W. Movie Review
When I heard about Oliver Stone’s new film, simply called W., I wondered if it was too soon to make a George W. Bush movie. Either Stone wanted to beat the rest of the directing world to the Bush-film-punch to tell a different story, or he wanted to capitalize on the current low opinion of the President by making a comedic farce. I was confident when I walked into the theater that I’d be able to tell which it was.
W. first alternates between scenes from George Jr.’s college days and scenes from his post-9/11 presidency. We’re quickly introduced to the famous cast, including Josh Brolin as young and old W., James Cromwell as George Sr., and Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney.
Early scenes include George naked in a bucket of ice alongside his pledge mates at Yale, quitting his job on the oil fields because he was thirsty, eating a bologna sandwich while Cheney convinces him to sign a torture bill, and (quite randomly) choking on a peanut while watching Texas college football. And we see him drink and pray. A lot.
Once the film began to center on his ascent into politics, I noticed something. I’ve seen most of this before. It was neat to see Bush lose his first debate to a Christian Democrat, and hear him shout, “I’ll never be out-Texaned or out-Christianed again!” It was interesting to see his shaky relationship with his dad and how it developed over time.
But then Stone reveals his hand – Bush Jr. as the tragic hero who wants to impress his dad by saving the world. The Evil Dark Lords Cheney and Rove convince him that it will be easy, and only Colin “Shining Angel” Powell stands up to them in defense of reality. The caricatures were a bit much, with the worst offense by Thandie Newton’s comedic but misplaced parody of Condi Rice.
In fact, the rest of the story relies on cliché and overused impersonations we’ve seen too much in films and on late shows for the past six years. Yes, Mr. Stone, we’ve heard the bad ideas were Cheney and George is a big teenager who eats bologna sandwiches and watches football. But what are you adding to the story with this collection of on-screen exhibitions? What research did you do that opened a wider understanding of who this President really is, or even that confirmed the stories we already know so well?
I wanted to see another side of the George W. Bush story in those 131 minutes, and for the most part I saw a big screen dramatization of Bush-hating fantasies. While I was entertained by the cast’s performances, particularly Brolin, and while I was rarely bored with the story, the misplaced clichés and the masturbatory laughter of the crowd turned me off. Unfortunately, it also confirmed my fears about the motivation of Stone’s timing, and made a second viewing very unlikely.
