Oliver Stone’s eagerly awaited biopic, W., based on the life of the outgoing U.S. President, does not disappoint. It is also a surprising effort from the director responsible
for such politically controversial
films as Nixon and JFK, as although W. is seeped in American politics by its very nature, Stone chooses to focus on the human
side rather than the political.
| Title | W. | II.1 |
| Director | Oliver Stone | |
| Starring | Josh Brolin, Thandie Newton, James Cromwell | |
| Running Time | 129 minutes |
Oliver Stone’s eagerly awaited biopic, W., based on the life of the outgoing U.S. President, does not disappoint. It is also a surprising effort from the director responsible
for such politically controversial
films as Nixon and JFK, as although W. is seeped in American politics by its very nature, Stone chooses to focus on the human
side rather than the political. In doing so he gives us a refreshing and previously unseen insight into the world’s most powerful
individual, and in turn enlightens our understanding of the man widely held responsible for America’s perilous actions in recent history.
Throughout the film, Stone sets up a series of juxtapositions which help to explain
how and why Bush came to the Presidency.
At the beginning of the film we see Bush down on his knees, hands tied behind
his back, choking and spluttering as he’s being inundated with alcohol by a ring of heckling men — all part of a fraternity initiation test. The scene not only sets up a context for Bush’s hard partying youth and long battle with alcoholism, but also has a more resounding effect — implicitly evoking
those methods of torture condoned by his future administration. Stone successfully
flicks back and forth throughout the years to show the specific events that shaped Bush into the man, and the President,
he would become.
We see Bush as a young student at Yale, living a privileged life of revelry. His father bails him out on numerous occasions, taking time out of his busy schedule as a world leader to deal with his wayward son. Throughout these scenes, Stone gives us a privileged insight into their fractious father-son relationship, the crux for the entire film. Living in the shadow of his father, Bush tries desperately to forge his own identity, an attempt that leads him to a life-long competition with his elder brother, which will eventually force him into politics. But the more he struggles to live up to the family name, the further he slides down the slippery path of failure, dramatically demonstrated when a resentful
Bush, drunk on whiskey, jealously accuses his father of being, “Mr. Perfect, Mr. War hero, Mr. God Almighty.”
Arguably, Stone places too much emphasis
on their Oedipal relationship, using
this, and also a rather awkward dream sequence, to show how Bush lives in a perpetual
state of self-doubt. However, what Stone does do brilliantly is demonstrate how this drove him to the highest political office in the country.
Once in office we watch Bush’s political career develop and grow, carefully handled by his infamous administration. Some excellent
casting results in Richard Dreyfuss playing Dick Cheney, Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice and Scott Glenn as a rather sinister Donald Rumsfeld; not to mention the star of the show, Josh Brolin, who masters Bush’s mannerisms and facial
expressions without ever overdoing it. Inevitably there are problems of realsim when making a film about living public figures, but what the actors manage to do is express personalities through gestures without making themselves ever seem like parodies.
Stone presents the Bush administration
as a force not to be reckoned with, and Bush a mere mouthpiece for their political endeavours. He’s depicted as a puppet figure,
controlled from behind the scenes by Karl Rove, who teaches him what to say and how to say it. This is beautifully illustrated
in a scene in which we watch Bush preparing for a press conference whereby he parrots Rove word for word in order to try to remember his main policies, but as soon as he’s questioned by a journalist he panics, forgets his lines, says something stupid, blinks blankly into camera and then is stumped into silence.
Stone also peppers a number of “Bushisms”
throughout the script, and includes a whole scene dedicated to Bush famously choking on a pretzel. Yet although Stone satirically presents him as the fool, he is also a tragic figure, one that the audience can’t help but empathise with. And this is perhaps what makes Stone’s film so controversial.
In the film’s presentation of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Bush is presented almost as a submissive figure. At one point he says, “my dream is to see peace break out through the middle east”, while his administration are greedily discussing the rewards they’ll reap from Iraq’s oil reserves.
Within the film’s context, Bush appears to escape any real condemnation, which certainly creates a point of moral contention.
Naturally the crucial line between fiction
and truth is going to become blurred, but in this case, given the terrible consequences,
it seems W. is altogether too forgiving to its central character. This is exactly what that makes Stone’s film surpass
all initial expectations, however, as it isn’t simply another criticism of Bush and his disastrous invasion of Iraq.
Stone successfully manages to create a film that is both entertaining and insightful
into contemporary American politics. With a new President soon to be taking office,
let’s just hope his biopic will be a story of success rather than failure.
