Make no mistake, W. is an often entertaining and surprisingly even-handed look at our current President. Given the fact that this film was rushed into production to be released just in time for the elections, I was expecting much worse. However, this film also gives strength to another argument - Oliver Stone, once one of the most controversial and outspoken filmmakers, is losing his edge. The movie never quite delves deep enough into the man or into his political legacy, and pretty much tries to sum up everything in one simple phrase - George W. Bush has daddy issues.
This is not the hard-hitting or critical look at Bush that many expected. The movie completely glosses over or skips entirely certain important events, like the 2000 election fiasco. It is a Cliffs' Notes version, only hitting some major notes, and jumping through them without any in-between or lead in. The movie skims over his notorious hard drinking early years, equally skims over his years trying to find a place in the world, and then pretty much jumps into his decision to run for political office. Faces fade in and out of the narrative, and we never once feel like we're getting the whole story. Maybe Stone and screenwriter Stanley Weiser (who previously collaborated with the director on 1987's Wall Street) became intimidated about going into too much detail.
And yet, for all its obvious flaws, I cannot deny that W. intrigued me in a lot of ways. I may have been left wanting more, but at least I was liking what I was seeing enough to want more in the first place. Although I do think the movie puts too much weight into it, and pretty much uses it as its single answer to almost every question it presents, I did enjoy the relationship between Bush and his father. In the film, George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) is presented as a man forever in the shadow of his dad (James Cromwell). It's something that is stressed from the beginning, such as the scene when Bush is called into his father's office, pretty much only so that his dad can say he's a real disappointment to him, since he can't seem to hold down a job. When his father runs for President in the 88 election and asks for his son's support, George is hurt by the fact that his dad turned to him only after his brother, Jeb Bush (Jason Ritter), turned him down to concentrate on his own work. And when George starts to make strides toward his own political career, his father cannot say he is proud of his son, and simply hands him a note saying he's proud.
This antagonistic father-son relationship is pretty much what drives the entirety of the film. Brolin portrays our President as a man constantly trying to please everyone around him, though he never seems quite to know how. He's faced with the legacy of his father, his brother, and those he respects. All he seems to really want is recognition, and maybe some appreciation, but that becomes continuously out of grasp as the situation in Iraq spirals out of his control. Josh Brolin certainly does a great job at capturing Bush's mannerisms and speech, without turning it into a Saturday Night Live-style parody. It's a performance that takes a little while to get used to (seeing him try to pass himself off as a 19-year-old fraternity pledge is a bit of a stretch), but he grows into the role quite quickly, and before long we forget we're watching an impersonation. As the elder Bush, Cromwell does not even try to mimic the appearance or talk of him, which is most likely for the best, as it probably would have ended up going into Dana Carvey territory. He simply gives a strong performance as an emotionally closed-off father who doesn't know how to react when his son succeeds or fails.
Stone has cast the movie with a sharp eye, and it's amazing how many of the actors resemble their real life counterparts. Of special note are Richard Dreyfus as Vice President Dick Cheney, and Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice. Like Brolin, they have the speech, the mannerisms and definitely the look down. What bothered me is that's about all they do have. The movie doesn't give a lot of the supporting cast a chance to stand out, aside from a few meeting scenes as they discuss the war situation. Unlike Brolin's Bush, they come across as imitations rather than genuine characters. In a way, it's understandable. There are so many people who played a part in the story that Stone tries to tell that it's impossible to fit them all and give them due credit in a movie that runs just a little over two hours. But at the same time, I felt like I was watching a bunch of talented actors dressed up as recent political figures, and not much else beyond that.
I think in the end, the main problem with W. is that it's not time to tell the story. We need more distance, more reflection before we can start to truly understand him, or his Presidency. It's interesting that one of the final scenes of the film is Bush being asked by a reporter how he thinks history will remember him, and he becomes tongue-tied right there in front of the cameras. Oliver Stone often seems equally confused with this film. This is a well made movie that contains some good performances and a number of very good stand-alone scenes. Those scenes just never come together to form a completely satisfying film.
This is not the hard-hitting or critical look at Bush that many expected. The movie completely glosses over or skips entirely certain important events, like the 2000 election fiasco. It is a Cliffs' Notes version, only hitting some major notes, and jumping through them without any in-between or lead in. The movie skims over his notorious hard drinking early years, equally skims over his years trying to find a place in the world, and then pretty much jumps into his decision to run for political office. Faces fade in and out of the narrative, and we never once feel like we're getting the whole story. Maybe Stone and screenwriter Stanley Weiser (who previously collaborated with the director on 1987's Wall Street) became intimidated about going into too much detail.
And yet, for all its obvious flaws, I cannot deny that W. intrigued me in a lot of ways. I may have been left wanting more, but at least I was liking what I was seeing enough to want more in the first place. Although I do think the movie puts too much weight into it, and pretty much uses it as its single answer to almost every question it presents, I did enjoy the relationship between Bush and his father. In the film, George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) is presented as a man forever in the shadow of his dad (James Cromwell). It's something that is stressed from the beginning, such as the scene when Bush is called into his father's office, pretty much only so that his dad can say he's a real disappointment to him, since he can't seem to hold down a job. When his father runs for President in the 88 election and asks for his son's support, George is hurt by the fact that his dad turned to him only after his brother, Jeb Bush (Jason Ritter), turned him down to concentrate on his own work. And when George starts to make strides toward his own political career, his father cannot say he is proud of his son, and simply hands him a note saying he's proud.
This antagonistic father-son relationship is pretty much what drives the entirety of the film. Brolin portrays our President as a man constantly trying to please everyone around him, though he never seems quite to know how. He's faced with the legacy of his father, his brother, and those he respects. All he seems to really want is recognition, and maybe some appreciation, but that becomes continuously out of grasp as the situation in Iraq spirals out of his control. Josh Brolin certainly does a great job at capturing Bush's mannerisms and speech, without turning it into a Saturday Night Live-style parody. It's a performance that takes a little while to get used to (seeing him try to pass himself off as a 19-year-old fraternity pledge is a bit of a stretch), but he grows into the role quite quickly, and before long we forget we're watching an impersonation. As the elder Bush, Cromwell does not even try to mimic the appearance or talk of him, which is most likely for the best, as it probably would have ended up going into Dana Carvey territory. He simply gives a strong performance as an emotionally closed-off father who doesn't know how to react when his son succeeds or fails.
Stone has cast the movie with a sharp eye, and it's amazing how many of the actors resemble their real life counterparts. Of special note are Richard Dreyfus as Vice President Dick Cheney, and Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice. Like Brolin, they have the speech, the mannerisms and definitely the look down. What bothered me is that's about all they do have. The movie doesn't give a lot of the supporting cast a chance to stand out, aside from a few meeting scenes as they discuss the war situation. Unlike Brolin's Bush, they come across as imitations rather than genuine characters. In a way, it's understandable. There are so many people who played a part in the story that Stone tries to tell that it's impossible to fit them all and give them due credit in a movie that runs just a little over two hours. But at the same time, I felt like I was watching a bunch of talented actors dressed up as recent political figures, and not much else beyond that.
I think in the end, the main problem with W. is that it's not time to tell the story. We need more distance, more reflection before we can start to truly understand him, or his Presidency. It's interesting that one of the final scenes of the film is Bush being asked by a reporter how he thinks history will remember him, and he becomes tongue-tied right there in front of the cameras. Oliver Stone often seems equally confused with this film. This is a well made movie that contains some good performances and a number of very good stand-alone scenes. Those scenes just never come together to form a completely satisfying film.