By Kim Voynar Voynar@moviecitynews.com
What's the Point of W?
Went to the screening of W last night, and I feel kinda “meh” about the film. Brolin does a nice enough Dubya impersonation, there’s nothing wrong with any of the acting, per se, but I walked away from it wondering what exactly Stone’s point was in making the film. There was a lot of grumbling amongst the Seattle crowd as folks were filing out of the theater about the film; it seemed a lot of folks came expecting to see an SNL-ish lampooning of Dubya, and while the film does have those moments (the best of which come straight out of the horse’s mouth, so to speak, as part of the massive public record of Dubya’s gaffs), its intent isn’t to satirize, or mock, I don’t think, so much as it is to explore the whys and wherefores of the political ambitions of a man whose driving ambition in earlier life seemed to not be much beyond living off Poppy’s money and drinking a lot.
Stone does delve into the father-son relationship between Bush Sr and Bush (just don’t call me Junior) Jr, and his rivalry with younger brother Jeb. Stone beats the “you’re a disappointment to me, son” drum rather heavily, and maybe Dubya’s relationship with dad really is the driving force behind his presidency. I mean, I’d honestly never considered that Bush Sr might be pissed about Dubya running for governor of Texas at the same time Jeb ran for governor of Florida, because it was taking the limelight from Jeb. Nor did I consider, really, that Bush might be upset about Dubya running for (and winning) the presidency, not because he didn’t want his son to surpass him, but because he didn’t want the disappointing brother to usurp the younger brother who he considered to have more promise.
Stone shows Bush largely as a puppet controlled by Rove and Cheney, but also as a man driven by his own ambition to one-up the old man, and I suppose you could argue that he didn’t really need to show what happened after Iraq because we all know what’s happened after Iraq. I just left the film feeling uncertain as to what exactly Stone was trying to say about this president. It’s not edgy enough to be a real critique of Iraq, not in the sense that No End in Sight was a critique of Iraq; it’s not enough of a skewering to satisfy the liberals who loathe Bush, nor illuminating enough in a positive way to satisfy the conservatives who still support him. What exactly was Stone’s point in making the film? I’m not sure I know.
I think I came away with a more positive impression of the film than you did, but I also had to ask “what’s the point?” in my review as well. The timing is bad and it just doesn’t seem relevant, thematically or historically.
I think this whole movie was less about communicating a “take” on Bush than it was about just remembering and– maaaybe, hopefully, kind of– eulogizing him and what he represents.
For me, I found it immensely valuable to be reminded of three things, specifically– First, this man is not a monster. Second, he was born into a position where even minor coincidences and associations were enough to coast him into the presidency. And third, this shit needs to change.
Oliver Stone’s idea here– idea, rather than agenda– is to create a strange, no-perspective-necessary pop product that looks to just take the measure of where we are with regards to the presidency right now. This movie has no shelf life, nor do I think it’s intended to (other than as a cool time capsule for those of us who lived through it). To me, this is just a story of a man we might like, a man easily understood (even if the father/son issue isn’t totally true, it works just fine as a generally humanizing device, which is the only real point), who should have never been elected president.
It’s almost Brechtian, this movie. “This is how it is, everybody, so… what do we do about it?”
So on those levels, and in the fascinating balance and conflict between parody, imitation and inhabitation of the performances, I thought the movie had tremendous relevance and interest.
It’s true, it isn’t like other movies, and it isn’t what most people were expecting… but it certainly made me think a lot, largely about how I’d felt about George W. Bush over these eight years, and I believe that if people are willing to engage with it similarly they could find themselves very stirred and sort of weirdly inspired. On the dawn of Sarah Palin’s apparent rise to future stardom, I certainly hope this country doesn’t make this same mistake.
But I don’t know. Do people bother bringing that much of themselves to movies anymore? Or did they ever? Based on all the “shrug” reviews and responses, my guess is they probably don’t.