W. (2008)

Common wisdom suggests that hindsight is 20-20. But how soon is too soon to attempt hindsight? Director Oliver Stone takes on that question with W., a biopic about George W. Bush. Never before had a Hollywood film been made about a sitting U.S. President’s time in office.* Given all the flak Bush faced during his two terms in office, what with a controversial election and an unpopular war in Iraq, many wondered whether or not Stone was attempting to craft a serious biography or merely stoking the anti-Bush flames during a crucial election year. The answer surprised just about everyone.

W. never lingers too long in one era. The film begins in 1966, where Bush is being initiated into a fraternity at Yale University. We see glimpses of his young adult life, filled with arguments and issues with his accomplished father. Flash-forward to 1977, where Bush decides to enter the family game of politics. He loses his first bid for Congress but makes a name for himself by bringing in the most votes ever for a Republican in his Texas district. We jump ahead next to the 1980s. While jogging, Bush collapses and has a religious experience. He becomes a born-again Christian, helps his father during the 1988 presidential election and becomes part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

After laying all this foundation, the films jumps into more familiar territory. Bush runs for Governor of Texas, though against his parents’ wishes. This later propels him to running for President and two of his most defining moments: 9/11 and the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Stone devotes extra time to the meetings and counseling between Bush and his staff before making the call to invade Iraq. The film ends after Bush’s infamous ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech, leaving out any details of Bush’s second term in office.

Whatever you may think of it, W. is an interesting look at a controversial public figure. Uncompromising is the best word I can find to describe it but not in the way that you may be thinking. Oliver Stone is known for his very liberal political leanings, so many wondered if he was even capable of creating an accurate depiction of Bush’s life. While Stone does include a few of Bush’s less-flattering moments in W., he never piles it on. Those negative moments (binge drinking in college) are balanced with positive moments (meeting his future wife) and everything is shown from a neutral perspective. It seems like Stone was able to keep his personal opinions of the man out of the picture while nailing down pivotal life events that make Bush tick.

Josh Brolin may not look exactly like George W. Bush but he hits the accent, mannerisms and facial expressions quite well. His performance does walk a fine line between acting and imitating though, as Bush is played up to be more dim-witted and naïve than he is in real life. I can actually let this slide because Bush always carried himself in public as a regular guy and attempted to project a casual demeanor. That’s the Bush America knew from their TV screens from news coverage, sound bites and collections of his more amusing moments.

There’s more to Brolin’s Bush than what American’s know, however. Supposedly based on information gathered from sources close to the Bush family and administration (but notably not anyone with an actual firsthand account of the events depicted), we get to see the troubled side of Bush’s life. A rebellious young man, the eldest (but not the favorite) child in a large family, struggling to earn his father’s respect while being his own man; the long road to achievement and success; and the struggle to make the decision to invade Iraq. Seeing these events play out humanizes the man and you just might find some of your preconceived notions of him changed.

Elizabeth Banks does a fine job as Laura Welch Bush but several of the supporting players either don’t fit right or don’t get the job done. James Cromwell barely looks like George H. W. Bush and it seems like he never even tries to recreate elder Bush’s voice or mannerisms. On the flip side, Richard Dreyfuss has the look of Vice President Dick Cheney but completely overdoes it. It is clear that he relishes portraying a man that he hates (Dreyfuss is notoriously liberal) but his sneering, shifty performance is comical at best.

Then there are Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice and Toby Jones as Karl Rove. Newton appears to take the MadTV approach to her character (no, it’s not even good enough to suggest a poor Saturday Night Live act)- horribly stereotyped and totally off-character. Jones’ Karl Rove is a creepy Gollum-esque man who is constantly coming out of the shadows to whisper advice into Bush’s ear. You would think that these head-scratching hack jobs would derail the film completely but they only appear a few times (but enough to be memorably bad).

Again, I come back to the only way to describe this film- interesting. Some on the right will claim it goes too far to make Bush look bad. Some on the left will think it fails to go far enough. The rest of us will tilt our heads to the side and quietly wonder what exactly we just watched and whether we had any right to expect anything out of this film. It's only due to its uncompromising nature that I can put my finger on a rating and I'm not even sure if it's the right one, to be perfectly honest.

W. doesn’t make any advancements for film or acting but it makes a niche for itself in the biopic genre. It will be interesting to see if films about sitting Presidents become a trend or if Oliver Stone’s oddly-timed biopic will become little more than a footnote (or even an afterthought) of cinema history. I guess, as with what history’s assessment of George W. Bush’s presidency, only time will tell.

RATING: 3 out of 5

*Documentaries don't count and the only other film released about a sitting President was PT 109, which was about John F. Kennedy's time during World War II and not his time in office.