‘W.’ - Stone misunderestimates Dubya — WHAT WOULD TOTO WATCH?

‘W.’ - Stone misunderestimates Dubya

October 17, 2008

Josh Brolin and Elizabeth Banks in W

W.” is precisely the film advertised in the trailers. Silly. Superficial. Clearly beneath Oliver Stone’s best work.

It’s also a foolish attempt to rewrite history on the fly. If “W.” looks small now, it’s likely to shrink even more as time marches on.

Stone’s latest tracks the curious rise of frat-boy George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) to the highest office in the land. It’s not mean enough to curry favor with the rabid left, and it’s too disrespectful to engage the right.

Undecided voters may be briefly swayed, but the laborious final scenes will capsize “W.’s” approval ratings.

The film attempts a chronological re-enactment of Bush’s life, although it frequently breaks format to visit Bush in the Oval Office.

We see W the fratboy getting hazed, the film unwisely letting the 40-year-old Brolin play the teen Bush. He’s the oldest looking freshman since Rodney Dangerfield went “Back to School.”

The young Bush can’t get much right with his life. He flits from job to job, drinks to excess and clashes frequently with his father, future President George H.W. Bush (James Cromwell, who doesn’t resemble Bush the elder in any capacity).

Bush’s salvation comes from two fronts. He meets a sweetheart of a gal in Laura Welch (Elizabeth Banks, given too little to do) and finds religion. Both events are treated fairly by Stone, and the first meeting between W and his future bride is easily the film’s best sequence. Stone drops his agenda, leaving two professionals to do their job.

Bush’s political transformation is overseen by Karl Rove (Toby Jones), who pulls his strings and leverages the Bush name to fuel his ascent.

“W.’s” war room scenes provide the biggest (unintentional) laughs. It’s a pastiche of far-left talking points, from the vicious Vice President Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) to the stoic Gen. Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright).

The critical chorus is crying “W.” is a fair, even sympathetic, look at the current president. Don’t believe them. Sure, the film doesn’t have Bush kicking nuns or chortling while soldiers are dying overseas, but it paints him as a war monger with little sympathy for the lives lost in Iraq.

The film doesn’t miss a chance to mock Bush. That’s apparent when Stone squeezes in the moment when Bush chokes on a pretzel while watching television.

Brolin’s Bush chews with his mouth open, fumbles when he isn’t bumbling and can barely put together a coherent thought. And every malapropism from the last seven-plus years is squeezed into the screenplay.

Stone hinges his narrative on a father-son dynamic which drove an unqualified man to seek the country’s highest office. It’s a deeply unserious assessment of a complicated man. Stone clearly has zero curiosity about the real George W. Bush. He feels far more comfortable throwing darts within his ideological shelter, pinning his entire story on cheap psychology and fractured facts.

“W.” overstays its welcome as it distorts the signature decision of Bush’s presidency, the call to go to war with Iraq.

Years from now, historians will have the final say in whether that decision was the right or wrong way to combat global terrorism.

It’s safe to say honest film historians don’t need to wait another minute before ruling on Stone’s “W.”

(Photo: Josh Brolin plays President George W. Bush to Elizabeth Banks’ Laura Bush in “W.” Photo credit: Sidney Ray Baldwin)

@import url(http://www.google.com/cse/api/branding.css);

Custom Search
Share This Post

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

1

James Frazier 10.17.08 at 3:44 pm

The liberal critics are absolutely insisting that the film is “fair.” First off, the film really isn’t particularly obligated to fairness, because Stone has the right to trash Bush all he wants. Second, even were it to be a genuine attempt at fairness, it would have to be approached with a mentality other than telling the story of a simple idiot who bumbled his way into eight years of presidency with the help of some evil men.

It sounds to me sort of like the screenwriter and Stone searched through a ton of Bush bios, picked out every single thing that could be spun to make Bush like bad, and then filmed it all.

Will be seeing this weekend, not looking forward to it. It’s a job, right?

2

cftoto 10.17.08 at 3:48 pm

James, please check in when you review it … or send a link to your review. Your assessment is sound … it takes a ‘greatest hits’ look at Bush’s foibles and packs them into a meandering two-hour film.

3

Don Sucher 10.17.08 at 4:24 pm

“Stone clearly has zero curiosity about the real George W. Bush.” Bingo! And without such curiosity even a well intentioned bio flick has no dimension.

This help explain to me why I can Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia over and over with keen fascination while I found Attenborough’s Ghandi a watch once or twice with yawns movie despite the fact that I have far more interest in Ghandi than I do in T. E. Lawrence.

Valuable observation Toto!

-ds

4

cftoto 10.17.08 at 4:27 pm

Thanks, Don. “W.” isn’t a train wreck. The first half is watchable, and I’ll check out any movie with Elizabeth Banks (who is adorable as a brunette). But it’s clear “W.” doesn’t move the story forward or ask us to think about Bush in a new light. Heck, the movie could have used a conspiracy or three to spice things up.

Maybe Stone can’t even properly agitate at this point in his career.

5

Don Sucher 10.17.08 at 5:13 pm

“Heck, the movie could have used a conspiracy or three to spice things up.”

That’s it! Thats it! A nice scene - let’s see - they could be sitting on a park bench with the Washington Monument in the background - and some appropriate actor… hmmm, maybe a Donald Sutherland type? - could explain the real truth behind the entire Bush administration. Yeah! That’s all it would take! ;)~

6

Morris 10.17.08 at 6:41 pm

“because Stone has the right to trash Bush all he wants.”

It’s not just about Stone stating his opinion it’s about his moral relativism and revising what actually happened. Revisionism is ABSOLUTELY dangerous. But it’s part and parcel of believers in rejecting established truths.

7

cftoto 10.17.08 at 6:46 pm

Don’t disagree, Morris, but I guess I’ve been bludgeoned by the mistruths in so many recent films (Mr. Moore, I’m talkin’ about you) that I’m almost numb to the tricks Stone pulls here.

I do think “W.” would be more dangerous if it were more entertaining … or if more people saw it.

8

movie fan 10.24.08 at 8:07 pm

Josh Brolin did a convincing Dubya, though he reminded me a lot of his cowboy character from No Country for Old Men… over all, i don’t doubt that ‘W.’ will have the effect Oliver Stone desired

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>