Oliver Stone's W. Shows Another Side of Bush

By Broadside Staff Writer Ross Bonaime

Oliver Stone is no stranger to controversial presidential films. With JFK, he questioned the possibility that maybe Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in his assassination. In Nixon, he attempted to put the demonized president into an understandable perspective. Stone’s newest film W., the first film that attempts to tell the biography of a currently seated president, tries to show George W. Bush’s rise from a drunk, Yale graduate hooligan to the 43rd president of the United States.

Stone shows Bush’s life in three distinct parts: his wild and crazy days, his reformed and born again days, and his political move to the presidency. Stone does this in a similar way to The Queen or even to his own Nixon by taking actual accounts of what has been said and done and fictionalizing the things in between. This allows Stone to show Bush the person, who struggled with being in his father and brother Jeb’s shadow, while also trying to find his place in the world.

Josh Brolin, who has currently again risen to fame in No Country For Old Men and American Gangster, plays Dubya to perfection, getting his mannerisms and little ticks down to a science. Brolin leads a cast who envelops the presences of the Cabinet and family members of Bush’s life. Most notable are James Cromwell as George H.W. Bush, Jeffrey Wright playing General Colin Powell, Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush and an astonishing performance by Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney, who seems to hold the puppet strings of the presidency. Hopefully, Brolin and Dreyfuss will be remembered come Oscar time.

Unfortunately, while most everyone seems to play his or her characters, Crash’s Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice seems to be playing something. She has the look down, but she feels like the only actor almost making fun of whom she is portraying. Also, Requiem for a Dream’s Ellen Burstyn and Fantastic Four’s Ioan Gruffudd, who play Barbara Bush and Tony Blair, respectively, are fantastic, but are rarely given enough screen time to shine.

Stone’s directing has been known to be flashy and showy, almost screaming to the audience to notice him. With The Doors and Natural Born Killers, he begged for most of the attention with his quick editing, and unusual directing choices. But with W., he is restrained and decides to tell the story rather than show off. Stone never tries to parody or insult Bush, but takes a middle ground by just showing what has happened and not taking a true position on it.

Unfortunately, screenwriter Stanley Weiser never quite gets into the second term of presidency and therefore leaves the film to have a weaker ending then what he could have had by going a few years later. Stone and Weiser seem to just want to give the audience a fair and honest look at what Bush’s life has been and who he is. He always seems like an outsider, trying to find himself and where he belongs.

Bush is shown as sympathetic, albeit sometimes a screw-up, and admittedly so. Yet, they find the balance of making him understandable but also let the audience say, “How could Bush have done this?”

Obviously, W. might be coming a little too soon. A few more years of reflection would have given enough time to include the newer developments. But for what it is, W. portrays our current president in a new light and makes for an intriguing film, regardless of political standing. W. is a fascinating look at the lengths of one man who followed his heart do what he believed was right, and his journey to do just that.