Some will say- actually a lot have said- that Oliver Stone's new film on the public history of George W. Bush, the man and the 43rd President, will be slanted or with scenes that show the clear bias of the filmmaker. What happens in W. is that it is and it isn't a sign of bias. Unlike with Nixon, who was a complex man and could be treated in a different way, Bush is actually fairly straightforward as a person, as a leader, as a son, as a 'rehabilitated' servant of the Lord.
The portrayal of Bush is, actually, is not unfair, but in the process it shows the George W. Bush to be exactly what he is to any and all audiences, and this makes it more interesting and (somewhat more) challenging. If you feel like Bush should be impeached and/or 'taken out' for all of the atrocities upon atrocities he with his administration has committed in the past eight years, you'll think it's not enough shown in the film. If you're on the other side of the coin, whoever you might be, it's kind of cruel and lampoon-like. To me, it's a finely stated psychological horror story with gallows-humor.
Does this mean that W. is a great film? No, it's not. Stone indulges from time to time in the kind of stylistic choices that veer close to being a TV movie- nowhere near as much or as sappy as the Hallmark-channel spread World Trade Center, but with a couple of obvious music choices- and the criticism put on the movie that there's nothing really new that those reasonably informed about Bush's past and his first term is not completely unwarranted.
But, again, there is the expectation going in that this will be the be-all-end-all of lambasting, or on the flip-side that it's too soon an analysis of a man still (not too arguably) crippling the country away in his last months in office. What Stone has done, occasionally brilliantly, is compile a Greatest-Hits of Bush trivia and scenes that are either spot-on to how they likely played out or are based very accurately on what is at the date known about what happened behind closed doors with Bush and Cheney and Rove and company.
On top of this is a story of, in a famous-movie comparison, what would happen if Fredo Corleone got the chance to be a mob boss while his disapproving father was still alive and smarter brother got more respect (it's not beyond comprehension to hear the echo of "I can run things, I'm smart!" from Godfather 2 in certain scenes with George and his father). While this could possibly fall into, as just a movie, into cliché, Stone and his casting director have, not entirely without coincidence, compiled the best casted Stone picture since 1995's Nixon. Josh Brolin is clearly now on the A-list following last year's mix and match of thrillers (Grindhouse, American Gangster, No Country), and his performance solidifies his reputation as an actor so convincing and in touch with the not-quite transformation of George W. Bush that he makes him, if not entirely sympathetic, understandable and human and not some complete villain.
There's also a gallery of who's-who in the acting pool: James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss (exceptional), Jeffrey Wright, Ellen Burstyn, Thandie Newton, Toby Young, even Rob Corddry from the Daily Show, all of them are spectacular in their parts, adding interest to scenes that require presence, strength, and from time to time nuance and care in finding that line between playing a character and parody (which, actually, Newton verges into a few times).
It's also been said that W. is actually a funny movie, maybe one of Stone's few outright comedies. The trailer and the TV commercials have made this to look so, and I laughed a bunch of times at them in that context since they were in skit-format. In the context of the film, where the weight of very current history and wars still being waged and blunder and horror accumulating, a lot of the humor is either by a quick goof or what comes off like, as said, gallows humor. This could in fact be a crazy American Bunuel picture if it weren't true; it's the kind of dark bourgeois horror-comedy in a sense that you laugh almost out of exasperation, but at the same time stuff one might find funny out of context (i.e. choking on a pretzel) is treated with an amount of actual gravitas.
It's not that I couldn't see how it's maybe too simple a task to show a lot of what we already know- the power-hungry conflict in the administration, the Bush/Bush Jr conflict, the dangerous change-up from all alcohol to all Jesus- but at the same time it's revealed in the best kind of pop-melodrama, as a serious story of a man who is, in all actually, not at all complicated. It won't be a popular movie by any stretch, but it took some guts to present it as such. 7.5/10
The portrayal of Bush is, actually, is not unfair, but in the process it shows the George W. Bush to be exactly what he is to any and all audiences, and this makes it more interesting and (somewhat more) challenging. If you feel like Bush should be impeached and/or 'taken out' for all of the atrocities upon atrocities he with his administration has committed in the past eight years, you'll think it's not enough shown in the film. If you're on the other side of the coin, whoever you might be, it's kind of cruel and lampoon-like. To me, it's a finely stated psychological horror story with gallows-humor.
Does this mean that W. is a great film? No, it's not. Stone indulges from time to time in the kind of stylistic choices that veer close to being a TV movie- nowhere near as much or as sappy as the Hallmark-channel spread World Trade Center, but with a couple of obvious music choices- and the criticism put on the movie that there's nothing really new that those reasonably informed about Bush's past and his first term is not completely unwarranted.
But, again, there is the expectation going in that this will be the be-all-end-all of lambasting, or on the flip-side that it's too soon an analysis of a man still (not too arguably) crippling the country away in his last months in office. What Stone has done, occasionally brilliantly, is compile a Greatest-Hits of Bush trivia and scenes that are either spot-on to how they likely played out or are based very accurately on what is at the date known about what happened behind closed doors with Bush and Cheney and Rove and company.
On top of this is a story of, in a famous-movie comparison, what would happen if Fredo Corleone got the chance to be a mob boss while his disapproving father was still alive and smarter brother got more respect (it's not beyond comprehension to hear the echo of "I can run things, I'm smart!" from Godfather 2 in certain scenes with George and his father). While this could possibly fall into, as just a movie, into cliché, Stone and his casting director have, not entirely without coincidence, compiled the best casted Stone picture since 1995's Nixon. Josh Brolin is clearly now on the A-list following last year's mix and match of thrillers (Grindhouse, American Gangster, No Country), and his performance solidifies his reputation as an actor so convincing and in touch with the not-quite transformation of George W. Bush that he makes him, if not entirely sympathetic, understandable and human and not some complete villain.
There's also a gallery of who's-who in the acting pool: James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss (exceptional), Jeffrey Wright, Ellen Burstyn, Thandie Newton, Toby Young, even Rob Corddry from the Daily Show, all of them are spectacular in their parts, adding interest to scenes that require presence, strength, and from time to time nuance and care in finding that line between playing a character and parody (which, actually, Newton verges into a few times).
It's also been said that W. is actually a funny movie, maybe one of Stone's few outright comedies. The trailer and the TV commercials have made this to look so, and I laughed a bunch of times at them in that context since they were in skit-format. In the context of the film, where the weight of very current history and wars still being waged and blunder and horror accumulating, a lot of the humor is either by a quick goof or what comes off like, as said, gallows humor. This could in fact be a crazy American Bunuel picture if it weren't true; it's the kind of dark bourgeois horror-comedy in a sense that you laugh almost out of exasperation, but at the same time stuff one might find funny out of context (i.e. choking on a pretzel) is treated with an amount of actual gravitas.
It's not that I couldn't see how it's maybe too simple a task to show a lot of what we already know- the power-hungry conflict in the administration, the Bush/Bush Jr conflict, the dangerous change-up from all alcohol to all Jesus- but at the same time it's revealed in the best kind of pop-melodrama, as a serious story of a man who is, in all actually, not at all complicated. It won't be a popular movie by any stretch, but it took some guts to present it as such. 7.5/10