I saw "W" with a Republican.

[Pippin]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:12pm

I went to a screening last night. The security was at the hightest I've ever seen it. They confiscated all of our cell phones in order to prevent piracy. I figured that was appropriate, given the subject of the film we were going to watch. I felt like I had to check my phone for any wire taps afterward.

I went with my die-hard republican friend who had some very strong choice words and opinions, which I will share at the end of this mini-review.


if you take it purely as a film, it is very solid. The cast is top notch (I mean, you already have James Cromwell and Ellyn Burstyn, which was enough for me. Then add Jeffrey Wright, Richard Dreyfuss, Thandie Newton, Rob Corddry, and a career-making turn by Josh Brolin as W., you can't go wrong)

The writing is fairly strong. What Stone and screenwriter Weiser have done is put the central focus of the movie on the Bush family, namely the relationship of George Sr. and his son, W. This allows us to connect with the "character" of W. becuase he is seen as the underdog, always in the shadow of his brother Jeb, who his father bluntly favors. W. is constantly trying to win favor from his father, played wonderfully by James Cromwell.

The film jumps time a lot ( a little too much IMO) tracing his roots starting as a pledge in his college Frat, leading up to the events that started his war and the fallout afterward. The film is interspersed with actual war footage, cuts to senate members during Bush's Speeches (we see small shots of McCain, Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, and others), and footage from the infamous "mission accomplished speech with Brolin photoshopped into the scene.

Stone keeps the pacing brisk, I never had the desire to check the time (even though I couldn't due to lack of my cell phone), delicately paints the portrait of This ego maniacal, yet tortured soul, George W. Bush.

As for the set-up of this comedy-drama (I guess that's the category for this), Stone creates the Bush family as the straight man, and W.'s surrounding cabinet are the characters who are played for laughs, and who end up losing out (mostly)

Cheney, Rice, Fleisher, Rove and Powell are all heightened, but the only two who are really parodied, IMO, are Rice and Rove (which are pretty easy targets in the first place) Rice could be something out of an SNL Sketch, and the actor they hired for Karl Rove looks like an extra from the "Lord of the Rings" films.

Cheney is painted as the villain, rightly so, and Powell, portrayed responsibly by Wright, as the tragically reluctant member of the gang, who is forced to go along with the think tank. Wright has a few great monologues throughout the film, and even recieved applause from a few members of the audience at the end of one of them. Rove is painted as the shrewd little nerd who places politics over morality.

Basically the whole cabinet is scathed in portrayal, except that of Powell, who keeps his respect, even while going along with Cheney's plan for war.

so there is dissonance in the styles here, because the actors portraying the cabinet members are taking on the mannerisms of thier characters, but the Bush's are not. James Cromwell is doing James Cromwell, not an impression. The same for Burstyn. The good thing about this is that they are such strong actors, that you Cromwell to do a Dana-Carvey version of H.W. Bush.

and Brolin- let me just say, should definitely have a few nominations come his way for this role. He shines, and has the character so well, that even my friend, who I am sure was looking for any reason to disapprove, said that if you close your eyes, you really couldn't tell if it was Brolin or bush.

Now, the problem that I had last night was not with the film, but the audience members. I read reviews regarding Stone's balanced approach to W. before going in, so I knew that it wasn't going to be a Bush- Bash fest. some other audience members felt differently. they were laughing and ridiculing at innapropriate moments, and they were letting personal biases color thier perception of the character. AS A CHARACTER, I felt sympathy for W.. Do I in real life? not really, but there were a few times in the film when Stone wanted you to really emphasize with W., and the audience just didn't. they were laughing loudly at parts that they just shouldn't have.

I understand why. There is a reason why he has the lowest approval rating in the history of the presidency, but people were so ready to Bash this character, that they couldn't even allow Stone's human portrayal of him affect them. They wrote him off as a buffoon, and weren't taking his problems seriously.

Granted, there are many actual Bush-isms in the film, the infamous "fool me once" line, the "misunderestimate" goof, among others, which we are supposed to laugh at, but people couldn't separate their contempt form their empathy, and that was dissapoining to me, becuase if you watch the film purely as a character study, Brolin's W. is very effective, and realized as a fully-fleshed character with real wants, needs, and hurts.

So, the first thing my friend said after the film was emphatically, "I will never see an Oliver Stone movie again" which I thought was a bit over-dramatic. We talked a little further, and he said he approved of the Bush family portrayal, but he was offended by the portrayal of religion in the film, as well as the audience reaction around him.

He also was a little offended by the scenes where the cabinet is discussing how to start the war, with Cheney taking the reigns, and basically saying that the plan will be to start the war for oil reasons, with no pull-out plan. The soldiers will remain there indefinitely, therefore ensuring America's superpower so that "no country will ever F*CK with us again" or something close to that quote. My friend said "you know, that may have been what went down in the meetings, we'll never actually know, but it was offensive to me how they treated the cabinet members as innate and war-hungry morons." (to paraphrase)

The audience complaint I get, but the religion thing I don't understand, because it wasn't portrayed as evil, or misguiding. I think it portrayed a lot of them as hypocrites, but I didn't really pick up on any of that, which I am prone to do usually, because it's one of my favorite topics in film: the hypocrisies of the religious.

So I told him not to blame Stone for that, but the audience members, and he agreed after he calmed down a bit. He is still really angry today about the audience, but he was seeing the film in Philly, a democratic stronghold. What did he expect? AFter talking some more, he said he would want to see it again, but by himself, so he could be sheltered away from the evil liberals who were there just to mock Bush, which, once again, is not the point of this film.

so, judging from his opinion, the right will probably be a little offended by the film, and the way the writing has America going to war for Oil from the very beginning, as opposed to going to war to fight for "freedom" and the like.

Bottom line- The film is admirable, and pretty fair. As a historical record, you'll have to judge for yourself. go see it, but don't go see it purely to trash Bush. You'll miss the point of Stone's vision if you choose to do that. We have been doing that for so long, that it was actually very nice to see him as a sports watching, beer drinking, charming, flawed, regular old Joe six pack (oh, yeah, I said it) who was just trying is hardest to do what he felt was best while it all came crashing down around him.

Updated On: 10/15/08 at 12:12 PM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:14pm

Village Voice wasnt too crazy about it

[lildogs]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:54pm

"He is still really angry today about the audience"

This is what never fails to mystify me about people. Why on earth would anyone be offended by the reactions of total starngers in a movie theatre?

Is it simply because they disagree with his view and that makes him mad....why? Does that make him (or her) feel stupid or wrong or what?

If I'm watching a movie or a show and I'm the only one laughing or not laughing, I don't get mad--the approval or disapproval of my fellow audience memebers has no effect on MY enjoyment or dislike of what I'm watching...guess I just don't get it.

But I can't wait to see the movie!

[Pippin]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:58pm

^^^^^^
completely agree.


"Is it simply because they disagree with his view and that makes him mad....why? Does that make him (or her) feel stupid or wrong or what? "

no, it makes him mad because he thinks that the majority of the crowd was stupid for not agreeing with his POV. He gets angry easily about politics, especially when he's losing. He posts on McCain space, and was yelling at the t.v screen at Obama's nomination acceptance speech during the convention.

Updated On: 10/15/08 at 12:58 PM

[cubanpab]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:00pm

i'm curious to see it just because, but it looks so so so so awful... i mean it just looks BAD... even when Oliver Stone was on Maddow last night and they played the "fool me once" clip, it just looked terrible, corny, cheesy... i dunno.

i'm just curious to see it, not expecting much.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 2:35pm

RT has it at 86% at right now. Brolin is currently the front runner for Best Actor. I'm interested in seeing it.

[lildogs]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 3:26pm

"no, it makes him mad because he thinks that the majority of the crowd was stupid for not agreeing with his POV"

I still don't understand why that would make someone angry--if I got mad every time someoone said or did something stupid, I'd never be happy!

That attitude just makes him (your friend) seem so petty and small...and he's probably a smart person.