Movie Review- "W"

I didn't realize how long it had been since I paid a visit to my local picture house. So, last night, I decided to catch a flick. I saw Oliver Stone's biopic of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC. I wasn't sure what to expect. After all, Stone's use of history has been sketchy in the past (see JFK, Born on the 4th of July). But, he's directed some really great films (see above, plus Platoon, etc.)

Let me begin my putting my biases out on the table. As regular readers know, I'm no great fan of George W. Bush. I think his presidency is one of the worst in American history. Back in the 2000 campaign, I just thought he was the biggest tool ever. And now, 8 years later, it's a mess.

That said, this makes Bush come off way better than I would have expected. He is not portrayed as a complete idiot, as he sometimes is. He comes off, at least in terms of being president, as naive. As president, he is portrayed as a person who has coasted through his life and career being helped by a lot of other people, doesn't realize it, but is surrounded by "yes-men" who keep the myth alive. In other words, as the biggest tool ever.

Is Josh Brolin the new Samuel L. Jackson? This guy is in everything now, it seems. Just like Jackson a few years ago. And he usually does a pretty decent job. Brolin does a good job of humanizing George W. Bush. And, his Bush impression gets better as the film goes along.

Really, most of the acting is good. And, except for Scott Glenn as Donald Rumsfeld and Jeffery Wright as Colin Powell, they look pretty much like the actual people. The question then is, What to to with these characters? How do they fit in? Are they accurate? The answer here, is a mixed bag. Colin Powell is portrayed as a man who is concerned about going to war with Iraq, vocalizes those doubts, but then sells out and is a team player. George Tenet comes off pretty much the same way. This is probably accurate. Powell put his credibility on the line with his speech to the UN, and despite his grave concerns, puts his stamp on the invasion. By the same token, Condoleeza Rice doesn't fare much better, but for a different reason. She is portrayed as the consummate "yes-man", which is pretty accurate for the time frame in the film. However, she gets the intellectual shaft. The viewer is not shown just how intelligent and insightful Dr. Rice is in real life. I wish more of that would have come through in the script.

The real villains in the film are not the Bush family. In his previous life, the enemies are Bush's struggle with alcohol, and the family name. As president, the real bad guys are (portrayed to be) Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove. Richard Dreyfuss gives and excellent performance as Cheney. You really do see him as the power behind the throne. Also, Karl Rove is as ubiquitous in the film as he was in the actual administration.

As I said before, the film humanizes Bush. It steers clear of making Bush into parody. True, there's no shortage of reasons or opportunities for doing so. But, Bush, in his humanity is isolated by the major players in his cabinet. Thus, while wrong, he is totally comfortable thinking he has made no mistakes in the conduct of the war. (In the film. He has recently admitted that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was a mistake. Kudos, Mr. President!) The other humanizing thing is that this film does a pretty decent job of showing just how much Bush loves and is devoted to his wife, Laura.

I was impressed by the directing. As I said before, I wasn't sure how Stone would handle this divisive figure. True, Stone will probably not be nominated for this film (best director). And rightly so. The "That Guy" factor is is nearly off the charts in this film. Jeffrey Wright, an (IMO) underrated character actor is good as Colin Powell. Several others fall into this description as well, notably, Thandie Newton as Dr. Rice, Rob Cordry as Ari Fleischer (who is pretty much there only look like Ari Fleischer), and James Cromwell as George H.W. Bush (the 41st POTUS).

The discussion factor is high as well. Any conversation about George W. Bush and his presidency is a highly emotionally charged experience. Even outside of politics, there is rich fodder for a good discussion: the impact of faith on life and politics, team building, the role of advisers in one's life and career, the limits of power, etc.

Basically, the message of the film is this: You may think that the administration is a complete and abject failure, but it's OK to like George W. Bush as a person. You can kinda see where he's coming from. You don't have like it, you don't have to agree. But you can kinda understand. At the end, you really do want to have a beer with the guy (so long as his in non-alcoholic, by his own admission). That's pretty much how he got elected. So, does that make the film a tragedy or a comedy?

Acting: B+
Directing: A
That guy factor: A
Overall: B+