‘W.’ or “Longest eight years. Ever.” (Review)

Posted by danhacker

October 30, 2008

Directed by Oliver Stone

Screenplay by Stanley Weiser

Starring – Josh Brolin, James Cromwell, Elizabeth Banks, Ellen Burstyn, Richard Dreyfuss, Scott Glenn, Thandie Newton, Jeffrey Wright

As of the moment that I’m writing this, President George W. Bush is not even out of office and we already have a movie about his presidency. ‘W.’ is not a flattering portrayal by any means but here it is in all its glory from controversial director, Oliver Stone. As a liberal I wanted to love this movie. I wanted this to be a smart satire and even lampooning of President Bush that ‘SNL’ does on a regular basis, but on the big screen. Immediately upon reading the news that there was a movie being made about President George W. Bush and that it was being helmed by Oliver Stone, and starring Josh Brolin my interest was piqued. After seeing the first trailer that had shots of a distraught Bush yelling at the top of his lunges with The Talking Heads’ “Once in a lifetime” playing I was sold. I wanted to wanted to love ‘W.’ funny how things turn out…

The majority of people who will go to see ‘W,’ will be of the liberal political affiliation, and naturally they will want to give this film a free pass and automatically declare this as a good movie- a brilliant satirization of one of this nation’s worst presidents. The thing is, it’s not. ‘W.’ is an inconstant film that doesn’t know if it wants to be a satire or a deep character study of the tragic character that George W. Bush might be. This was one of the most disappointing films this year and an overall superfluous experience.

Stone’s ‘W.’ is a look at the life and the presidency of George W. Bush. It’s a linear film with none-linear moments intertwined into the story. The film jumps between scenes of Bush being a drunken frat-guy in college during a hazing ritual, the time he spent as governor as Texas and even the more recent times with Bush planning the Iraq war and even the scenes in between. There are lots of moments shown in ‘W.’ but that’s all they seem to be- just moments. We’re introduced to his cartoonish cabinet of advisers who all come across as scheming or placating him at every turn in order to further their own goals. The central narrative is about Bush trying to do what he thinks is right, and attempting to do the best he can which unfortunately never amounts to being good enough. He’s one man who ended up in a position of power that he just wasn’t qualified to be in. The film is gives us an onscreen representation of President Bush that is a pathetic empty man who becomes a puppet for others to exploit for their own means.

The best thing about ‘W.’ and one of the biggest selling points of the film was without a doubt the brilliant casting choices. This film has a extraordinary cast that features the acting talents of young and old and includes a slew of cameos too famous faces. Josh Brolin delivers a very convincing performance of President George W. Bush, but it’s not a career defining performance. The cast of ‘W.’ makes the real life people they play come across more cartoonish then they are in reality. I have no problem with this. It keeps in line with the tone of the film being a satire more than a character examination and actually works for the film. The moments the movie tries to be more serious and dramatic actually work against it. When it’s played up as a satire it actually helps what is overall a weak story.

Elizabeth Banks, James Cromwell, Thandie Newton and Toby Jones all give notable performances in their roles. Elizabeth Banks gives depth to Laura Bush who is the most liberal character in the movie. The tragedy about her is that she ends up falling in love with a man that just happens to have different values from her, but her feelings overcome that difference. James Cromwell plays a decent Bush Sr. who is a crushing force in the life of George W., he always wants more from his son but knows he won’t ever live up to it. Even at times wanting him to be more like his brother, Jeb. Thandie Newton who is a beautiful actress disappears into her characterization of Condoleezza Rice. Richard Dreyfuss plays a smarmy and scheming Dick Cheney, and I was over all let down by Dreyfuss’s performance. While all of these performances were entertaining, Toby Jones as Karl Rove was the most interesting person onscreen. His portrayal of Rove is interesting. Rove comes across as shadowy and manipulative. He has a knack for always appearing in a scene in the background when you least suspect it. He was the most interesting character in the film simply because you didn’t get much dialogue from him and his motives were left undiscovered. Unfortunately the casting choices were the main thing about this film I enjoyed.

The last thing I expected from this film was to feel the never-ending sense of boredom. There wasn’t an interesting story in this movie. Being a liberal I almost felt insulted by how much this film pandered to a liberal audience by taking cheap shots at Bush. I’m not defending the man, but some scenes were just frustrating by how forced they were. We get it, the man stutters and messes up words every now and then. It’s old news. Some of the humor elements were simply reciting quotes from Bush but out of the real life context in which they originally happened. By using quotes from Bush (dated and overly used ones now) it felt like Oliver Stone wanted to make this film to unleash his own personal resentments about the President instead of actually making an interesting film.

For the most part, ‘W.’ felt like a cheap parody at times, one ‘SNL’ has done before and even done better. It’s hard to imagine that this is directed by Oliver Stone because it’s all over the place and very inconsistent. Stone never commits to stating if this is a satire or drama, and the end result is a muddled near parody style film that is unfulfilling. The initial promise of what ‘W.’ could be was the film I wanted to see and a film that never came to be. This film was undoubtedly rushed into production so it could be released before Bush is out of office. It feels rushed and that it was solely put together so Oliver Stone could take some last minute jabs at Bush.

It’s not often that I don’t enjoy a movie and find very little about it redeeming but ‘W.’ bored me. I’m not challenged by the narrative or by any underlying themes. I’m confused by the thought that no one ever said to Oliver Stone during production, “hey, this isn’t good, maybe we should try some stuff different. Maybe wait a little while and work on the story more.” As promise that the trailers and promotional materials seemed to offer, almost none of that filtered into the final product. This is self-indulgent piece of cinema from Oliver Stone and does nothing to further his career as a filmmaker besides inciting some minor controversy.