David O'ConnellOliver Stone's W.
February 22nd 2009 22:00
Oliver Stone’s selective biopic of outgoing President George W. Bush continues his recent fascination with real-life drama after Alexander (2004) and the 9/11 heroics of World Trade Center (2006). Clearly he could have turned this into a wickedly satirical jibe, a portrayal of failure entwined with the kind of ridicule and incompetence that Bush’s name has become so synonymous with.
Instead, Stone provides a far more even-handed depiction than you’d imagine from a filmmaker used to provocative statements that reflect his own fiercely intellectual viewpoints. Here he concentrates on the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and 2003, whilst interspersing the debate with flashbacks to Bush’s college initiation, his prickly relationship with his father, George Snr. (James Cromwell) and his general progress from egotistical party-boy with little defined meaning in his life to being elected as President.
James Brolin is surprisingly well-cast as Bush, even if he bears little resemblance to the man he’s portraying, other than in his current incarnation. Rather than mimic Bush’s idiosyncrasies, he tries to create an accurate overall sense of the man and his nature and mostly succeeds. In fact, many of Stone’s casting choices were obviously made with only a perfunctory likeness in mind, actors selected instead for their suitability for a specific role.
Jeffrey Wright is excellent as Colin Powell, the voice of reason as the need for invasion looms, whilst Richard Dreyfuss is solid support as Dick Cheney. Elizabeth Banks plays Laura Bush as a woman with little complexity, effortlessly led and a little too easily won over by W.’s charm. James Cromwell is suitably dignified as Bush Snr, but typecast in so many similar roles in recent years his range now seems tiresomely limited. Thandie Newton’s Condoleezza Rice is worth noting - as either a horrible misjudgment or mockery of some sort (and a gag on Stone’s part!).
Sadly, there’s a tameness to this film which is slightly disheartening for fans of the director’s enervating, often defiantly controversial, past work, despite it being thoroughly engaging for its 120 minute length. How much liberty screenwriter Stanley Wieser has taken with the truth is anyone’s guess and though the glimpses into Bush’s past - in which he struggled to come to terms with his father’s deeds and expectations of him - portray him in an unsympathetic light, there are few revelatory insights other than the scary notion of Bush's religious calling directing his fate, the signs shown to him from 'above' becoming crucial markers of the path he should take in times of confusion and doubt.
Another impression the film leaves us with is the disservice Bush has done both history and his family’s name, tarnishing the deeds of his father and brother Jed, who was preferred by George Snr. from the beginning and groomed accordingly. But it was George Jnr., seen as the black sheep of the family, who unaccountably rose to prominence, exceeding both his brother and the hopes of a family whose name has now been blighted by the infamy of this man.
Stone's effective dream sequence hones in on these suspicions that seem likely to haunt Bush forever, but you have to suspect that more time may have served as an effective tool for distancing us from this recent period of history in providing better perspective. For now, the Bush-hating millions will simply see Stone's entertaining, but mostly impotent, film as faint, negligible confirmation of what they've suspected all along: that a highly unsuitable, inappropriate and dangerously stupid man somehow survived eight years in the world's most important post.
Instead, Stone provides a far more even-handed depiction than you’d imagine from a filmmaker used to provocative statements that reflect his own fiercely intellectual viewpoints. Here he concentrates on the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and 2003, whilst interspersing the debate with flashbacks to Bush’s college initiation, his prickly relationship with his father, George Snr. (James Cromwell) and his general progress from egotistical party-boy with little defined meaning in his life to being elected as President.
James Brolin is surprisingly well-cast as Bush, even if he bears little resemblance to the man he’s portraying, other than in his current incarnation. Rather than mimic Bush’s idiosyncrasies, he tries to create an accurate overall sense of the man and his nature and mostly succeeds. In fact, many of Stone’s casting choices were obviously made with only a perfunctory likeness in mind, actors selected instead for their suitability for a specific role.
Jeffrey Wright is excellent as Colin Powell, the voice of reason as the need for invasion looms, whilst Richard Dreyfuss is solid support as Dick Cheney. Elizabeth Banks plays Laura Bush as a woman with little complexity, effortlessly led and a little too easily won over by W.’s charm. James Cromwell is suitably dignified as Bush Snr, but typecast in so many similar roles in recent years his range now seems tiresomely limited. Thandie Newton’s Condoleezza Rice is worth noting - as either a horrible misjudgment or mockery of some sort (and a gag on Stone’s part!).
Josh Brolin as W.
Sadly, there’s a tameness to this film which is slightly disheartening for fans of the director’s enervating, often defiantly controversial, past work, despite it being thoroughly engaging for its 120 minute length. How much liberty screenwriter Stanley Wieser has taken with the truth is anyone’s guess and though the glimpses into Bush’s past - in which he struggled to come to terms with his father’s deeds and expectations of him - portray him in an unsympathetic light, there are few revelatory insights other than the scary notion of Bush's religious calling directing his fate, the signs shown to him from 'above' becoming crucial markers of the path he should take in times of confusion and doubt.
Another impression the film leaves us with is the disservice Bush has done both history and his family’s name, tarnishing the deeds of his father and brother Jed, who was preferred by George Snr. from the beginning and groomed accordingly. But it was George Jnr., seen as the black sheep of the family, who unaccountably rose to prominence, exceeding both his brother and the hopes of a family whose name has now been blighted by the infamy of this man.
Stone's effective dream sequence hones in on these suspicions that seem likely to haunt Bush forever, but you have to suspect that more time may have served as an effective tool for distancing us from this recent period of history in providing better perspective. For now, the Bush-hating millions will simply see Stone's entertaining, but mostly impotent, film as faint, negligible confirmation of what they've suspected all along: that a highly unsuitable, inappropriate and dangerously stupid man somehow survived eight years in the world's most important post.
| 84 |
| Vote |
Comment by Teresa Ralton
MRS SMITH
READ THIS
SISTERS IN CRIME
This sounds like it would be interesting to see, if only to get some understanding of the personality behind this part of America's history even if it is a bit tame, like you said. What did you mean by saying the Condoleeza Rice character might be a gag?
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
Hey Teresa! I've read somewhere that Stone has always thought very poorly of Condoleezza and it shows in the film. It's like a gag in the way Thandie Newton portrays her - giving such a mannered performance (mostly in the weird way she speaks) that it feels like deliberate mockery. He's obviously having fun at her expense and it is a little jarring in those scenes.