I just got back from the film W, which I have many thoughts on.
I definitely thought the film was funny, and I think that many Edger readers will find themselves laughing regularly at the film. This is taking into account that many Edger readers are conservative and will not share Oliver Stone’s leftist ideas.
This film definitely has a strong liberal bias.
I have mixed feelings about this, as a liberal, and as a skeptic.
I like history and non-fiction to be portrayed as accurately as possible. Films such as Amistad, or Schlindler’s List come to mind.
But as a liberal, I definitely like to see my political spin get some air time.
Famously Michael Moore is one example of this conundrum. Michael Moore definitely distorts facts to make his points, which I think is unethical in documentary film making. Yet for all of Micheal Moore’s films Fox news runs all day and all night, and every major city in America has a right wing radio station or two which also does this for a 24 hour news cycle.
Does one have to distort facts to be politically competitive?
Which brings me back to W , I guess I should state a “spoiler alert” -> So there you are : Spoiler Alert!
The film creates a sibling rivalry between George W. and Jeb Bush, which I find to be doubtful. Now in a biographical piece the writers have to take some liberties with the personal lives of characters, but the film makes it seem like George W. Bush’s whole political career was born and made in a competitive struggle with his brother.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me to some kind of interview or memoir to support this, but I think Oliver Stone pulled it out of his ass.
I think Oliver Stone pulled it out of his ass to make Bush look as stupid and juvenile as possible. Its like a John Stewart joke beat to death and dragged out for 2 hours.
Now there are things that I thought were good about the film, Cheney was portrayed as being a well intentioned man, which is consistent with his biography Angler by Barton Gellman, which Cheney himself called well-researched.
I also think the film made Bush endearing. I don’t know if this is on purpose, or if its just because I live in Texas and I find certain things endearing that the rest of the world finds horrifying, or if Oliver Stone’s intentions backfired.
But Bush was very endearing in this film.
Bush’s religious views, I thought were presented respectfully, in a way that shows how a person could come to see their political careers to be intertwined with the will of God. This is very consistent with the kind of Charismatic Christianity which is popular in Texas. Stone portrayed this as something to be admired, for the most part. There is one scene in which a pastor is wearing a cross on a belt-buckle, which I’m sure was meant comedically.
I have seen some ridiculous belt buckles in my years in Texas, hell I own one, but never a cross.
Thats all I’ve got.
Hope you enjoy the film, I’m looking forward to feedback on this one.
This post is my initial reaction.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Rodrigo Neely
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
Oliver Stone and Stanley Weiser did not make an anti-Bush polemic here. They portrayed him as a flawed but not evil but not exactly sympathetic human being. Bush does seem like he would be an endearing person, regardless of one’s politics. The juvenile characterization of Bush is at least somewhat grounded in reality.
I’m sure Stone and Weiser fudged a few facts and filled in some gaps here and there. That’s par for the course when constructing a narrative. But the general tone of the story seemed correct However, the film does not reveal anything especially new about Bush’s psyche. His steadfastness, his lack of curiosity, his thinking from the gut, etc. are well-known. We get no insight into his relationship with Laura Bush, nor do we see get to see the immediate reactions to catastrophes like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. The cabinet members were a mixed bag. Cheney, Rove, and Powell were fairly well portrayed as the two shrewd and calculating men and the dissenter, respectively. Condoleeza Rice was straight out of a bad SNL sketch. I almost laughed every time she said anything. Rumsfeld didn’t have much screen time.
I liked the non-linear storytelling, which is unusual for a biopic. But the film by nature was disjointed, and at a little over two hours it simultaneously felt sluggish and cursory.
I can see where you’re coming from.
The non-linear storytelling is typical for Oliver Stone. I approach this with kid-gloves due to JFK, which as a skeptic has caused me a lot of grief.
Molly Ivins, who was decidedly critical of Bush, but knew him personally and studied him since his early political career in Texas made it very clear that she found him to be a very clever and bright man. Thats one counter-point I’ve got against Stone. For what its worth.
Sorry, my sentence structure there was a little stupid, maybe I need Carl Rove to be my “word man.”
*Karl Rove
OMG! Its a wonder I can write at all sometimes.
I just recently figured out I have a tendency to misspell Barack Obama’s name as well, spelling it Barak.
Sigh!
“he film makes it seem like George W. Bush’s whole political career was born and made in a competitive struggle with his brother.”
And his father. W may or may not have had a need to prove himself to his father and brother in real life, but the film’s version of this relationship was simplistic. Maybe if Stone had covered either the run-up to the presidency OR the presidency itself the film would have been more nuanced.
I agree.
In fact, throughout the movie I kept hoping more and more historical events would be covered, only to be disappointed.
This movie was like a brilliantly made, multi-million dollar protest march sign.