W.
Movie Review
"W."
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B-
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, October 17, 2008
Directed by:
Cast:
If anyone ever wants to make a serious biopic about George W. Bush, his relationship with his father would be a good focal point. The differences between these two men, plus their pivotal roles in U.S. history, have all the elements of high drama, and the examination of two presidents at once is a tantalizing proposition.
Oliver Stone tinkers with it in "W.," but "W." is not a serious biopic. It's more like a sideshow curiosity. While most biopics assume the viewer already likes the person in question, this one assumes we don't. The film, written by Stanley Weiser (with whom Stone collaborated on "Wall Street"), reads like a tragedy in which the central figure doesn't realize how tragic he is -- which is what makes it tragic for everyone else.
I have to assume Stone was kidding when he said he was making an evenhanded biography, the way Fox News is kidding when they say "fair and balanced." Or maybe Stone, like Fox, is so convinced his point of view is correct that he sees no reason for nuance or subtlety. That makes for a fine screed, if screed-making is your thing, but it lessens the film's value as a legitimate biography.
"W." stars Josh Brolin as the Yale-educated oilman's son who graduated from Drunken Frat Boy to Most Powerful Man in the World. Flashbacks take us to the 1960s and '70s, when Dubya is quitting one job after another and displeasing his hard-to-please father (James Cromwell), who seems to have more faith in Dubya's brother Jeb (glimpsed only once, played by Jason Ritter). His involvement in politics comes only after he couldn't find anything else he enjoyed, and even then primarily as a way to make Poppy happy.
Intercut with this are scenes of the run-up to the Iraq invasion and its aftermath, with Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) trying to talk sense, Donald Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn) and Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) urging war, Condoleezza Rice (Thandie Newton) parroting back whatever Bush says, and Karl Rove (Toby Jones) lurking malevolently in the shadows (often literally: again, subtlety, not one of Stone's strong suits). The earlier-set vignettes give us some insight into why Bush behaved the way he did: his desire to both please and outdo his father, commingled with good old-fashioned arrogance and stubbornness.
What nuance there is in the film comes from Brolin and Cromwell as the Bush presidents. Brolin's Dubya is a petulant quitter, an uncouth brat who is suddenly expected to work hard after never having had to work for anything in his life. Ironically, his view of the world is as black-and-white as the director's. He sees things as an over-simplified battle between Good and Evil, and while he means well -- this version of George W. Bush is dopey, not conniving -- he's in over his head. Whether this is an accurate representation of Bush, I'll leave for you to decide. But it makes for a fairly interesting movie character, and Brolin plays him as a real person, not as a caricature (though he does do a fine impersonation of Bush's speech and mannerisms).
Cromwell gets more screen time than I would have expected. His George H.W. Bush is a calm, principled contrast to his screw-up son, and you can see in Cromwell's performance the conflicting desires that fathers have for their children, wanting to challenge them but also protect them. Like I said, a serious examination of the dynamic between Bush 41 and Bush 43 could be fascinating.
Jeffrey Wright, Toby Jones, and Richard Dreyfuss are terrific as noble Powell, wormy Rove, and coldhearted Cheney, respectively. As Condoleezza Rice, Thandie Newton seems obsessed with doing a vocal impression that never really works in her favor. As the Bush women, Elizabeth Banks (Laura) and Ellen Burstyn (Barbara) stand by their men with the requisite weariness and occasional bursts of feistiness.
Factually, the film is basically accurate on the major points, in case you were concerned about that. If "W." is a hatchet job, the target is the man himself, not the specifics of his deeds, which are mostly a matter of public record anyway. What makes him a hero to some and a villain to others is the interpretation of those deeds, and his motivations for doing them. That's where a serious biopic would be more cautious and equitable. "W." works well enough as drama (and occasionally as comedy), but it's a missed opportunity to really explore some great American themes -- all the material of a literary classic, squandered on a cheap paperback novel.
Grade: B-
Rated PG-13, two F-words, moderate other profanity, brief violent images from the war
2 hrs., 11 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 23 comments
October 22, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I'm glad you gave this a conditioned recommendation. This movie is best defined by its moments than its overall "message":
1) Good acting and enough interesting characters to keep things interesting (holy crap, if those cabinet meetings had been the whole movie and we had less of the whole "origin story". . .).
2) Richard Dreyfuss as a psychotically-evil, leering Dick Cheney.
3) A highly dignified James Cromwell as Bush Sr.
4) Elizabeth Banks (!) as Laura Bush.
5) A caricature of the current administration, down to a surprisingly-perceptive analysis of groupthink.
6) Little anecdotes of Bush's presidency (the pretzel!) reenacted in campy hyper-dramatism.
7) Some great visual gags (the whole cabinet is walking on a road on some some fake ranch in Texas, when Bush comments that they've lost their way. Cut to a far shot where everybody looks around nervously for about ten seconds.)
8 ) George Bush on Cats (the musical): "Now there's something I'd stay up late for."
9) Donald Rumsfeld relishing his pecan pie as the cabinet talks about the failures of the war.
10) Colin Powell telling Cheney to "f*** off".
By this point you should know if the flick is for you or not. Condi really got on my nerves, though. . .
October 22, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I doubt I will see this movie as I dislike Oliver Stone. What he did to Tarantino's Natural Born Killers- I will never forgive him. I did vote for Bush but I realized he is flawed. I would love to see a true story major motion picture about him or Clinton or Nixon etc. I just don't want these movies done by Oliver Stone, or anyone with a bias left or right. I do disagree about Fox News. I honestly don't know how people can watch it daily and think it isn't fair and balanced. They have so many liberals on their shows to balance out the conservatives. Sean Hannity is the only extremely biased person on the network but he co-hosts with a biased liberal so itt evens out.
October 22, 2008 at 9:20 pm
I am confused. I thought from what I read and from the trailers that this movie wasn't meant to be a serious biopic at all, but an over-the-top and mostly inaccurate comedic interpretation of Bush's life (hence the use of Brolin as Bush). But Eric's review approaches it as though it was supposed to be a serious piece of filmmaking and a mostly true-to-life movie that did not do it very well.
I'm not sure what to think now. I'm not interested in seeing the movie either way, but I am confused. What type of a movie is this?
Also, what's with the hit at Fox News? Right now most of the major media outlets are pretty dang biased against the Republican presidential ticket. Most people in the country recognize that, as recent polls range from 83% - 51% of people saying that the media is definitely biased against the Republican ticket. As Rob D. says, Fox does play host to liberals a lot, and IMO they are just as, if not more, balanced than the rest of the media out there at the moment.
Meh. Just my opinion, but com'on Eric, I refuse to believe that you could be -that- blind as to the bias out there.
Explain yourself! I demand to know what you meant! :P
October 22, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I'm pretty sure what he meant there with the FOX news thing is that its slogan "fair and balanced" is notorious for being ironic. If the other news stations had similarly infamous slogans, they might have been comedically appropriate there too.
October 22, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Fox News is biased. In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.
October 22, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I'm with Rob D. in that a motion picture about Clinton would be very interesting. Seriously, how could that not be a entertaining movie?
October 23, 2008 at 12:34 am
Christina, the comedic moments are definitely there, especially in the scenes set in the modern day, which are generally meant to be funny or at least compelling. It's not Dr. Strangelove but it certainly invites comparisons, if only because there's so little to compare it to.
But the awesome bits are balanced out by tedious backstory. It's still well worth a matinee as long as you go with the right crowd.
October 23, 2008 at 12:39 am
And in regards to Fox News. . .
Being a liberal is not the same thing as being biased. Most of these major news networks are beholden to megamassive multinational corporations so they don't report on much of the news that really affects Americans. But trust me, if they were really unabashedly liberal they could get more dirt on Bush than they have.
And Fox News wears its ignorant patriotic jingoism on its sleeve. It's far more boorish than the other cable news networks, even without that smirking bullethead Sean Hannity (a man who is essentially programmed with prerecorded responses from Planet Reagan-Was-A-Good-President).
October 23, 2008 at 12:53 am
What's funny to me is that one of Eric's chief pet-peeves (it seems) is people who criticize things they don't have first-hand experience about. So either Eric has spent days and days watching every Fox News program to establish they are not fair and balanced, or he's just mimicking what a lot of liberals say about it.
Strange, there are actual studies that show Fox News is more fair and balanced than other news outlets. However, these don't matter because Fox News doesn't worship the lord and savior Obama. Thus they can't be fair. Fair minded people would know that Bush is evil or grossly incompetent and only Obama can save us. What evidence more need be seen to prove that Fox News is neither fair nor balanced!
October 23, 2008 at 2:14 am
Personal experience, John. I see Fox as jingoist and dull every time I watch it, and the other networks as merely dull.
Besides, the studies that you've mentioned don't really state that Fox is more balanced politically, but that the other networks are more negative toward politicians in general. All of this doesn't overlook the fact that anybody who watches news, cable or not, in this day and age must be sniffing glue to think that they'll get anything other than a superficial examination of the issues. Read the Internet for more information and a wider range of opinion on esoteric issues, turn on cable news for background noise.
October 23, 2008 at 3:09 am
No arguments with Clumpy there. The fact remains that the studies show Fox is more fair and balanced compared to the competition. Not that you should turn on Fox News and turn off your brain.
October 23, 2008 at 4:39 am
I can name you 4 liberals that host prime time shows on fox (weekends included) and 15 more that appear on a regular basis.
October 23, 2008 at 4:47 am
The problem is more with society than Fox - the idea that we have these two "teams" that have to be represented.
I was going to comment that Alan Colmes doesn't "balance" Hannity's self-assured madness, but then I remembered that he shows some cajones on occasion. At any rate, "liberalism" or "conservatism" isn't much of a philosophy because it encompasses such a wide range of issues that the philosophy doesn't bother to link together. Why must my belief on abortion influence my belief on the tax code or war or same-sex marriage? (Okay, maybe abortion and war.)
Say what you will about libertarianism, constitutionalism or, for that matter, anarchism, but at least you always know where they stand. The modern Republican party is hardly "conservative" and I don't see how any number of self-identified "liberals" could amend that.
October 23, 2008 at 6:37 am
I don't even watch the news anymore on TV. I used to, but I haven't for a very, very long time, so I don't really know what the news is like anymore, except from watching clips (I watch maybe 5 or 6 clips a day from various stations, so I kind of have an idea of what they like to talk about).
The only time I've watched normal TV as of late was for the last two Presidential debates and the VP debate. As far as TV shows go, I watch The Office on Hulu. But I get all of my news from the internets. :) AOL (Yes, retarded, I know. But I have an email address there that I've had since I was 12, so yeah), MSNBC and Hot Air mostly. Then I read lots of random articles at all sorts of random newspapers, as well as random blogs. I'm a stay-at-home mom, so I have a good amount of reading time on my hands.
I do see your point Stacy, by the way. I guess that sort of makes sense. Maybe. I dunno. ;-)
October 23, 2008 at 6:42 am
And Drudge Report too. I almost forgot. :P
October 23, 2008 at 10:46 am
Getting back to "W", I'm a conservative but would love to see a true movie based on GWB without any bias. It's an amazing story and it doesn't have to have an Oliver Stone bias to be funny or show his many mistakes and flaws. I honestly wouldn't want to see a Clinton movie by a right wing director who will not give a true account of what took place. Like Bush, Clinton would be a great movie and there is no reason to mess with it. Most movies that are based on a true story or true events bug me because I'm always wondering what actually happened. So for that reason, I prefer my movies completely fiction (realistic though, not into sci-fi or superheros). When making a movie about an actual real person like a president, I refuse to watch unless I find out it's very close to the truth.
October 23, 2008 at 2:50 pm
As a political scientist in training, I have to throw in my two cents. Your political ideology refers to the extent to which you think government should intervene to bring about change. If you're a conservative, you think it shouldn't intervene much. If you're a liberal, you think it should intervene more. While most Republicans consider themselves conservative and most Democrats consider themselves liberals, the parties regularly take stances on issues that aren't in line with their ideological views. So ideology and party identification are not the same thing.
Also, Fox News having liberal hosts on the air does not make it fair and balanced. You also have to consider what issues they bring up, which side gets more time to talk, etc. Personally, I don't like Fox News because it's the National Enquirer of cable news networks. It seems to go for the sensational rather than the informative.
October 24, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Ha! Please send me links to the Fox News = Fair and balanced surveys.
"W" looks interesting really. Too bad Oliver Stone is notorious for being bias an inaccurate. I agree that someone should do a movie about Clinton. Surly it would be entertaining.
October 25, 2008 at 6:08 am
Ampersand, I thought that both ideologies want government control, just of different things. The liberal ideology wants more government control socially, yet less government moral control, while the conservatives want fewer social controls and more moral controls. (This model includes libertarians -- lower moral and social controls -- and authoritarians -- higher moral and social controls). At least that was the theory when I was in school, which was a little while ago, and it might have changed since then.
October 26, 2008 at 5:50 pm
OMG! Eric was not criticizing Fox News. This goes back to his blog entry on political humor. He was making a reference to a stereotype, because that's how humor works; you have to use ideas that are well-known. It was funny because we're all familiar with the idea that Fox News is a right-wing machine.
Eric did not address whether he thinks Fox News is more bias than other news networks.Fox set themselves up for this kind of thing when they chose the ridiculous tag-line, "Fair and Balanced", which automatically makes them the most hypocritical network, and therefore the most fun to use in this kind of reference.
October 27, 2008 at 8:32 pm
"Personally, I don't like Fox News because it's the National Enquirer of cable news networks. It seems to go for the sensational rather than the informative."
Well said. Fox News is pretty ridiculous. Having token liberals doesn't make you "balanced," just means you get to make fun of liberals directly on your network.
I don't think MSNBC, CNN, etc... are unbiased. I just think Fox News is absurd for trying to claim they aren't. O'Reilly anyone? Fox and Friends?
They created all that flap about an "unflattering" picture of Palin on Newsweek. Let me repeat: They spent considerable airtime complaining about a magazine cover. What a joke of a news channel.
November 3, 2008 at 11:22 am
What's the point on having a bunch of people comment on a movie that they are too afraid to see?
"W" is an empathetic portrayal of a deeply flawed man, who has no self awareness of those flaws.
After watching the movie, my wife and I finally realized that he is the perfect president for a country that has only five percent of the world's population, but uses twenty-five percent of the world's resources.
November 5, 2008 at 12:51 am
Interesting how the world complains that the US uses a huge amount of resources, then complains when we don't. Recently, the US has cut back consumption and I see firsthand (I'm in Asia) people complaining how they are losing jobs because the US isn't consuming. I guess we can't win.
It seems politics aren't a popular topic at the box office. Looks like W. won't even break even, same for American Carol. I think we're all tired of this crap.