W

Oliver Stone has given us his account of the life of the outgoing president, George Bush. Stone's past biopics have met with great criticism for their lack of historical accuracy. Ray Manzerak and Morrisson's wife have complained bitterly about the innacuracies of Stone's Doors film. In the case of 'W', Jeb Bush has remarked that Stone's depiction of the family scenes are 'high grade, unadulterated hooey'. He complains that no member of the Bush family was contacted. Is Jeb Bush right to be angry? Strangely, in the case of 'W' I don't think it actually matters. In depicting the Bush adminsitration as a farce, Stone has taken those famous lines from W and Rumsfeld, in particular, out of the media, and put them in policy meetings. This choice leads us to conclude that this film is purely an impression of events. Fair enough. However, this approach is not followed consistently through the film. When Bush is speaking to congress about the need to got to war in Iraq, Stone presents us with actual archive footage of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and John McCain applauding him. But, isn't this supposed to be Stone's impression of events? More damaging for Stone's vision is the depiction of Bush as public speaker. Given that Stone, and screenwriter Stanley Weiser, have chosen to place those infamous 'Bushisms' into dialogue at policy confrences, why did they go to the effort of recreating almost exactly Bush's speech aboard the aircraft carrier. The resemblance to the broadcast footage is impressive. But it seems out of step with the rest of the film, where Bush's ridiculous public addresses are either repackaged and relocated to the conference room, except until the end.
So, what was the artistic point in relocating the confusing soundbites of the Bush adminsitration's public appearances? It seems that Stone wanted to depict the policy decision making process as a total farce. The aim was for laughs,the inclusion of the 'Robin Hood' theme song probably had Stone and editor Julie Monroe giggling in the editing suite. The scene where Rumsfeld is drawing a sketch of Rice as an ass kisser is probably funny to American audiences. The meetings are farcical, and so the relocating of those verbal clangers is a success, but the results are not so much funny as they are disturbing.
The choice of Josh Brolin casts doubt over the production. Brolin sounded like a strange choice from the start. He doesn't remind you of Bush. That trademark vacancy in the facial expression is painfully absent. He doesn't have the stature of Bush either. He is dwarfed by James Cromwell, but this is not the case when the two Bush presidents stand side by side.The casting is generally poor. Scott Glenn is not at all Rumsfeld. Jeffrey Wright really struggles in his attempt to be Colin Powell. James Cromwell is very off form as George senior. He doesn't at all capture the self assurance of the man who ran a secret government in the eighties. Thandie Newton stands out as a success for the casting director. But it doesn't make up for the other failures. The production team came up short on this one.
W is a strange film. Nothing feels real about it.The end sequecce takes place in the abstract world of W in the baseball field, which is a recurring motif in the film. We are witnessing the the final 'play' of the story. He is a fielder, looking for the flight of the ball. He is befuddled and bemused, as the ball disappears from view. We can share the character's confusion.