Movie Review: Oliver Stone’s “W.”

I just saw Oliver Stone’s biopic of President George W. Bush, “W.”

I am a Democrat and proudly liberal. I did not vote for Bush, did not like Bush, did not agree with his worldview, his policies both foreign and domestic, or his actions. I furthermore do not think he was a particularly good President.

All that being said: the man deserved so much better than this film.

Many reviews have stated that “W.” treats its subject with even-handedness. That it takes the man, and particularly his conversion from party animal alcoholic to born-again and on-the-wagon, seriously and at face value. And I wonder what movie those reviewers saw.

“W.” does not take its subject seriously. It treats him as a joke. For example, it mocks him through its use of music; twice, the old sappy theme from the BBC series Robin Hood is reprised (‘Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glen’). All the supporting characters, with the exception of James Cromwell as Bush-41, are presented as broad caricatures– hairstyles and bad vocal mannerisms masquerading as acting, history presented as a geek-show pageant. There’s nothing even-handed about it.

Not to mention, of course, that some of the history is suspect. There’s no record of Dick Cheney ever proclaiming, “there is no exit” from Iraq and that they should pursue “empire”. There’s no evidence tying George W. Bush to the Willie Horton ad (if he had, he would have broken federal election laws by farming it out to an outside organization). There’s no record and there’s no evidence because these things didn’t happen.

As you can guess, there’s a lot of things I think one could fault George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for. But those things are things that actually happened. Why would one ever feel the need to fabricate this libelous and conspiratory excrement?

Well, that actually should come as no surprise when you’re talking about an Oliver Stone film. Here’s a man that feels no shame about inventing “facts”, the loonier the better. For example: famed historian Stephen Ambrose was cited as a source for several of Stone’s spurious claims in the annotated screenplay of “Nixon”; Ambrose pointed out he often said the exact opposite of what Stone said he said.

And, of course, there’s “JFK”. “JFK” is one of those terrible works of great art, like “Birth of a Nation”: incredible artistry in the service of the most vile and reprehensible aims possible. It is 205 minute ode to lying. As a result of that film, a huge chunk of American citizens honestly believe that hundreds of members of their government, in cahoots with Castro and/or anti-Castro Cuban exiles, decided to kill the President. (Do not even get me started on all that bullpuckey.)

Stone argues, of course, that he is a “dramatist” and not a historian. And, yeah, I’ll buy that to a certain extent; Shakespeare’s Richard III would not be so memorable if he conformed to historical accuracy. The difference, however, is that Shakespeare is a good dramatist and that Stone is a very poor one: bombastic, over-reaching, completely incapable of sustaining a coherent vision of style, tone, or substance, of intelligent inquiry, of coaching believable performances, of making art that will last longer than five or ten years.

Oliver Stone is a terrible filmmaker; “W.” is a terrible film, completely lacking in nuance, texture, or empathy.

One core problem is that the film utilizes a poorly-implemented flashback structure that ends up giving us two films, both executed with supreme ineptitude.

One film follows the trajectory of Bush’s life before the Presidency: from hard-living failure to successful and dry politician, his courtship with Laura, and his strained relationship with his father. And however I feel about the man, sure, I’d love to see that film, done completely seriously (without being sanctimonious or cloying). It would be a film outside politics, like John Ford’s “Young Mr. Lincoln” or Leslie Martinson’s “PT 109″. I think people on both sides of the spectrum could and would enjoy such a film.

The other film is a political thriller, about the clash of personalities leading up to the invasion of Iraq. This is the film that Stone is most interested in, and, of course, the film that he fails the most miserably at. He could have crafted a film on par with Roger Donaldson’s excellent “Thirteen Days”, making it thick with process and minutiae. Instead, he gives us composite scenes and clownish impersonations.

And while less people would have been that interested in that second type of film, and while it could lend itself more to charges of being politically biased on way or the other, that could have (and still could be) a great and engaging film. Foreign policy is dramatic and tense enough without dressing it up with suppositions and “heightened’ reality. I direct the reader to Henry Kissinger’s book “Crisis”, most of which is comprised of actual phone transcripts from the Yom Kippur War, which in and of itself could probably make a great film, just an actor playing Kissinger on the phone for two or three hours.

The Iraq War decision-making is particularly apt for such in-depth attention to process and personalities; the way Condi Rice wrested control of the policy from Rumsfeld is delicious and engenders a respect and awe for the woman, not to mention a certain sex appeal, that is all but lost in Thandie Newton’s terrible, stiff, genderless ideologue– not a fighter, but a sycophant. What a sad fate for such a dynamic figure, one who became a Republican in the first place after enduring Carter’s naive black-and-white us-vs.-them approach to world politics.

(On a tangential note, “W.” features Toby Jones as Karl Rove and Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair. Both gentlemen appeared in the excellent William Wilberforce biopic “Amazing Grace”, which does capture the excitement of the political process: the maneuvering, the power-plays, finding loopholes.)

I wasn’t expecting much out of “W.”, but I also wasn’t expecting so little. It adds nothing to our understanding of the man or the history he shaped. It has no sympathy for him because it does not present him as a human being but as a cartoon.

As a proud and patriotic American who respects the dignity of the office even when I don’t fully respect all those who have held it, I am offended that this picture holds its main character in such disdain. As a dedicated progressive and liberal, I am offended that Stone felt the real criticisms that could be leveled at the Bush Administration are not “dramatic” enough, that he felt the need to make crap up (doesn’t he realize that when you do that, you undermine the validity of all your arguments?). Finally, as a cinephile, I am offended by the lack of focus, intelligence, sympathy, and open-mindedness inherent in every frame.

Regardless of where you stand on Bush, politics, and the last eight years– avoid this film at all costs.

A final note: I really strived to keep this a movie review and not a political piece; while I felt it only right to admit my political biases at the start, I did try to keep them out of my analysis. I’d like to ask commentators to keep their comments focused on the film, the filmmaker in question, and how a better film might be made of George W. Bush’s life/legacy and to stay away from the politics and the same old tired left-versus-right rigmarole. (Especially since, if I’m not mistaken, I’m severely outnumbered here.;-))

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...