Oliver Stone: W.

[mouton]

W.
Written by Stanley Weiser
Directed by Oliver Stone
Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, James Cromwell, Ellen Burstyn, Richard Dreyfuss, Thandie Newton and Jeffrey Wright

George W. Bush: I’m so bone tired of this Saddam. He’s always misunderestimating me.

Considering that at the time that I am writing this and while W. is hitting theatres, George W. Bush is still the president of the United States, is it unreasonable to ask if it is just too soon for a film biography of his life? Do we not need a little space in order to, first of all, get over the trauma of the eight-year long Bush administration, or more importantly, in order to gain some perspective on one of the most unlikely controversial figures in modern history? Lucky for us, the man behind the lens is Oliver Stone – a man who has never seemed to concern himself with objectivity to begin with. And I say lucky for another reason as well. We are lucky this movie has been made now because it actually allows for us to see a side of George W. that we’ve never really seen before – a sympathetic side. Sure the film is an entirely fictional imagining of the man but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t make for good entertainment.

Stone’s W. is not a documentary – thankfully because I can’t usually stomach watching the man on television for more than five minutes. Stone is under no obligation to be fair or well balanced. Besides, even documentary filmmakers these days seem to use the truth and objectivity as loose guidelines. Still, when W. opens with a conversation amongst the upper echelons of the Bush administrative staff as to what buzz words and catch phrases would best sell the Iraq war to the American public, you can’t help but wonder whether Stone has zero intention of being fair or whether he intends to lambast the man. In fact, up until the moment the film began, the most intriguing thing for me about this film was trying to understand why Stone was making it in the first place. What was he going to say about him? How was he going to say it? It is right after this opening, which introduces us to most of the key players in this fantastic cast, that Stone, under the structure of Stanley Weiser’s script, takes us back to meet a younger George – a much less presidential George, if you will.

We get to see George as a college boy getting hazed. We get to see George quitting job after job after job with no direction in sight. We get to see George promising ladies the world but giving them nothing but heartache. But then we get to see another side of George. We get to see him face his alcoholism. We get to see him come to find his faith again. And we get to see him fall in love with a young lady named Laura. The manner in which it all unfolds is rather conventional but still also believable, thanks to a fiery Josh Brolin as the big guy himself. Brolin got me to root for a guy I would ordinarily hiss at (not that I hiss at that many people) and he did so by personifying the man as a regular guy with regular guy hang-ups. Weiser’s script does oversimplify Bush’s psychology by implying that all of his decisions in life have been motivated by the need to prove to daddy what a good boy he can be. Still, Brolin brings more to it than that; he brings both passion and compassion to man who is generally considered to be a monster.

Was it Stone’s intention for W. to be a George W. Bush puff piece? Not at all. Without forcing Stone’s hand, the plot does follow through Bush’s election into office and right up until the point where his administration realizes that the Iraq war was going to be a lot harder than they had anticipated. It is in the war room that Stone sneaks in his now signature controversial touch. Suddenly, it makes sense why he made this movie now and why it is being released just a few weeks before the American elections that will see Bush leave office. Once you understand why you’re watching it, you realize that it was actually a lot more enjoyable than you thought it would be and that Stone has crafted a good ol’ American movie as he sticks it to American government.

www.blacksheepreviews.com

[Chris Knipp]

OLIVER STONE: W. (2008)

Not with a bang but a whimper

Review by Chris Knipp

It might be nice if Stone had produced this semi-comic Cliff-Notes Citizen Kane about the second Bush earlier--before the latter's approval rating sank to one point above Nixon's just before his resignation and three above the all-time low. At a time, that is, when anyone might still have needed convincing how bad this president is. But the film's aim (though a faltering one) isn't so much that as to tell a tale of oedipal conflict leading to national disaster. The disapproval that matters to George W. Bush as seen here isn't the nation's, but his father's. He botched Iraq as his dad didn't; he was overshadowed by his younger brother Jeb (Jason Ritter). He was a failure as a young man and he will be a failure in the eyes of history. Of course Stone is highly biased. But considering the extremism he is capable of, this is a surprisingly mild, even flat, cinematic statement, and it fails to leave any very clear, emotionally powerful impression.

Using a series of highly selective early life "highlights"--mostly in fact low points--Stone and his writer Stan Weiser tell the story of a child of privilege who never succeeded at anything till he got a baseball team to manage and successfully ran for governor of Texas. And incidentally he gave up alcohol and turned to God. These scenes from the early bio alternate with key moments in the run-up to the Iraq war and early stages of the debacle. This key period in the man's life and tragic moment in American history is the time when Josh Brolin, as "W.," the name many of his intimates call the man, suited and gray-haired, most looks the part. In earlier sequences Brolin is both too old and too chiseled and handsome to represent the carousing frat boy, oil rig washout and non-congressman who convinces a nice librarian named Laura (Elizabeth Banks) to be his wife. In the later ones, Brolin looks right--but lacks the real W.'s continual wrong-headed conviction, his tone of absolute corn-pone authority.

That Brolin's performance isn't caricature may help Stone's portrait to remain intermittently satisfying even to die-hard fans of the man. But despite the film's title, Bush's character in the movie is overshadowed as president not only by the major figures of his administration--a stolid, troubled Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright), the gnome-like manipulator Karl Rove (Toby Jones), his reptilian sidekick Condi Rice (Thandie Newton), the ominous destroyer and lord of empire Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfus), and a less evident, less convincing Donald Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn)--but above all by the tall, austere disapproving literal father figure of George Herbert Walker Bush (well embodied by James Cromwell). None of these actors can be faulted, and their versions of the originals are sometimes arresting. So are others, such as Ellen Burstyn as Barbara Bush and Stacy Keach as an evangelical minister instrumental in W.'s born-again Christian recovery from alcohol and cocaine addiction. Still others, such as Paul Wolfowitz (Dennis Boutsikaris) and General Tommy Franks (Michael Gaston), are also sketched in, but only the main players close to W. stand out.

The paradox about W. is this: on the Wellsian Citizen Kane model the key revelations about George Bush Jr.'s life lie in the past. But all the scenes that really grab you are from recent history--moments often so familiar you can recite the lines. Given this disconnect, the structure ultimately doesn't work or make sense as what the film purports to be--an analytical biopic. The best parts were already done better by David Hare in his play about the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Stuff Happens. Because Hare depicts events step by step in a series of detailed dialogues involving the principals, including Tony Blair (played briefly in the film by Ioan Gruffudd), with lines both real and imagined, he has a really exciting and painful story to tell. W. chiefly evokes this kind of effect only in one key war room scene where Cheney triumphs, Powell is overruled, and Bush is wholly overshadowed. Details about politics, like Rove's manipulations in getting W. elected in Texas and the nation, or the role (if any!) played by Washington leaders outside the administration, are left out entirely. This has little of the significance and intrigue of The West Wing. It really is Cliff-Notes history. Events are outlined. Real suspense is lacking.

Other scenes where a Presidential W. seems drunk without being so or has a nightmare about sparring in the Oval Office with an angry father seem ragged, because Junior has already lost the spotlight, which now belongs to his disastrous administration, his quagmire occupation, and the powerful men and women around him--and so the film has lost its way.

This isn't a total disaster. It may even help the public see and understand George W. Bush. If it convinces some swing-voters not to want to elect another Republican president, that would make the otherwise odd timing of the release logical. But W. certainly isn't a great movie. The home-state sequences and use of "The Yellow Rose of Texas" as background, instantly evoking comparison's with George Stevens' magnificent (if uneven) Giant, only set Stone's biopic in a cinematic context where it's totally overshadowed by many other films about presidents, including Oliver Stone's own complex and controversial JFK.

[Johann]

Thanks for the reviews gentlemen.
I'll be seeing this soon.

It's really too bad that we're in this position of a movie needing to be made to help people understand why Bush is such a colossal failure.

How sad it is that we need to reconcile the monumental fuck-ups with a cinematic portrait. It is indeed a Shakespearean tragedy.

I don't think one single moment or thought should be wasted on this man, his father or anyone else associated with him and his administration. The whole ensemble need to be rounded up, placed on a space ship, strapped to their seats tightly and blasted off this planet which they have so much contempt for.

Let 'em drift around Mercury until they become fossilized corpses.
That's how much I hate what they've done.

[oscar jubis]

It seems apparent that the timeliness (or lack thereof) of W's release is a significant issue. Both reviews posted here bring it up smack at the very beginning. Mouton's ponders in the form of a question whether W was released too soon:
Is it unreasonable to ask if it is just too soon for a film biography of his life? Do we not need a little space in order to, first of all, get over the trauma of the eight-year long Bush administration, or more importantly, in order to gain some perspective on one of the most unlikely controversial figures in modern history?

On the other hand, Chris Knipp seems convinced W was released too late:
It might be nice if Stone had produced this semi-comic Cliff-Notes Citizen Kane about the second Bush earlier--before the latter's approval rating sank to one point above Nixon's just before his resignation and three above the all-time low.

One interesting thing to note is that the story told in W ends sometime in late 2003. Why then would we need MORE than five years to "gain perspective"? Why would we need to "get over the trauma" in the first place before we get a movie about it?

It would seem to me that W should have been released not simply "earlier" (CK) but specifically 4 years ago, before the November 2004 election, for the film to have had significant political impact. Which brings up the question: would W have received not the mixed reviews it seems to be getting but solidly good reviews if it was released around this time in 2004? Why would it be "nice" if the film had been produced earlier if the narrative structure "doesn't work or make sense"? Would the film have been perceived as less "surprisingly mild, even flat" (an apparently popular complaint) if it was released then?
If that's the case, W provides a case example of how a film's appreciation often depends to significant extent on the cultural moment that receives it rather than the film's inherent artistic value. Many great films got bad reviews when they were released. Many Oscar winners of yesteryear look just awful today. Many films of the past are sorely in need of reappraisal. Somehow I fail to see how W would be considered a masterpiece 20 years from now. But it seems to be getting a number of mildly negative reviews based at least partly on its inability to influence today's political climate.

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, release time is a big feature of this movie. Certainly if the republicans are toast now as polls indicate, releasing it in 2004 prior to the elections would have (potentially) meant a lot more. Especially since the chronology only leads up through 2003.

I don't know if release in 2004 would have been advantageous for reviews though, but it might have gotten better ones now or whenever if Stone hadn't rushed to finish W in 45 days so it could come just a little before the election, which of course is the reason for the realease at this time.

No, this will never look like a masterpiece and it sure doen'st today either.

Whatever the reviews say, I think looking at Dubya's career and largely unimpressive life is good for voters wondering if they have a choice.

[Johann]

I saw the Charlie Rose show with Oliver and Josh Brolin.

Oliver says that Bush is a disgrace and he made the point about how his films are made with the knowledge that they will be around long after he's dead. He seems to be documenting things for future generations.
I think he made this to help America and Americans but I don't know exactly what he aims to help with.
Being more informed about the dysfunction Bush has as a man and son?
Getting more proof of how incompetent he is and how unqualified he was for the office?

I wondered about what kind of person would go into a theatre and see this film listed on the marquee and say "I gotta see this!".
There are only a few types who would: film buffs (who know and appreciate Oliver Stone), fed up voters who are curious that there might be something in this film that can fill in the gaps in the "mystery" of "Bush the man" and those who've seen everything playing and are willing to give it a shot.

You can bet your foreclosed house that a lot of Republicans or Bush supporters won't go anywhere near it and will even condemn it without even seeing it, like so many Michael Moore haters. It's amazing to me that some people hold the belief that Bush was somehow good for the country.
This financial crisis is the final judgment on his administration.
Of all the fuck-ups, this one is the most dire.
This bailout is staggering.
Michael Moore was just on Larry King recently talking about how a film needs to be made about this, the greatest robbery in the history of the United States.

Wall Street to me is just a giant casino, with slimy hucksters and people in suits staring at neon numbers with zero soul.
They are aliens to me.
Absolutely soulless creatures who do absolutely nothing to better the country or the world.

But to get back to W., I want to see this and I don't.
I love Oliver Stone but I've been to the AMC lobby three times this week and I've left three times without buying a ticket.
I just can't bring myself to pay $13 for a film that I know won't change my opinion of Bush, regardless of what Oliver presents.
I don't need to see this despite my huge admiration of Stone's career. It's a sad spot to be in.

[Chris Knipp]

I think some Republicans may want to watch W just to check it out. And it's not such a cruel portrait overall. The main figures in the man's life are not caricatured.

Wall Street to me is just a giant casino, with slimy hucksters and people in suits staring at neon numbers with zero soul.
They are aliens to me.
Absolutely soulless creatures who do absolutely nothing to better the country or the world.

They're not doing much right now, that's for sure. But I would blame government, not them.

Maybe you should just wait till W is out on DVD.

[Johann]

On Charlie Rose Oliver said that Michael Moore already eviscerated Bush and that he didn't need to go over that territory.

I think I'll bite the Bush-bullet and see it next week, if only out of support for Oliver, a man who's taught me a lot. I just could not buy a ticket this week. It just didn't feel right for some reason.

The thing that makes me happy it exists is the hope that the principal players in this 8-year disaster will see themselves in a glaring new light and feel profound shame for what they were a part of and what they've left Obama to deal with.

That's the only great reason for this movie to exist.
It's not really for the audience, it's not really for Oliver's legacy.
It's for the assholes in the Bush admin who've wrecked havoc and horror on the U.S. and the world.

[mouton]

I'm not sure why I am constantly put in a position to defend my views on this site to Oscar. This is neither here nor there but I cannot remember one instance where he ever had anything positive to say about my work but hey ... clearly, he's not a fan.

I raise the question of timing because I wondered what purpose Oliver Stone had in mind when making this film and ensuring it was ready to be in theatres before an election. Bush was going out one way or the other so would he be painting a slanderous picture just to make sure he leaves with egg on his face? Or would he be painting a picture of a man merely misunderstood? Of course, I didn't want to give it all away but I wanted to raise the question. As it turns out, Stone does make Bush much less a monster and more human than I expected him to. He also makes sure to make allegations against the Bush administration regarding the motivation for going into Iraq and draws lines connecting these same plans to the future of the Republican party. That's what brought it all together for me.

Yes, the film's chronology ends in 2003 but Bush is still in office. I'm not over that yet and I don't even live in your country. So, yes, there may be some people who still need more time to get over it and adding time to gain a stronger perspective is certainly not something to discourage.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by mouton
I'm not sure why I am constantly put in a position to defend my views on this site to Oscar.
Because it's a discussion site. I attempted to have a discussion with you by asking two questions Why do we need to get more perspectve about something that happened five years ago or earlier in order to have it depicted in a film? How can we get over a trauma if we don't confront it?

This is neither here nor there but I cannot remember one instance where he ever had anything positive to say about my work but hey ... clearly, he's not a fan.
No need to use the impersonal "he". I'm right here and willing to talk to you directly and answer any question or criticism you might have. Doing so can only help strengthen my arguments and, potentially, gain a new perspective. Otherwise why post in this site. Receiving compliments or having a fan club won't get me anywhere.

The last time I had something positive to say about your work was...saturday, in response to the last review you posted. Here's some excerpts from my post:

Chris and mouton are not alone in claiming it to be a "masterpiece" or "one of the year's best American films". I don't suscribe to such high praise. Yet I am moved when reviewers express such passion for a film. If a film makes you feel "disoriented" and feeling you "had to sit down because (you) didn’t feel ready to walk" then your reviewing movies is time well spent.

Like mouton insightfully noted, Abby "is noticeably absent even when she’s in the room." This self-imposed absence is a direct consequence of her failure to face the fact that it was wrong to leave Kym in charge of her little brother or, more specifically, of her wish not to confront this fact.

[Chris Knipp]

Davil Edelstein's evaluation of the film (W, not Rachel Getting Married) in New York Magazine gibes pretty well with mine.

W. isn’t gripping enough as drama or witty enough as satire, and its flashback structure seems less freewheeling than arbitrary.

What he says in essence is that the film has no teeth in it. It's too flat. If it's not going to be satire, or bitingly clear as political analysis as David Hare's play Stuff Happens is, then it needs to have intensity as drama, but Stone and Weisner don't have the material or the imagination to inject that. Edelstein also makes an important point about the writing, that Bush's dialogue is all "talking points" and doesn't distinguish between his public and private utterances--it presents them out of their original contexts and they lose their force for us or as portraiture.

In the midst of these tumultuous times, in the midst of this tumultuous election, Stone has delivered his most tepid film.

[cinemabon]

Oscar, I'm not clear. Did you see the film? I have not, and am not certain I will bother. While I can't stand dubya, I do enjoy some of Oliver Stone's work. However, a majority of reviews panned the film. While I read the major ones, most seem to agree that Stone's point in making the film seemed to wander.

Is it an attack on Bush's character or not? Is he trying to show his weaknesses or be objective? Since when is any movie objective; even a documentary is slanted to its producers intent.

I would agree with your 'timing' argument. Many past Academy Award winners seem silly as winners, such as "The Greatest Show on Earth." I realize that is a personal choice. I am not a fan of DeMille, a matter of record. However, do you believe we would be having a discussion like this if the movie had not premiered in a year when one candidate is constantly compared to Bush? Timing is everything!

[Chris Knipp]

Obviously mouton and I have seen "W." You can't really totally pan it. It has merit. Performances are creditable. It's just toothless. If you time is limited and you want to see a movie, better to go out to "Zack and Miri"--you've said you like Kevin Smith. Maybe "Religulous." I recommend "Rachel Getting Married" (so does mouton). Wait for "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas," coming in a few weeks. "Happy-Go-Lucky" and hopefully, in December, Steve McQueen's "Hunger."

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon
Oscar, I'm not clear. Did you see the film? I have not, and am not certain I will bother. While I can't stand dubya, I do enjoy some of Oliver Stone's work.
Yes, I have seen the film cinemabon, and I also enjoy some of Oliver Stone's work. The film has its merits but a lot of it will seem awfully familiar to you. Stone's point of view is basically that W was a bit of the "black sheep" growing up, a bit of a "fuck up", especially compared to Jeb. And that given Papi's life of achievement, he felt he needed to do something to measure up. He gave up booze and found Jesus (or the other way around) and with the help of some clever and cunning people, this very unimpressive guy managed eventually to become president. When the shit hit the fan (9/11) he was easily manipulated into doing what Papi "failed to finish" and dropped the ball. He is not depicted as a bad man. He is depicted as troubled, unworthy of the presidency and easily manipulated by folks like Cheney, Rove, etc. At this late moment in history, it would be hard for Stone to come up with anything we don't already know or anything that would be controversial. Tepid is actually not a bad word to describe the film although I bet it wouldn't feel like that had it been released before the 2004 election.