Oliver Stone’s “W.,” before its release, was rife with speculation as to whether or not the film would be a George W. Bush hate piece that just preached to an already weary choir of anti-Bush folks. For as politically outspoken and leftist as Stone is known, “W.” could have been a much worse depiction of our current president. Knowing the film would be critical of Bush I thought Stone was more than fair and very mild when depicting the 43rd President of the United States.
The film flip-flops among flashes of Bush in his past as a Yale frat boy, young Texas oil field hand, young politician and the beginning of his relationship with his wife Laura and a post 9/11, pre-invasion of Iraq Bush presidency. A recurring theme within the movie is Bush seeing various problems as being a baseball outfielder and catching the proverbial fly ball. I think the baseball metaphor was a little much and overused for a director like Stone who has turned in some great films like “Platoon” and “JFK.”
Stone’s decision to cast Josh Brolin as George W. Bush is the greatest accomplishment this film achieves. Brolin, although an accurate caricature of Bush, still adds his own take on the president and adds some depth to a man whom, we as the American public, thought we knew. Brolin even makes the already affable Bush into a much more likeable character. The portrayal of Bush as a reformed hardcore party boy and lackadaisical baseball fan into a crusading, born-again Christian hell bent on bringing change to the world and winning his Dad’s affection seems to be so strange that it’s a little hard to swallow. According to the filmmakers, the way the Bush in the film acts is based on first hand accounts and interviews with those closest to the man and also books written by administration insiders like Karl Rove. If the real Bush is in anyway similar to the film Bush then that is extremely uncomforting to have a person such as that as our commander in chief.
I think, though, that Stone portraying Bush as a neo-con “decider” surrounded by old political hacks and cronies from previous political administrations is not only fair, but accurate. To think that the policies we’ve been subjected to under the past eight years of the administration came from one man is ridiculous. It’s also in the cast surrounding Brolin’s Bush that more of the film’s successes are found.
Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney, or “Vice” as Bush calls him in the film, James Cromwell as George H. Bush, a scary likeness of Karl Rove in Toby Jones and a great Jeffrey Wright as Gen. Colin Powell provide a great supporting cast to Brolin. A Best Supporting Actor nomination is worthy in all of the above cases. Also, some gems from the dialogue are found in the conversations between Bush’s cabinet members. A few memorable jabs are traded between a hawkish Cheney and realist Powell in post-9/11 planning. I think Stone’s real intent was to lambaste party hacks like Cheney and party line yes-person Condoleeza Rice as the real power behind the throne rather than Bush alone. If so, Stone did a good job of displaying what the American public should have realized years ago and that is our president is not truly the sole decision maker in his office. Although, some of Stone’s political loyalties still shine through. Powell gets a free pass from Stone since Powell was arguably one of the most left leaning members of Bush’s cabinet, as displayed by Powell’s recent endorsement of Barack Obama.
Still, Stone sees fit to add all of our favorite Bush-isms into the dialogue of the film and even if you are a big fan of the president you will still chuckle at the command, or lack thereof, of the English language that he possesses.
One area of the film that really bothered me was the cinematography. Stone overuses facial close-ups throughout the film. The entirety of the film is so in your face that you welcome the reprise of a wide-angle shot. If Stone was trying to make the viewer feel like a White House insider he succeeds more in making you feel like a fly or perhaps a spot of skin cancer on the faces of the characters. I feel Stone should have cut the close-ups in the film by at least half to make this a little more bearable to watch. Also, throughout most of the film Brolin’s character is continuously eating and drinking. Perhaps Stone was trying to humanize the character of George Bush in his film by constantly displaying personal tasks such as eating and drinking, and although Brolin does well with this, it is distracting and there are too many possible metaphors for what it means and detracts from the character. Maybe it’s just an accident or the president has a huge affinity for snacking; either way I just didn’t like it especially with the extreme close-ups of the characters.
All in all, “W.” is a fun film to watch and catching all of our president’s faux pas is amusing. Still, the portrayal of Bush as a son running for president to win his father’s approval, while probably somewhat pertinent to the man we call our president, is a little thin for me. For a veteran filmmaker like Stone to build his film’s foundation on that principle is bad form.
I think a closer biographical examination of Bush could have produced some better fodder for the film viewer than winning Dad’s love. Stone should dust off his notes from “Platoon” next time and remember what it’s like to build some stronger characters.and mannerisms to play the role of the 43rd president.