Monday
Jul282008
Monday, July 28, 2008 at 1:20AM Deflating Trailer for Oliver Stone's 'W.'
One of the reasons Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't as good
as the bookends Michael Moore made around it (Bowling for Columbine and
SiCKO) is that there's very little constructive filmmaking involved in
making an ass out of George Bush. He does a good enough job of that as it is, so
using his own words against him - piling up a case of gaffes and blunders -
doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Fahrenheit 9/11 tried to be a
great film, but Moore so desperately wanted to show all that great George Bush
footage, and it's like a political conspiracy lesson with a blooper reel.
And when word got out that
Oliver Stone would make a Bush biopic while the
President was still in office, it was easy to believe that the fiercely liberal
and freely muckraking Stone would also point out what everybody already knows,
namely that George Bush has been in over his head for the past eight years, he
may be gloriously ignorant of his own executive ineptitude, and he has a vibrant
history, though not a terribly successful one.
Stone, though, told us all a few months back that
W. wouldn't be a polemic but rather a look
behind the curtain at who was really pulling the strings of the administration.
Stone assembled a great cast, with
Josh Brolin,
Elizabeth Banks,
James Cromwell,
Ellen Burstyn,
Jeffrey Wright,
Richard Dreyfuss,
Thandie Newton, and
Scott Glenn, and because Stone himself didn't
write the script, you're inclined to believe that maybe this will be a serious
look at a troubled, divisive leadership. After all, the director managed to keep
World Trade Center fairly evenhanded.
But then I saw the trailer at
Worst Previews, and what is W. pushing?
That Bush is kind of a screw-up, a former binge drinker who would wage wars with
his own father and somehow became the most powerful man in the world. I know
that Stone didn't edit the trailer - studios hire companies to do that stuff for
them - but I'm really dissatisfied with this one. Maybe there's more to it than
this, and maybe Stone's movie is 70% about how America slid off the rails under
this regime and 30% about partyin' and raisin' hell. But it sure doesn't look
like it.
What's to be gained by telling us that Bush wasn't fit
to be elected in the first place? How is that an editorial statement on anything
at this point? I'd much rather see the machine working (or in this case, failing
to work) than rehashing that not once but twice we elected an absolute boob. I
think I'd rather just watch
John Adams a dozen times instead. Let's
hope the trailer is just being salacious and the film is more serious in its
execution and thesis.
Reader Comments (8)
I don't know. I'm not a fan of the pres and never have been, but it looks like it might be a turnaround story. Rags to riches without the rags. It might actually be interesting. I'm not a Stone fan either, so maybe the two negatives will cancel each other out. Brolin's great, so at least the performance should be worth watching.
Trailers tend not to reflect their movies anymore so I wouldn't judge "W" by it. On the other hand, I would judge it by its director.
There Will Be Bias.
People always get disaffected with politicians the longer they remain in office. I am certain that George Bush will be judged more favourably in the history books than by the short sighted general public today.
Wars are never a good thing but in reality, a little evil may be necessary to prevent a greater evil. George Bush toppling Saddam Hussein is the same thing as if FDR hypothetically could have toppled a certain, infamous German leader before the outbreak of WW2.
Hopefully, someone will make a movie about that one day.
This is such a tired subject. If this is actually an unbiased, thoughtful biopic it may end up being a good movie. In this time when W's supporters are dwindling it would be intriguing to see a movie that goes against the grain and shows him in a different light. I have my doubts though.
I think the trailer looks great. Anyone who has seen Nixon or JFK knows Stone has a very pragmatic and thorough approach. He has a reputation for being liberal, with little substantiated evidence, other than small minded gossip. He is also one of the greatest filmmakers of our time. Funny how everyone wants to gang up on Oliver when ever he has his finger on another project, all that tells me is that people are afraid. Feel grateful, you can tell your grandparents you lived in the time of great filmmaking, nearing its end. By the way, W looks f***king awesome!
Anyone who has seen Nixon or JFK knows Stone has a very pragmatic and thorough approach.
--If by "thorough" you mean indulging in flat comedy and fantastic innuendo ("back, to the left!"), sure, he's a hard worker.
This movie will be fun inasmuch as it highlights all of Stone's wild-eyed preconceptions and conspiracies about people and topics he knows little about.
Vita Lusty clearly missed U-Turn, Any Given Sunday, and Alexander. Wish I could say the same for myself. Hard to imagine what I'm afraid of, exactly, other than another laboring bore like Nixon, which let's face it, wasn't terribly pragmatic.
On the other hand, JFK is a remarkable achievement, whether it's fact or fiction, and it's still one of the best-edited movies I've ever seen.
I am SO sick of the Bush bashing. He who has a "Squeaky clean" past please stand up. I recall the nation was behind OUR president on 9/12 when he
made his plan of action abundantly clear. Liberal cry babies and loudmouths live in the fantasy that he should of invited OUR enemy over for tea to discuss their differences. When those planes crashed into the Twin Towers THAT WAS AN ACT OF WAR. WAKE UP PEOPLE. He did the best he could with the intel he had. Remember, the President does not act alone. There are a series of checks and balances. We learned that in high school! President Clinton even admitted that the intel was there during his administration. I find it funny that the biggest critics choose to stay in the US. You'd figure that if the country is going down the toilet ...
Bottom line,like him or not, Bush is our President, our leader. He deserves our respect. If these critics think they could POSSIBLY do a better job then it's time to step up or SHUT UP.
I'm not a fan of Oliver Stone. If I see this movie, it will be for SCOTT GLENN. I don't know where Mr.Glenn stands politically, nor do I care. I just admire his talent.
Colin Boyd should know I did see Alexander, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday . . . and though they aren't my favorite Stone movies, they are still top tier movies. If you want to get your whiteys in a bundle, you should really take aim at the films that remain popular and yet are a complete assault on our intelligence. Just close your eyes and drop your finger in the Now Showing section of your newspaper.
No one can make an astounding film every single time, not Spielberg, not Woody Allen and not Judd Apatow. SO RELAX!
And Jane Q Public, George W's "squeaky clean past" . . . I'm sorry, are you ****ing kidding me?