|
By Joel Frady
Director Oliver Stone has swarmed toward controversy during
his career, so it was no surprise that the man
 |
behind JFK, Natural Born Killers and World Trade Center had
decided to shoot a biopic based on current United States President
George W. Bush.
Stone and writer Stanley Weiser (who co-wrote Wall Street with
Stone) attempt to paint a "fair" portrait of Bush,
and I think that the film succeeds at this more than it fails.
However, I also think that W. would be a great film if it were
just another movie. If it were a pure work of fiction, about
some random human instead of the current President, then Stone
has a fantastic film on his hands. Every member of his cast
delivers a nuanced, thoughtful performance, and the script does
a great job of finding the humanity in Bush the film needs in
order for people to relate to him.
Josh Brolin, as Bush, is spectacular. The rising star, who captivated
audiences in 2007 with star turns in No Country for Old Men
and American Gangster, finds the right emotional notes for Bush.
Since the story encompasses a 40-year span of Bush's life, and
Brolin portrays a man who grows from a worry-free party animal
living in the shadow of his father's political success to the
devoutly Christian man who threatens to bring glory or shame
to his heritage (depending on who you talk to).
Brolin found the human notes needed to bring Bush to life, as
a son seeking his father's approval and a man fighting a gripping
addiction. He creates a character that seems real and even likable
- even if he's not the kind of guy you want to run a nation,
he'd certainly be fun to watch a game with.
The rest of the all-star cast seems to enjoy their roles, no
matter how the film depicts the characters. Stone is especially
nice to George H.W. Bush (James Cromwell, Babe), crafting a
calm, logical man who has what seems to be never-ending patience
with his less-favorite son.
It's interesting to note that whatever Stone thinks of Bush's
time in office, he shows the presidency of George H.W. Bush
in a relatively positive light (especially in regards to the
way the first Gulf War was handled).
The weakest scenes in the film take place in the battleground
of the White House during George W.'s first term, in a room
heavily divided. By my understanding of W., here are the players
as Stone sees them: Vice President Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss)
is the greedy, self-serving man who gets his way with the President;
Donald Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn) is fairly crazy and hungry for
war; Condoleeza Rice (Thandie Newton) seems to be ignored in
the room, but does make a good right-hand for George W.; while
Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) is the room's lone voice of logic
and reason.
It's a pity that these scenes, which play between flashbacks,
don't stand up to the rest of the film. It seems that Stone
was interested in exploring how the Iraq war came about and
how the details later backfired on Bush and his staff (due to
the lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq), but the scenes
just aren't as interesting as those depicting his rise to power.
The most interesting relationship the film explores is that
between George W. and Karl Rove (Toby Jones), the political
advisor who would become Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff. Rove
is like Yoda for Bush, and his training and advice help turn
the good-old-boy into a proper politician.
Despite all that I liked about W., it was hard not to wonder
why it was made with Bush still in office and released two weeks
before the election. Did Stone and company really just want
to tell a good story, or were there other motives behind it?
I think I was able to watch W. from a neutral standpoint, tossing
my personal ideas and opinions of the President out the window
in an attempt to give the character a fresh shot. The story
is fascinating and the well-made film flows smoothly.
As a film, and nothing else, I enjoyed it; because of this,
I feel able to recommend W. to anyone able to watch it with
an open mind.
W. is currently playing at the Regal Cinemas in Boone.
|
Get Firefox