Bush gets stoned in W. | Film Review | Indy Week
Pin It

Bush gets stoned in W. 

click to enlarge Josh Brolin as W. - PHOTO BY SIDNEY RAY BALDWIN/ LIONSGATE FILMS

W. is now playing throughout the Triangle

It's hard to tell what Oliver Stone is aiming at with W. As a political missive, it's an incredibly banal sermon to the choir. As a raucous raspberry, it's just not stylistically batty enough to register. As a comedy, it's never much nuttier than a Saturday Night Live skit. And as a historical film, it's too speculative by half. What results is a restless, uncooperative film that exhibits a fascinating tension between earnest message movie and bombastic cartoon, occupying the eerie area between Bush's manipulation of information and his inability to grasp it.

Josh Brolin's daffy, purposefully one-note performance as George W. Bush gets unnerving, and not only because the crude caricature often captures the man. While Thandie Newton plays Condoleezza Rice literally stooped over with sycophancy, and Richard Dreyfuss (Dick Cheney) can hardly keep from winking at the camera, Brolin's Bush is not aware that he's in a movie, and he's barely aware that he's president.

Stone's Bush can be obstinate and vulnerable in the same moment—when he asks Cheney "What do you want me to do?" he is being both belligerent and literal. Telling Cheney "We don't use torture," it's unclear whether he means it with a wink ("We don't use that word") or if he genuinely thinks their post-Geneva tactics really are in bounds. While I couldn't help but want W. to go off the rails more than it does, it gets plenty of mileage out of the strange character that emerges despite the surface simplicity. During a prayer scene, Stone cuts to close-ups of Jesus, implying that Bush isn't so much praying to Christ as identifying with him. It's not only effective but subtle, not something usually associated with Stone's style.

A lot of W. is a tough slog. The good-ol'-boy stuff of Bush's youth is generic, and the ready-made father-son tension is predictable. In Stone's world, Cheney and Rumsfeld are vocal about the door that 9/11 has opened for world domination, and talk frankly about creating an empire of oil. You get the feeling that it should incense or titillate us to see our suspicions about their backroom conversations confirmed. But this administration has been so open about its disregard for international law and transparency with the public that conspiracy theories are less tantalizing than they are obvious.

Other political aspects of W. aren't so simple. In the leftist world of Oliver Stone, Colin Powell is hardly a good guy, but in the insular world of W.—the movie exists almost entirely in Bush's house, his stadium, his country club—Powell becomes a voice of reason. Is Stone implicitly participating in the national shift to the right that Karl Rove engineered under Bush, or is this his sly way of pointing it out? It's hard to be sure, but that might be one of the key ideas in W. While it's a messy movie without much momentum, it embraces a willful confusion—one that history might prove to be a perfectly appropriate response to the last eight years.

  • Oliver Stone's W. is an obvious yet worthwhile exercise in instant history.

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in Film Review



Twitter Activity

Comments

Thanks for spoiling the movie. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean you have to ruin it for everyone …

by Carly L. on The Book of Henry Is a Blatant Tearjerker Whose Elaborate Plot Serves a Useless Solution (Film Review)

I was an undergrad at Duke when The Handmaid's Tale was filmed. I remained on campus during spring break and …

by PeterH on A Forgotten The Handmaid’s Tale Movie Filmed in Durham Is the Missing Link Between Classic Novel and Hulu Hit (Film Review)

Most Read

No recently-read stories.

Visit the archives…

Most Recent Comments

Thanks for spoiling the movie. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean you have to ruin it for everyone …

by Carly L. on The Book of Henry Is a Blatant Tearjerker Whose Elaborate Plot Serves a Useless Solution (Film Review)

I was an undergrad at Duke when The Handmaid's Tale was filmed. I remained on campus during spring break and …

by PeterH on A Forgotten The Handmaid’s Tale Movie Filmed in Durham Is the Missing Link Between Classic Novel and Hulu Hit (Film Review)

I also loved this movie when it came out. Having just recently rewatched it, I'm surprised by how many details …

by Jase Wells on A Forgotten The Handmaid’s Tale Movie Filmed in Durham Is the Missing Link Between Classic Novel and Hulu Hit (Film Review)

What a great story, thanks Allison! I remember seeing this movie in high school and loving it. I never made …

by Glenn McDonald on A Forgotten The Handmaid’s Tale Movie Filmed in Durham Is the Missing Link Between Classic Novel and Hulu Hit (Film Review)

Just saw Pitch Perfect 3 trailer. Looks like its going to be another year of fun ride. Incredibly excited to …

by Andrew190 on Dueling college a cappella groups in Pitch Perfect (Film Review)

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation