By Charlie Wachtel
Josh Brolin in Oliver Stone's "W."
One of the most highly anticipated of 2008, Oliver Stone’s W. is less an attempt at defining President Bush’s legacy as President, and more an introspective character study on how Bush came to be President and how he viewed the office. Those who have already seen the film will probably tell you that it is quite sympathetic towards Junior and perhaps not critical enough of his Presidency. And to a large extent I would agree with this. Stone has created a fair depiction of America’s most lampooned President. But it’s important that we’re equally fair to Stone who has exercised political restraint in crafting this biopic.
If you’re looking for conspiracies like with JFK you won’t find them here. The film functions in such a way as to not serve as propaganda (Though its release near Election Day may lead you to believe otherwise). W. has nowhere near the necessary poignancy as Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 demonstrated in 2004 to influence an election. And for this particular reason many people were disappointed with Stone’s restraint in making W. a platform for derision.
The character of Bush Jr. in and of itself comes with a set of expectations. Like Rowan Atkinson or Leslie Nielson in their respective roles in Johnny English or the Naked Gun films, there are low intelligence expectations which viewers enjoy seeing from their characters. There is this notion that comedy can be appreciated more if we can feel intelligently superior to a character. And with W. we get this. I walked out of the theater feeling pretty smart. But the difference with W. is that it isn’t a comedy. If comedic sensation is the only reason you are paying to see this film then you’re better off sticking to old school Will Ferrell impersonations on Saturday Night Live.
Stone lets W just be W and lets the character speak for himself rather than imposing the narrative on us. And for this he deserves credit. W. is played by a brilliant Josh Brolin. Boy how far he has come since his days in The Goonies playing Sean Astin’s big brother, Brand. Brolin is the reason we see Bush Jr differently at the end of the film because he humanizes W. The film is also complemented by supporting roles in James Cromwell who plays a rather sympathetic Bush Sr. and even Richard Dreyfuss who plays the calculated Dick Cheney.
The film is constructed in a way that compels us to constantly question what W is thinking in the Oval Office. Sequences of a younger W are juxtaposed with W as the President. With each sequence W grows older, Stone contrasts the lost, irresponsible W in his younger days with his Presidential stature…which surprisingly is something W finally takes seriously.
The film is not so much about politics as personal relationships. This includes family relationships, particularly of W and his father, and relationships within the President’s cabinet. It reveals that the path to the Presidency was not one W was willing to take from the get-go, but rather one which crept up on him and sunk him like quicksand.
One of the divisive elements of the film is Stone’s narrative technique. The film does not grab our hand and walk us through his life but rather forces us to make our own judgments on W. And so it goes without saying that some theater-goers need to have such judgments spoon-fed to them.
Watching the film is indeed a reflective experience for Americans who have lived nearly a decade under this man. A necessary criticism for the film is that from sequence to sequence the story does not develop and grow. It seems to remain stagnant. Now you can certainly parallel this with W.’s life…little growth, stagnation, and yet great power. And that’s where I see the power of this film coming from. It isn’t the most exciting film at times, but there is a constant strand of subtle brilliance in the consistent way sequences are juxtaposed.
To all of the haters who say Stone didn’t go far enough by not grilling W. let me pose one question: In the massive museum’s-worth of anti-Bush propaganda and farce, do you really want to watch another addition to the pop-culture section or an actual artifact of worthwhile study? In an era of so much disposable entertainment it’s nice to know that there is still art. Oliver Stone’s W. is arguably a work of art. And I don’t think it will be appreciated or seen this way until maybe a couple decades from now. And you know why? We know no other world except that which exists under the leadership of this man! Leave it to Oliver Stone to make a film about something that’s still affecting or resonating with people. And with W. which would’ve been more successful if released a couple years later, the people have yet to swallow the last 8 years and reflect about American life under his command.
Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.
