Film Review: W.
In the run-up to what was already being touted as the most significant presidential election in years before the recent global financial upheavals that have added so many extra concerns to the race, it is perhaps unsurprising that Hollywood has tried to cash in on the massive political interest that has surrounded the vote. What is surprising is that the only major film of the election season is a biopic of the outgoing president, rather than a more general political piece looking at the state of the union. Whatās even more surprising is that the mastermind behind this George W Bush movie is Oliver Stone.
Long one of Americaās most controversial and political filmmakers ā be it via his devastating critique of Reagan-era policy in Latin America in 1986ās under-watched Salvador or his brutal exploration, based on first-hand knowledge, of the Vietnam War in the same yearās masterpiece Platoon, or even his conspiracy theory-heavy look at the Kennedy assassination in 1992ās JFK ā Stone has been out of favour in recent years. In part this is thanks to him being perceived as a left-wing, almost anti-American filmmaker in a period in which the right and patriotism have dominated American political life ā but mostly it is thanks to his having not really made any good films for more than a decade.
Stoneās last effort, 2006ās World Trade Centre, on paper seemed like ideal material for
this maverick critic of a succession of Republican US regimes, yet ended up a saccharine exploration of American decency rather than the attack on the Bush adminstrationās failures over the 9/11 attacks that many hoped for. Before that, 2004ās Alexander was a shoddy piece of confusing camp rather than the epic biopic of one of historyās foremost military/political leaders we had been led to expect, while 1999ās American football flick Any Given Sunday was fine, but could have been made by anyone, and 1997ās U-Turn was simply a mess.
Even ignoring his last few efforts, there have been significant worries about this film. Not only is Stone utterly unsympathetic to the Republican Party to which Bush belongs, but whatās up with the casting? Heās cast the ruggedly handsome Josh Brolin as Bush for starters, with the tall and lanky James Cromwell as Bush Snr ā neither of whom look anything like the people theyāre playing. Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice may just be acceptable, but Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair?
But hark back to 1995ās Nixon, and you can begin to see how this film could just work.
Stone, despite having fought in Vietnam and gone on to become one of the US leftās most prominent exponents, somehow managed to produce a surprisingly balanced film in which this mush-reviled right-wing, pro-war president (note the similarities with Bush) came across as both deeply out of touch and surprisingly sympathetic. In which the president himself was played ā without makeup ā by a Welshman who looked nothing like him. And yet this remains one of the finest political movies ever made.
Will W be able to repeat this unexpected success? With everyone so focussed on real-world American politics, itās hard to say. But Stone has always been at his best when focussing on real politics and real history. At the very least, W will be an interesting contribution to an analysis of George W Bushās confusing presidency that is certain to continue for decades.
