Wesley's W. Review

*Note: I am pretty apathetic when it comes to politics so please know that I have no agenda against George W. Bush nor do I have a great deal of support for him. Also, I am aware of the fact that Oliver Stone takes artistic license with his films that deal with history and only view them as entertaining, artistic forms of historical events, not fact*

When going into Oliver Stone’s W., I wasn’t really sure what expect. Despite director Stone’s very liberal mindset and all the advertisements for the film making it appear that its sole purpose was to make fun of Bush, I began to read reviews for the film that stated that it was very sympathetic to the much-hated president. It turns out that those reviews were pretty on the dot. Although the film is advertised almost as a comedy about the Bush presidency, the film itself, while containing a couple of humorous moments, really makes you feel bad for the guy. I was surprised but satisfied that this was the route Stone decided to go down.

The film starts with Bush and his cabinet in the Oval Office as they are beginning to think about invading Iraq. As this is occurring, Bush has been day-dreaming about standing in the middle of an empty baseball field, holding his arms up to millions of cheers from people that are not there. This is a fantasy that will appear throughout the film, eventually book ending it in a rather ambiguous and slightly haunting way. The sequence in the Oval Office is rather humorous as the cabinet basically has a big discussion on what to call the threat in the Middle East. Eventually, they decide on the “Axis of Evil.”  This scene comes to an end with Bush insisting on everyone pray before jumping back in time to his Yale college days. Here, Bush is in the middle of hazing for a fraternity as he sits in a big bucket of ice water, having alcohol poured down his throat. The film continuously jumps back and forth in time, showing Bush’s rise from a rather troubled and alcohol-fueled youth to the start of his presidency while intercutting with the events in 2003 that lead to the Iraq War. As you can see from my description of the first scene, this allows for some rather ironic transitions but also makes for some interesting story telling as well.

For me, the strongest thing about the film (and seemingly, the point of it) is the troubled relationship between George H.W. Bush and W. Some critics have passed this section off as "Texas melodrama" but I have to strongly disagree. This was the heart of the film. From the very beginning, it is obvious that Bush Senior looks down upon W., preferring his brother Jeb. This constant disappointment seems to boil inside of Bush, haunting him in every aspect of his life. This storyline is made stronger by the performances by Josh Brolin and James Cromwell. Cromwell doesn’t really act like H.W. Bush but he manages to make the relationship with his son seem very authentic and gives some great emotional moments. Brolin, whose performance has been declared Oscar worthy by many, really steals the show. He manages to make Bush feel real to the point that you feel like you know him and, honestly, really feel bad for him. He just seems like he just can’t really pull anything off, no matter how hard he tries or whether or not he had good intentions to begin with.

There were a lot of things that I felt worked well in the film. I enjoyed the story structure and felt like a lot of the scenes from Bush’s life as a twenty-something worked really well. I really bought the relationship that they built between he and Laura (played quite well by Elizabeth Banks, who I am now in love with). A lot of the scenes set in 2003 worked quite well too. The scene in the boardroom where the cabinet basically decides to go to war was also particularly effective and, well, scary. Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney is very effective in this scene. His line about building an empire to the point where “no one will ever f*ck with us again” has stayed with me throughout the night. The scenes that really stood out, however, were when Oliver Stone started being Oliver Stone. I really liked the aforementioned scenes in the fantasy baseball field (especially the last one at the very end of the film). Another scene that was particularly powerful was when Bush goes for a post-hangover run one morning, collapses and has a religious awakening. The way Stone films the sequence is very surreal, intimate, kind of scary and quite beautiful. I like that he gave so much detail to this scene because it was the moment that caused him to stop drinking and become a born again Christian. There is also a dream sequence towards the end of the film where Bush imagines his father invading the Oval Office to pick a fight with him that I thought worked quite well.

This seems to be one of the problems with the film as well- it’s just not Oliver Stone-like enough. It’s a pretty restrained and well-made film but it lacks the edge and insanity that a lot Stone’s previous films contain. Stone is the one director that can manipulate the medium of film in ways that most directors wouldn’t dare in order to achieve a feeling or reaction. His choice of editing in JFK and Nixon was groundbreaking in many ways. I know that these kinds of things are the reason why a lot of people do not like Stone but, when you’re watching one of his movies, it is kind of what you are expecting to see. Sadly, he kept these kinds of things to minimum. While I liked the film as it was and I thought it was a mature move on his part, there were times when I found myself craving some of his more unorthodox and controversial methods.

Another problem I had with the film was that it just felt very unfinished. By making the decision to make it so soon, Stone obviously eludes himself the gift of hindsight and an ending to Bush’s term. While I did really think that the ending set in the baseball field fantasy was particularly effective, it would have been good to get more from Bush’s second term. That’s another thing- other than the Iraq War, the film does not focus on any other events from Bush’s presidency. The controversy surrounding his initial election, 9/11, Katrina, the capture of Saddam Hussein, his re-election and many other events are left out. The film just stops in 2004. I guess it would have been too much and would have made the film way too bloated but I was kind of looking forward to seeing the Bush perspective on these things.

I did have some other minor complaints with the film. One thing was the acting was very diverse. While Stone definitely got a great cast together and they all did a great job, not everyone decided to do their best to imitate the person they were playing. As a result, it feels very disjointed to see Brolin doing a perfect Bush talking to Scott Glen playing Scott Glen as Rumsfield. While Drefuss, Brolin, Newton, and Wright all do their best to capture the mannerisms and personality of their characters, people like Glen, Jones and Cromwell don’t really even attempt to. It didn’t bother me a lot but, at times it was weird. Another complaint would have to be that, while I was very entertained by the film, there were times were I felt it was lagging a little. I didn’t start to feel this until towards the end but, to be honest, it wasn’t for very long.

In the end, I’m not sure how factual this film is. Oliver Stone has always been known for taking a lot of artistic license with history so, for all I know, this entire movie could be complete nonsense. However, when you just look at it as a piece of entertainment, it’s pretty enjoyable to watch. The film is well crafted, has some great acting (especially in the case of Brolin), some very humorous moments, and surprisingly creates a lot of empathy for George W. Bush. The film is far from perfect mostly due to being made so soon and without the gift of hindsight but it’s nowhere near the disaster that it probably should be. Give it a shot.

7/10