22 November 2008

W. - dir. Oliver Stone

Last night, a group of us went to see Oliver Stone's latest film, W. This, as is well known, is his biography of George W. Bush. Also well known is that the 'W' is pronounced not 'double - u' but 'dubya' according to the Texan accent. Despite that, when we went to buy our tickets, I still asked for one to see 'double u' and only just managed to spit out 'dubya' in case the ticket man had confused W. with another similarly titled but differently pronounced film. Hmm. As for the other guys, including L., they made no cultural compromise and simply asked for tickets for double u. Take that, American cultural imperialism!

Anyway, the night before, L. and I had been at the same cinema to see Quantum of Solace. The adverts, as at the first screening, went on interminably. We knew that the adverts preceding W. would not be quite so many, but entering the auditorium at 6:10 (with the programme having been advertised to start at 5:50), we reckoned we would be Just In Time for the start. Not quite. As we walked in, Colin Powell (brilliantly played by Jeffrey Wright - Felix Leiter in Q of S) was talking about a possible invasion of Iraq. Perhaps not so surprisingly, W. had not really appealed to advertisers.

As I understand it, Oliver Stone is a leftie, although what that term means in America, I am not so sure. Fr Longenecker believes that Barack Obama is a socialist (see here) but so is Tony Benn and I am pretty sure that Mr Obama and Mr Benn do not share anything like the same political outlook. If President Obama starts nationalising various industries and taxing the rich heavily then I will change my mind.

Anyway, what I meant to say was that Oliver Stone is a leftie. Despite that, he has portrayed Bush in a very positive light. The film is all the more generous because there is no attempt to hide George W. Bush's flaws, both serious and frivolous; so, for example, in the flashbacks that dominate the film (the 'present time' of which is the lead up to the Iraq war), we see his heavy drinking and failure to settle in any job. And as president, we get to revisit several of the humorous malapropisms for which Bush is famous.

What defines the generosity of the film, however, is the fact that it portrays Bush as being well intentioned in his decision to go to war against Saddam Hussain. There is no hint at all, for example, that he did it for oil. Members of Bush's administration are treated in a less favourable light. The Iraq war for Vice President Dick Cheney (really excellently played by Richard Dreyfuss) is all about oil and American control of it.

George W. Bush is played by Josh Brolin. Just as Robert Downey Jr really made Chaplin with his portrayal of the comedy genius, so Brolin does here. He has the accent and mannerisms down to a tee. That said, he is helped very well by the support cast. Scott Glenn is an appropriately aggressive Donald Rumsfield while Thandie Newton - as with Drefuss with Cheney - just becomes Condoleeza Rice. Unfortunately, I haven't heard Miss Rice speak often enough to know if Newton acts the part well, but the similarity of look is uncanny. One character often in the background is Karl Rove. I know that he was Bush's agent and has a reputation for skullduggery but beyond that, I don't even know what he looks like. Toby Jones plays him in an understated, obedient way that doesn't really accord with this image, though.

Brolin's Bush is tormented by his relationship with his father. Jeb Bush, his younger brother, is regarded as the clever one who will go places. Even when George W. becomes Governor of Texas, George Sr will not speak to him face-to-face. He fails to realise, though, that this is not because his father dislikes him, but it is not in his way to do so. Very English, really. When the search for weapons of mass destruction starts to go awry (or rather, when it becomes clear that there are none), George W. has a nightmare in which he is chastised by his father for his failure. Although W. focuses on George Jr, writer Stanley Weiser's eye is not taken off George Sr. He is a little distant and patrician but still a loving father who wants only the best for his son and is still willing to help him despite the many mistakes that junior makes.

It is fashionable these days to make fun of George W. Bush for his malapropisms, the fact that he 'cheated' his way to the presidency in 2000 (liberals and leftwingers tend not to remember that so did John F. Kennedy in 1960, courtesy of his father and the Chigaco mob - maybe it is something about elections carried out in a year ending in 0) and the Iraq war, although the lack of daily coverage that it receives these days indicates that it is under control. But it is far too early to make a statement about where Bush's presidency stands in the annals of American politics or world history. He is, after all, still in office. If anything, this is the ultimate failure of W. Although it gives a convincing account of Bush's White House in the lead up to and aftermath of the Iraq war, there must be much that is still secret that will colour or change our understanding of those heady days in 2003. W., then, as well written and acted as it it, may in due course become obsolete as we learn more in the years to come about what really happened.

2 have commented:

Paulinus said...

There's an interesting article in this week's Speccie by Rod Liddle about the film. You can get it free online if you don't normally read the Speccie

www.spectator.co.uk

the dĂșnadan said...

Thank you for that. A very fair article. Heaven forbid that a liberal or leftwinger ever seeks to understand Bush. He find himself respecting even if disagreeing with him.