With ‘W.’, Oliver Stone was given the chance to use his infamous image as a revisionist historian to create a controversial farce with the President as the buffoonish dunce. I myself feared this would happen, seeing this movie as proverbially giving a stick of dynamite to a pyromaniac. I am not a pyromaniac, however, and will do my best to keep politics out of this review.
The movie was so well told that it is a shame that it focuses on the most controversial figure in modern history. People’s opinion of this movie will already be fully formed before they see it. However, Bush is portrayed fairly, accurately, and humanely, no matter if you like him or not. Not that it matters in this review, which is completely apolitical.
The movie follows George Bush as he tries to push the country into Iraq, from the success in Afghanistan in 2002, to 2004 when it becomes apparent that Iraq had no WMD’s (I am absolutely neutral on this subject). Interlaced within this story line is a chronicle of Bush from his college days to his victory in the Texas gubernatorial election in 1994 (again, I am neutral). The mixing of stories plays brilliantly against each other, each scene of Bush’s past giving new perspectives on Bush’s more recent predicaments. It’s a bit like Titanic: you know what’s going to happen, but it’s interesting how it happens. ‘ ‘ ‘
The acting in this movie is very good, mostly because Josh Brolin does the best imitation of George Bush I have ever seen. He gets that squinting thing Bush does down pat, and his accent identical to Bush’s. Brolin puts an emotion into the character unseen in Bush’s public persona, but is able to transform his performance into the Bush we all know and love (or not love) with spot on recreations of Bush’s speeches. The complexity of this character is what drives the movie forward, and Brolin’s acting keeps the film realistic. ‘ ‘ ‘
The other characters are well done, but especially so with Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice. I thought Newton would be too pretty to play Rice, but I was incredibly wrong. She is so good portraying Rice that I often forgot that it wasn’t Connie Rice herself on screen.
Richard Dreyfuss portrays Dick Cheney as a megalomaniac. I won’t say anything else in fear of becoming too political. Toby Jones, a relatively unknown actor (the voice of Dobby in Harry Potter) was a perfect fit for Karl Rove. For one, they both have gigantic foreheads. Also, they both have been involved with important projects but nobody seems to know who either one is. And that wasn’t politically motivated, I just can’t figure out what Karl Rove does. ‘ ‘ ‘
Most of the other characters slightly resemble the real life characters they portray: If you squint, James Cromwell almost looks like George H.W. Bush, and Elizabeth Banks kind of looks like Laura Bush if you don’t know what the real one looks like. In fact, it seems as if most were only chosen for their acting prowess, not their resemblance with their real life counterparts. ‘ ‘ ‘
But in the end, this movie is all about one man. And it is a man who you come to respect at the end, because of his passion and simple honesty. He truly is a man you would like to have a beer with, and he commands a certain amount of respect because he willingly took the weight of the world on his shoulders, and only select few can say that about themselves. ‘ ‘ ‘
However, this movie’s portrayal of that man shows a bias that some might be more sensitive to (not me, I am neutral). Though we are shown a new, compassionate side of Bush, he is often portrayed as too simple to be the president, too ignorant to reflect on himself, and ultimately allowing others to make decisions then blaming others when things go wrong. It is debatable whether or not this is true, and I’m not saying it is, but it was presented this way in the movie. ‘ ‘ ‘
Oliver Stone has displayed his genius in full with this film, but there is a crucial problem. It doesn’t have an ending. Bush is still president, and as long as he is, we won’t know the full story of his presidency. Though a dive into the psychological presence of the man is interesting, at the end you are left wondering what will happen next.’
(Disclaimer: No politically infused statements were used in the making of this review – I swear.)
Leave a Reply