in which case please take note that our comment section does not have a spell check).”

    In Paragraph 9, “excepted” is actually spelled accepted.

    Kind of hypocritical.

  2. demertens says:

    Seems like the excellent points made in this superb review went right over Joe Fish’s head. However, he did notice one minor error (“excepted” used ILO “accepted”). Incidentally, Joe says it was misspelled. The word was not misspelled. It was the wrong word. If Joe is going to play nitpicker here, he needs to be extra careful of his own logic and usage.

  3. luke says:

    Don’t be too critical of Bush’s difficulties with the language:
    excepted should be accepted
    roman-esk should be romanesque
    “swallows the advise” should be “swallows the advice”

  4. John says:

    Interesting review. I’ve never been a fan of Stone’s presidential-themed movies because people tend to see fiction based on truth as truth itself (see JFK). However, most reviews seem to indicate that Stone captured the essence of W. Is W. a terrible president? I think so. Is he an idiot? While many take comfort in that notion, I don’t think he is an idiot. He has managed to pull off a number of things in his life that are beyond the ability of an “idiot” (even with his Dad’s money and connections). However, as a president, he is way, way out of this depth. I dont’ think anyone will learn anything from this film, but it sounds like it is entertaining – and I suspect that is the point.

  5. Joe Fish says:

    I wasn’t playing nitpicker. The author of the article was. And the “excellent points” didn’t go over my head, I just didn’t think they were excellent.

  6. ARod says:

    Interesting and entertaining review, much like the movie I suppose. I haven’t seen it, but there seems to be some good reviews out.

    The spelling mistakes are comical given the situation, but this author isn’t exactly addressing the nation during a prime time press conference, he probably scribbled down the review an hour after the film and an hour before deadline, so calm down Joe.

    I’ll be back after I get out to see the movie

  7. Joe Fish says:

    ARod, I was always calm. Just thought it was funny.

  8. Katy says:

    I’ve always been a big fan of your reviews and think you have been pretty darn right on with most of them and have honestly really enjoyed them. I have to say though, the comment about George Jr. exchanging one mindless addiction for another when he trades the bottle for a cross. WOW!!! Thank god I have a good sence of humor because I come from a family of recovering alcoholics and born again christians. You may just seriously piss people off with that one. That was pretty harsh and I am sure you were just trying to be funny! All and all, I thought it was a kick butt review! Thanks! Just lay of JC please!

  9. Joe Fish says:

    Katy, good point. It’s always amazed me that people with no faith always go out of thier way to belittle those with faith by using terms like myths, fairy tales, or in this case, “mindless addiction”. What is to be gained by attacking someone’s beliefs? And yet, ironically, it’s the religious that are labelled intolerant and small minded.

  10. brys says:

    The statement that Jeffrey Wright and Thandie Newton are inexperienced actors makes this reviewer loose all credibility.

  11. T-Boss says:

    Can people focus on something greater than spelling mistakes and isolated excerpts? There’s some good points here and some points to be made; it’s a blog post not Newsweek!

    Was anyone else upset that there was no mention of Halliburton? Not even a reference to the money wasted or Cheney’s affiliation. I would have liked to see something on the inception of the terror alert and how it happened to be raised each time the Bush administration faced some controversy. Any thoughts?
    And by the way “brys”, I saw the film and was also disappointed with the almost mocking portrayal of Rice and Powell (more so with Rice), so as far as I’m concerned, you’ve lost all credibility.

  12. brys says:

    I haven’t seen the film. But anyone who has seen their movies knows that Wright and Newton are far from inexperienced. No need to attack me.

  13. T-Boss says:

    Well Brys, sounds like you should see the film before you discount the observations of people that have. Besides, not all acting is the same, and The Chronicles of Riddick and Shaft don’t exactly provide experience in playing popular modern figures.

  14. brys says:

    You forgot Crash and Basquiat. The point is that they have almost 50 movies under their belt. That’s hardly inexperience.

  15. michael says:

    I’ve seen this movie twice now and IMHO this is the best review. Politics as a skull-crushing war defines the Bush family approach. Keeping the political testosterone around the white house after the campaign was sure to lead to war, especially if it could guarantee a 2nd term. That was the point of the movie and the review

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.