W. Makes the Grade

I saw Oliver Stone's new film, W., over the weekend. In the triptych of Stone's presidential biopics, I loved Nixon. The acting was remarkable, all of the technical elements were strong. Nixon himself was the worthiest of subjects for Stone's unique brand of analysis. JFK's assassination needed clarity, not jump cuts and bad make-up, muddled characterizations and operatic plotting. Not even Kevin Costner's compelling summation speech could reorder the confusion of the film's proposals. Stone is so talented, he almost made even conspiracy theorists, myself included, buy it. (Read James Ellroy's American Tabloid for another, more compelling take on JFK's murder.)

W. is a good film. Stone's camera work is almost sedate compared to the two other films. Perhaps that reflects the blithe nature of the subject. The acting is very good. James Cromwell as HW. Richard Dreyfuss, Thandie Newton, Bruce McGill, Scott Glenn, et al. working hard to bring to life the most suffocatingly closed off White House administration in our history. The W. White House makes Nixon's crowd look like the Loud family. Josh Brolin does great work here. Bush is a man done in as much by misplaced virility as he is by anti-intellectualism and the bitter resentments that are the hallmark of alcoholism, treated or otherwise. Brolin hits every note beautifully and only grows stronger as the film goes on. His only problem is that people simply want Bush to go. They are too exhausted to discuss his legacy now. Bush himself made sure of that.

The real treat here is Stacy Keach. Keach plays Earl Hudd, the fictitious evangelical who helps Bush get sober and find God (and, as a result, a Middle East policy). When Keach speaks, you get it. If Keach were around during my darkest times, I would have signed on with him myself. Keach has played every type of role there is in his wonderful career. He brings a truth and clarity to his scenes that actually pull the film together.

See W. for Josh, for Stone's enduring talents and for the truly great Stacy Keach.

Comments

[hapkidokid]

I just wanted to drop a quick thank you note. I just received American Tabloid from the library and i can't put it down! Many thanks for that recommendation Alec!

[blithespirit]

Whilst I have been quite anxious to see this movie, I would be more interested in a documentary about "W" (W = Worst President Ever!) and the tragic repercussions of his policies and beliefs. I hope such a documentary would include a complete investigation of the election of 2000 and How The GOP Stole It! There is a documentary called "Bush Family Fortunes" starring Greg Palast, and while he does a worthwhile job asking questions and investigating how the election was stolen, the documentary is not very well-made. Michael Moore would do better helming such a production.
One of the most important questions would be asking WHY so many people voted for this idiot in the first place. It isn't enough to point out that many rural and/or non-college educated people voted for Bush - WHY would so many middle-class Americans vote for someone who doesn't care about them in the first place?
On a side note I would like to point out that polls show most college-educated white people support Obama while many NON-college educated white people support McCain. Makes you think, does it not?

[LeanLeftAmerica]

Why make this movie to begin with? G.W.B is a man lacking substance. There is little about the man that is of any interest other than the position he has held for eight years. Show a person flipping a coin for eight years and you basically have our current situation. Guess work, gut instinct sans intellect, failure, greed, & political manipulation...

why make this movie???

[Bitsko]

Another excellent performance in an Oliver Stone film was Michael Caine as a demented cartoonist in "The Hand" (1981). Mr. Caine chewed up that role so thoroughly, I swear when the houselights came up there were teeth marks on the screen.

[Bitsko]

Aside from Dreyfus and Keach, I thought the movie was abysmal. BTW, I also thought "Nixon" was underrated.

[rckayla]

Although I haven't seen the movie, and most likely won't because of the current economy, I felt as if I watching "W." while reading Alec's post. Thanks Alec, I enjoyed reading your review!

[Obamican7]

I think people are taking this movie too seriously. Look at it like Dr. Strangelove, not a rational look at Bush.

[Bitsko]

That was my problem with the movie, it wasn't like Dr. Strangelove at all. It was written too straight, like those cheesy recreations of ancient Rome on the History Channel.

[mero909]

I can agree with that. It's mostly Stone's PoV of Bush than actual fact. I think Bush is genuinely a good person, but wasn't really ever suppose to be a President. Should have stuck to just owning the Texas Rangers.

[monicaangela]

I couldn't/wouldn't watch any movie depicting the life of "W" I wouldn't waste my money. I respect your opinion of the film, and maybe some day about ten years from now I may be able to stomach it, but right now, I am so sick of hearing about/watching this idiot in real time, I don't want to see a immortalized version of him and the circus he calls an administration on film.

[ArtLiquidBlogspot]

You mean, everyone is left out or behind.........I quit reading,I cant find a subject with a cause,,,,,,,the need to express successful ideas,opinions,arguments...........Who"s next? McPalin

[darker]

Here are G W BUSH'S REPORT CARD GRADES!

FAILED

FAILED

FAILED

FAILED

FAILED

FAILED

FAILED

FAILED

FAILED

[mero909]

Well, He passed on his fight against HIV/AIDS. That's one thing I think just about everyone for or against Bush agrees on.

[ignorantwillyharper]

How could anyone, after doing what "W" has done to this country, be able to go thru life holding his head up, while everyone that say's his name has to spit, just to clean their mouth out. It's probably good that "W" is not smart enough to know what people really think of him. That way he can live out his life thinking, he was a great leader and that may also be the shame of it all.
No one wants to tell a idiot, he never makes any sense.

[mero909]

You have to look at it from President Bush's point of view. He did what he thought was the right thing for the country. Period. That's a tough job and hard for me to call him a failure without ever experiencing that job for myself.

[fletc3her]

The movie condenses months of debate into a couple round table scenes with all the major players in the oval office or the war room. The characters say lines based on their public statements. We hear Colin Powell enunciate the Pottery Barn doctrine. We hear one of Rumsfield's koans.

As to WMDs. The movie portrays Cheney as almost a father figure to Bush. When Cheney speaks there is no further discussion. Cheney says there are WMDs, Bush believes there are WMDs. I think they do a good job of capturing Bush' leadership style which is very passive aggressive. His advisers are rewarded for agreeing with him and punished for disagreeing. Presenting inconvenient facts thus becomes a matter of disloyalty.

In the end, Bush is portrayed as crestfallen when the final WMD report comes in. Cheney is incredulous. Rumsfield smirks. Condi sputters. Rove calculates. Powell looks embarrassed. But, I believe the movie shows this as a case of Bush being hoisted by his own petard. He punished people when they challenged his world view, so he never perceived the world as it truly was. Ultimately, that is a stark personal failure.

What is best about the movie is that we know what is just to come! It ends just at the re-election. Bush' greatest failures are just around the corner. Bush is beaten down, really shook up, by the failures in Iraq. And that's just the beginning! His failures will soon be legion!

[LisaJeanM]

Thanks for the summary. But to me it sounds like Stone didn't get the basic premise right. I don't believe that Bush was ever really confident about WMDs. The way they made the case -- the way they sent Colin Powell out to help bolster it -- it struck me at the time that Bush didn't really believe in the WMDs and it especially strikes me that way now. WMD was a pretext for war. Bush had his delusion of remaking the middle east, getting a share in Iraqi oil, displaying American power -- and this was his excuse. If that was the movie Stone had made, that would be a movie I'd go see.

[Bitsko]

I'm with you on this. From reading many books and essays on the subject, the film's perspective was all wrong.

[mero909]

Eh, maybe. That's mostly an assumption. Especially about getting their hands on the oil. People make too many assumptions about the intentions of individuals.

[raymurt]

I read reviews that said the movie was respectful. I'm not looking for a respectful version of W.

If the movie were more acerbic, or satirical, or funny, I would have gone.

Somehow Mr. Stone lost his nerve on this one.

[dakotaharp]

I am too exhausted from living the life under w. The only film I want to see is the war crimes trial on dvd. Thats got a nice rhyme to it.

[krocklin]

amen.

[FrankWillsGhost]

I too saw it last weekend. I knew I had to see it now before Bush left office because, by then, I would want to purge all memory of this eight year national nightmare.

Two Observations: 1) The movie was too short to fully capture the extent of his failures. No Katrina, Harriet Miers, Swift Boating, Global Warming, Fiscal Meltdown, Corporate Malfeasance, Stem Cells, etc. etc. 2) Although I always knew that Dubya was never qualified to be president, and I knew about all his gaffes and idiotic policies, I STILL found it hard to believe that he is as stupid as he was made out to be in the movie.

I liked the movie best for the one realization that this is how future future generations, including my own daughters, will remember of George W. Bush and his legacy.