Movies
W., A Misunderstood Genius
by Kevin E. McCarthy
Special Guest Contributor
Oliver Stone’s W. completes his Presidential Trilogy
I just saw a movie, a movie that, I am also living. That movie was Oliver Stone’s W. When I first heard that Oliver Stone was making a movie about George Bush Jr.. er W, I was shocked. I said, “Why, he should wait like ten years and then make the film with perspective”. This is a film that Oliver Stone directed from a Stanley Weiser (Wall Street) screenplay, it started filming in May of 2008 and he finished the film in July of 2008. The film was released in October of 2008. He had a budget around 30 million and he shot a global movie in a warehouse converted to a sound stage in Louisiana. The film is very clean and slick. Thanks to the Director of Photography, Phedon Pappamichael, who photographed Sideways and Walk the Line. W. completes Oliver Stone’s Presidential Trilogy — JFK, Nixon, and now W. The previous films were shot by Robert Richardson, who has since moved on from his decade of working on Oliver Stone Pictures to working with the likes of Martin Scorsese (garnering him his second Oscar for The Aviator), and Quentin Tarentino (who wrote Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killers). W. lacks Richardson’s trade mark over-lit scenes, but Oliver Stone charged uphill and managed to make a compelling film that never dwindles, that is, until the end. Why this particular ending? Well, because Bush is still President and we don’t know exactly how it will all turn out — but I don’t want to give anything away.
The film is a very sympathetic look at George W. Bush., who had the unlucky misfortune of being the namesake and son of the 41st President of the United States. Can you imagine the pressure to succeed? The poor bastard had to have a privileged upbringing, attend Yale, a drunken womanizer (wink). That is, until the power of Jesus Christ and the strength of a good woman, Laura, propel him from drunk to Governor to President.
Oliver Stone, I must say, is a great director, because not only did he manage to make a movie on a limited budget, on a short shooting schedule stuck in a warehouse amidst a Katrina-ravished south, but he also made a very compelling film, in spite of its lack of an ending.
W. and Colin Powell come out of the film as the good guys; Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Ms. Condaleeza Rice and the others in the administration are the bad guys, who mislead W. The film focuses on the father & son relationship. W. tries to prove to his dad that he can do well in anything. Bush Sr. struggles with tough love and being able to show love for his son. Barbara Bush, who was loved by the media, is portrayed as a ball-busting bitch. The college years are portrayed very well as it should considering both W. and Oliver Stone entered Yale as Freshman in the same year, and they were both hazed into the Yale-based secret society, Skull and Bones.
Sean Stone (Oliver’s son) portrays a fellow frat brother/classmate of W. at Yale. As a part of the trilogy, Oliver Stone has collected a herd of stars to fill the supporting characters big and small. This is a weak point in what could have been a great presidential trilogy. The reason being is unlike JFK and Nixon: the actors tend to focus more on looking and sounding like the roles they are playing, instead of making great performances. Immediately comes to mind the performances of Joe Pesci, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland in JFK, and James Woods, Bob Hoskins, Joan Allen in Nixon.
W. is not a bad film, by no means. Considering the budget, the short and fast shooting schedule, Oliver Stone has made an above average movie. But there is no ending. I know Hollywood Jesus film reviewer, efrain gomez, liked the baseball field bookends in W., but I am sorry it doesn’t count as an ending. It is a nice, well-shot sequence for a ball player bio, but not for presidential bio. I would give W. three in a half stars out of five, but if Oliver Stone had waited at least one year or more, I would give it at least 4 1/2 if not 5 stars.
As far as Oscar nominations go: Josh Brolin as a dark horse - fifth spot kindalikesorta nomination; I would also say Oliver Stone for Best Director — as an alternate for a director whose film is a Best Picture nom — but that will be a long shot.
I guess I missed the “sympathetic” part of this “portrayal”. I’ve been noticing in reviews the annoying and constantly repeated line that “W” is inviting us to be “sympathetic” with George W. Bush’s drama. No: this is a hit-piece intent on showing us what a dum-dum the current president is. Right? Just because Stone held back on what could have been a far more malicious portrayal doesn’t make it “sympathetic”. The whole tone of this film is about a silly, unserious, man who had a bit of charm and had the right last name attached to his name to become president.
Consider this: It is true “W” may be inviting us (to some degree) to know Bush’s psychological makeup (the Father/Son relationship, W’s religious salvation, etc), but only insofar as this contributes to his faults as a president. Even W’s “talents” in this film … plain speakin’, personal charm, the ability to break down big issues into simplicity, and so on… are entirely framed as bringing stains of horror and shame to the white-house. On top of it, the whole tone of this film (even in its most “sympathetic” moments) is on the level of satire or political cartoon. Again, not sympathetic … Stone is at every moment distancing us from the drama of Bush’s life to render a portrait of a comical, unserious fool who happens to become president out of charm and good fortune. A fool with “motivations”, no doubt, but a fool nonetheless…
And, of course, how to we insinuate the president is a moron and then make it an “evil empire”– a machine grinding down the world’s oil reserves– as well? Solution: Stone leans heavily on the Carl Rove and Dick Cheney “bad guys” theory. Thus he can have an administration that is rotten both ways… both bumbling, stupid and cunning.
Also, I do not think this film could not have been made a year or ten years later. Why? Because they would be forced to include the events after 2004… wherein “the surge”, etc, happened … and appears to have been (at least somewhat) successful. Consider in your mind for a moment that those events would not at all fit in within the tone of this film, and then you might get closer to realizing what kind of movie this actually is: a hit-job on the sitting president, which is intent on showing us what an average-joe, dum-dum George W. Bush is.
True, “W” might be a medium-grade hit-job, compared to a Michael Moore film or some of the other stuff currently circulating … but that doesn’t make it “sympathetic” in the slightest…
my vocabulary and critical thinking skills mayn’t be as proficient as RM’s, but essentially, I agree :)
it’s ’sympathetic’ only in that it’s from an opposing view. The writers/director are clearly anti-W, but were trying to give him a more human portrayal, and give him a little more benefit of the doubt by making him kindofa simple guy who stumbled into the presidency through determination and good luck.
but this is all in the context of a negative lens. it’s like saying ‘we all know Hitler was a bad guy, but let’s take a moment to give some human explanation to what led to his evil’.
so really, it’s like Stone was saying “this guy’s a moron, and somehow he got to be President. Let’s see if we can explore HOW a moron became President.”
Well put Bob Miller. You have made some really good points. I attend to agree with you review, that Stone held back on somethings that Michael Moore would have used. I think if you were doing a Bio on a President or just a famous person of sorts you should always make a film that both has good and bad slaps at the character. It builds drama. It humanizes the character. I think if you include the surge, Bush’s successfully helping aids in africans and other small countries at great strides, more then any other U.S. President and other foreign leaders it would throw off the funny tone. Oliver Stone is good film maker and he can reconizes when a good film is forming.