I would like to remind those who say it is too soon to make a movie about George W. Bush that “Apocalypse Now” and “The Deer Hunter” both came out within four years of the end of the Vietnam War. To everyone who thinks it is unpatriotic to smear a man who is still president, I would say that Oliver Stone’s interpretation of the man is far from all bad. And to the folks who just want to know if Stone’s latest feature is worth the price of admission, that’s a bit tougher to answer.
Spanning from his days as a hard-partying frat boy to the end of his first term, “W.” is a fictional account of the life of the 43rd American president. Almost like a trip through some sort of museum of modern history, we see his life step-by-step, dropping off at exhibits about family confrontations, Iraq and pretzel choking. The same could be said for the other major faces of the Bush administration, who are all introduced in the first scene of the movie. Each name is repeated several times during the conversation, bearing an eerie resemblance to a roll call.
It’s difficult not to get the feeling that you’re watching a checklist get crossed out, box by box. But once you get used to that, the movie does have its charms. The greatest of these is Josh Brolin, who makes the most of his chance at a starring turn. So learned is he in the Bush accent and expressions that, by the end of the film, you almost can’t remember what he’s like in other movies. The rest of the cast never quite makes it up to his level (especially Thandie Newton’s obnoxious caricature of Condoleezza Rice), but it’s never for lack of trying.
The same can be said for Stone and writer Stanley Weiser’s attempt to make Bush out to be a respectable person. With a few exceptions, their version of Bush isn’t stupid so much as he is ineloquent, and most of his poor decisions are interpreted as being at the hands of either Richard Dreyfuss’ embodiment-of-evil interpretation of Dick Cheney, or his always-looming father figure (James Cromwell). It’s an interesting way of looking at the situation, but it’s also an extremely easy way out.
And herein lies the film’s major weakness: It’s constant deferment to the path of least resistance. While they are at least mentioned, the movie neglects to actually show the events of the controversial 2000 presidential election and 9/11, both of which seem far too prominent to exclude, yet far too tricky to include while still trying to paint a positive picture of Bush. The movie also overstays its welcome by a good 20 minutes, opting to exhaust its points and its viewers, instead of leaving anything open to interpretation. All in all, “W.” is a noble attempt, albeit a safe one, at interpreting an extremely bizarre period in American history.
[email protected]