Loading ...
`Some presidents led their country to victory during war. Some presidents inspire reforms to better the lives of millions. Some presidents even take a stand against big business to prevent economic corruption. But, only one president has famously choked on a pretzel while watching a football game.
That renowned president was George W. Bush shortly after his 2000 election victory. This event along with many other biographical elements of his life is the target of this week’s controversial new release “W.”
Directed by Oliver Stone, who is no stranger to divisive filmmaking, W. chronicles the early life of George Bush in order to dissect the man in the White House and why he has made the decisions he did for the last eight years.
This film will disappoint many, because it is not a comedy that satirizes the bumbling president and his many mannerisms. It also does not reveal dramatic revelations about the corruption and scandals of his administration. Instead, it is a dramatic portrayal of the demons that haunted his early life and the quest to find redemption and success as an adult.
The interesting theme that the writers present in W. revolve around George’s relationship with his father and the constant need to earn his approval.
Daddy Bush is presented as an American hero: World War II veteran, wealthy businessman, successful commander in Chief, while George W. Bush was plagued by alcohol abuse, a poor work ethic, and low grades. Yet, they both become presidents and both encounter similar national issues that ultimately define their leadership abilities and legacies. Revealing this side of the Bush family aids the nation’s ability to dissolve the confusion on the decisions that President Bush has made while providing him as a human and not just a figure.
I really wanted to like this film, because I thought the attempt at linking his personal life with his politics was both interesting and rational. However, there are a lot of flaws that keep it from becoming worth the drive to the theater and the six dollars for a watered-down soda. The performances are all fantastic including Josh Brolin’s take on Bush, but they come off cartoony to make the audience amused. This direction would be great if the film was not a rich melodrama tackling emotional scenes and storylines.
Also, while the script has great content, it contains a noticeable amount of cheesy dialogue that is borderline Hallmark Channel.
In summary, this film produced stereotyped caricatures delivering emotional scenes written by the Hallmark Channel.
W. would have worked much better in ten years when the Bush legacy is more understood, his mannerisms forgotten, and his audience less polarized. At least four times during the film, a significant part of the audience yelled out political comments towards the George Bush on the screen.
Granted I watched the film in York, but I was shocked to find people actually believe that yelling at a projected fake representation of Bush would make a difference. Maybe they should have shared the same disgust when York overwhelmingly supported him in 2004.
My Grade: C+