Movie Review: "W."

Originally published in the 10/19/08 edition of the Advisor/Source Newspapers.

Movie Doesn't Misunderestimate W.

By Chris Williams

“Rarely is the question asked 'Is our children learning?’”-President George W. Bush
Love him or hate him, he’s always interesting.

I could, of course, be talking about President George W. Bush, the 43rd Commander In Chief of the United States of America. Possibly the most polarizing president in current history, Bush came to office following a controversial 2000 election and, in the days after the 9/11 terror attacks, saw his approval rating soar as high as 80 percent. These days, as the war in Iraq continues to rage and the economy suffers its greatest challenge since the Great Depression, his approval rating is less than 30 percent.

I could also be talking about Oliver Stone, who has been Hollywood’s most controversial director since the 1980s, when he won Best Director for his Vietnam masterpiece “Platoon.” Stone has notoriously ruffled feathers with his flashy, hyper-realized commentaries on war, politics, conspiracies and America. He has directed the masterpieces “Wall Street,” “JFK,” “Talk Radio” and “Natural Born Killers,” and also had his share of disasters, including the abysmal “Alexander.”

The ultra-conservative Bush and left-wing Stone meet in “W.,” possibly the first biopic of a sitting U.S. President. As the final days of Bush’s administration loom, Stone examines how a C-average frat boy from an American dynasty wound up following in his father’s footsteps and continuing a war he was angered was never properly finished.

And for those who think that Stone will deliver a liberal smear campaign with nothing more than “Saturday Night Live”-quality shtick and “Fahrenheit 9/11” cheap shots, prepare to be surprised, as Stone delivers a thoughtful and even-handed look at a man who is fascinating and likable but possibly in way over his head.

Josh Brolin, so solid in “No Country for Old Men,” returns to Texas as Bush, who we first see in session in the White House coining the phrase “Axis of Evil” with cronies Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss), Karl Rove (Toby Jones), Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) and Condoleezza Rice (Thandie Newton). We then flash back to see him as a college party boy and functioning alcoholic in Texas, helped out by his father George H.W. Bush (James Cromwell) who voices his disappointment in his son’s lack of direction. We see him fail at a career as an oil man, fume as his father grooms brother Jeb for political success and fall in love with future wife, Laura (Elizabeth Banks).

Brolin, stepson of famously outspoken liberal Barbara Streisand, would not seem to be the first choice to step into the W’s shoes. His politics are not in line with the Republican and his looks are tougher than the President’s. Yet the actor will likely land a deserved Academy Award nomination for his work here, in which he inhabits Bush’s folksy Texas dialect, his cowboy charm and swagger, and the stubborn streak that has defined the majority of his career.

Many would expect this role to be a joke, and indeed I expected Brolin and Stone to turn Bush into a caricature. Yet Brolin creates a true character and performance here, empathizing with the future President as he tries to earn his father’s love, searches for direction and then finds religion. Brolin’s Bush may be a poor speaker, as is referenced in several real-life gaffes, but he’s also ambitious, likable and a strong fighter. The question Stone’s asking here is not “How dumb is Bush,” which would be a cheap and unfair shot, but “How did an average student and party boy claim the world’s highest office?” It’s a fair question and, watching the film, we sense that Stone may actually like Bush the person, even if he feels that his family ties, daddy issues and obstinate streak ultimately put a man in office who had neither the depth nor patience for the job. Those who think Bush is a monster may be disappointed to leave the film, since Stone doesn’t eviscerate him onscreen.

Stone began holding back his visual pyrotechnics with 2005’s “World Trade Center” and he continues to rein in his style here. There are no quick cuts or stylish editing on display, and the tone of the film has less to do with the angry polemic of “JFK” and more in common with the thoughtful tone of “Nixon,” albeit with more humor. “W.” is at times a dark comedy, but often its humor is derived simply from watching Bush interact in the political realm; at times it’s the ultimate fish-out-of-water tale, and one wonders if we’d admire the man if he had stayed out of politics and stayed in baseball, where his true passions lied.

There’s a surreal feeling in watching current events played out on the big screen and sometimes “W.” seems to hiccup as we watch news of the last few years come to life. I suspect that phrases like “The Decider” and “misunderestimated,” as well as the infamous pretzel-choking incident will play more natural as more distance exists between the film and the real events; it’s not a fault of the movie if it sometimes seems to jolt us out of the story, rather it’s the oddity of seeing current events played out on a screen where we normally see entertainment.

Just as Bush’s cabinet and advisors have had tremendous impact, for better or for worse, on his presidency, the cast of characters surrounding Brolin ultimately elevates the film into something better than an average biopic. Cheney and Rove come off as the real bad guys in the administration, manipulating the President for their own agenda, while Powell provided the voice of reason. Dreyfuss, Jones and Wright could all be looking at Supporting Actor nods come Oscar time, as could Cromwell, who looks and sounds nothing like the elder Bush but provides a strong emotional core to the film. Banks is fine but underutilized as Laura Bush and Newton affects Rice’s mannerisms perfectly but oftentimes seems to be going more for shtick than character, which jabs at the film’s tone.

The question will be asked whether or not it is prudent to release a film about a president currently in office. Ethically and politically, I think that a sitting president, especially one who has been at the helm in such a fragile time as this, is fair game for a film. Artistically, however, I feel that current politics and concerns may prohibit some from enjoying the film on its own merits. People will avoid it or go into it based on their own agendas, looking for or speaking out against what they perceive to be a political attack. This is a shame since “W.” is more about a man than his agendas and even those who despise Bush’s presidency may find themselves fascinated by his story.

I suspect that in 20 years “W.” will be revisited and hailed as one of the great portraits of a president. It’s a “warts-and-all” biography, no more scathing than “Ray” or “Walk the Line,” and delivered with more skill, energy and even heart than those projects. For a director like Stone to deliver a film so even-handed and uncontroversial, conducted with so much empathy is commendable. “W.” is one of the year’s best films. Grade: A-

Chris Williams is a Source Staff writer and member of the Detroit Film Critics’ Society. He can be reached at Chris.Williams@advisorsource.com