Tuesday
19Aug2008
Surprise: New 'W.' Posters Still Playing the Idiot Card
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 2:03PM
I don't remember if it was in an e-mail or in a comment
attached to a previous article about the subject, but someone made the point to
me that the ad campaign for
W. is more in line with the short-lived Comedy
Central show
That's My Bush than a serious fact-finding
mission by an Oscar-winning director. I'm increasingly inclined to agree.
There are two new posters, which we discovered at
Worst Previews, that once again go for the
obvious Bush-bashing punchline. I never voted for the guy, thought the Iraq
invasion was a terrible, unlawful mistake five years ago, consider him the worst
President since his distant relative Franklin Pierce, and I certainly am not
trying to deflect criticism away from our absolutely inept leader. But I've been
saying this about W. and
Oliver Stone ever since we saw the first
trailer: It's easy to make fun of George Bush, and I don't need your movie for
that. I can just watch The Daily Show.
While there's nothing unfair about using a man's own
words against him - as these posters do with "misunderestimate" - shouldn't the
movie strive to be more than what looks like Inspector Clouseau in a president's
clothing? I have yet to see a poster or a trailer that isn't just picking on
Bush's obvious shortcomings. At this rate, those groups boycotting Tropic
Thunder are going to have a busy couple of months.
Anyway, I just feel that there are more serious issues
the movie could examine. And maybe it will. If it is more weighty and
introspective, then the posters are incredibly misleading. If the posters are
accurate to the tone and scope of the film, though, it is Stone who is
misleading.
Colin Boyd | Permalink | in Elizabeth Banks, Josh Brolin, Oliver Stone, Posters, W | Print Article | Email Article | 18 Comments | Share Article
Reader Comments (18)
The genius of this all is that Ollie and his marketing crew are playing to the lowest common denominator, which could actually bring MORE people into the theater than it drives away...
Of course it could all be an amazing smokescreen. I'd hate to think Brolin would cash in on his amazing year with what this "appears" to be.
(by the way, "The Chicago Seven" Should be opening between now and October 17, as well)...
Why is it still getting made?
It could be a smokescreen, but why? Wouldn't you play up a serious, award-worthy movie for what it is rather than casting it as a comedy it won't be? If it's a smokescreen, I'm very confused by the strategery.
To be more fair, not as unlawful as you think because of the fact Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions since the gulf war. The corruption in the UN was found because of the Iraq War, millions of dollars were going to Saddam and not for food(look up oil for food scandal), but the media never talks about the good that has come with the War. The war is over, and its just terrorist and pissed off people fighting amongst themselves.
Congress is as much to blame as Bush. Just trying to be fair and balanced. I do not think Bush is the greatest president but I give him credit for trying because I could not imagine doing what Presidents have to do on a daily basis knowing that people are not going to like what you do.
Its nice to see someone that hates Bush so much still give him credit for being a president though.
I would enjoy the posters more if they didn't contradict the supposed direction of the movie. That being said, I don't mind them in their own right.
brandon,
i'll just cover one detail in your rant. if "the war is over", as you say, i'm sure you won't object to all of our troops coming home tomorrow.
i'm sure when the democrats win as big as they will in november, it'll be the media's fault. it won't, by any means, be the fault of lock-step voting, republican members of congress who supported bush's failed policies at every turn - until 2006 when they lost their majority. that'll be the media's fault. it won't, at all, be the fault of politicians who only decided to start to listen to the americans they represent when their own political survival [their jobs] was at stake.
that'll be the media's fault, too.
btw, oliver stone last made an "oscar-worthy" movie when?
The script is actually pretty sympathetic to Bush, but it's probably easier to sell the film as an outright comedy. Yes, the wild partying and boozing of Bush's youth is shown, but it's contrasted with his decision to pursue, more or less successfully, a career in politics. The script is very serious in that respect. Like Nixon, the script suggests that Bush is not evil and stupid, just flawed.
I apologize if it seemed like a rant, just seems that people tend to forget facts or ignore them if something rubs them the wrong way. I do not know what point you are getting at with the media, nothing is their fualt. I blame viewers for not making an effort to balance their sources. I read CNN and liberal press material a lot even though I am republican just to be more open minded about things.
Troops are still in South Korea but nobody cares, why aren't we asking to bring them home?
The genocide in Iraq from the insurgency to the suicide bombers needs to be stopped, it is the by product of the war that the U.S. started. To leave such a place in the state it is in would be unjust and unfair to those that live there.
If the movie is like that Mky, it might be interesting but I do not understand why they are advertising it the way they are. Maybe because they are afraid that people will not go see the film if positive towards Bush. I have no clue, but am curious as all.
It's difficult to talk about the film before anyone has seen it.
IF we talk about Bush and the sort of film that should be made about him, then it's obvious that the White House years are what matters, not youthful drunken escapades.
Bush is the prime example of a President who will be rated more highly in a few decades than he is today.
The problem of international terrorism could not be ignored and when did we last see anyone brave enough to tackle it on a world-wide scale? Never. There are no historical precedents for this President.
Iraq was a loose cannnon that needed fettering and Bush did it. Despite any trouble he might have had spellning certain words, which is completely irrelevant.
The Nixon parallel was good. It's almost as the office of President has become too big for any mortal man to fulfil.
Bush bashing is all about political agendas. It just so happens that pretty much everyone in the film industry is liberal, so that means "Bush is an idiot" movies. Never mind that democrats were with him on the war to begin with. And never mind that we had a great economy for most of his presidency until the democrats took control of congress. We probably won't see any movies about that.
Have you guys heard about the movie called "An American Carol"? Makes some fun of Michael Moore apparently.
Mky, I hope that is what the movie actually is. That's something I would want to see.
I think they are making a mistake marketing it as a make-fun-of-Bush movie. Sure, that can be kind of funny, and he isn't exactly at the height of popularity right now. I just don't see people flocking to the movies to see something like that. Something more like Stone's previous presidential movies is a better sale in my opinion. I'm hoping that's what this is and they're just dumbing down the advertising.
If Stone still had the same type of balls he used to have when he made JFK, he would have done a serious movie that was sympathetic (or at least attempted to understand) Bush's decisions on the war, etc. Making fun of, and hating on Bush in your movies is easy. There's nothing courageous or "new" about it. As you say, The Daily Show does it all the time. And I don't have to pay money to see it!
I'm not certain history will smile on this President, for a laundry list of reasons. He's hardly the "prime example;" that would be Eisenhower. I'll sit here patiently while you compile your mountains of Bush domestic programs that have greatly benefited the country. And then I'll wait for the empirical evidence that his policies on everything from Kyoto to Iraq have improved or ever will improve our standing as a leader of the world in the eyes of other countries.
Invading Iraq was never a good idea, not just because it was an invasion created by lies to fit the PNAC ideology set forth in 1998 and based on evidence that Colin Powell contradicted two months before 9/11 (he said Iraq had no infrastructure for WMDs in July 2001), but also for the very reasons we've seen over the past five years with our troops stuck there. I disagree with any reference to the past tense ("Bush did it") because there's a greater likelihood that an unstable country in an unstable region will slip out of our grasp in a few years than there is that Bush will be remembered fondly years from now.
The statement that the economy was great until November 2006 is ludicrous. The economy has been in a downturn since 2000, but because it was so good in the 1990s, it took years to level off. If it was so good until 2006, why did Bush give us a tax credit in 2001? Anyway, the economy is not in and of itself a political manifestation. There are multiple factors, and who's in office doesn't ultimately power it. If it did, then bashing the Democrats for ruining Bush's master plan also means Clinton was the greatest economist of all time. Because he was in charge during our best years.
Bush is 0-2 abroad, he's never captured the guy who masterminded the attacks on 9/11 (that's a big blunder; if he was so "brave" to tackle terrorism and he swung his big dick around saying we'd catch bin Laden dead or alive, why the hell is Osama still out there?), he's stricken down parts of the Geneva Convention that he didn't agree with although you're really not supposed to do that, he's a laughingstock, he's set back the cause of scientific advancement with his moral high ground stance on stem cells, he's butchered the education system to the point that it only rewards mediocrity and takes every incentive for achievement away, his energy policy (and I'm not talking oil dependency) has been atrocious since he was the governor of Texas and sat by idly while four of his cities became the most polluted in the country, he spent more time on steroids in baseball in a State of the Union address than he did health care reform, and his follies have cost the country trillions of dollars.
How many decades in the future are thinking it'll be before sentiment turns around for this guy?
See. It's all about how you construct an argument, people. :)
Well for every well-constructed argument there's an equal and opposite argument. That's why I don't like politics. It's a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ("Nothing" may not be totally accurate, but that's how the line goes)
Well, I'm sure you have figured out that I am not an American, so I am neither a Democrat or a Republican.
But I belive that credit should be given where it is due and I recognise that invading Iraq and Afghanistan were two very brave and necessary things to do. I knew that they fabricated the WMD-evidence and I still supported the invasion.
Iraq did have a WMD ambition but shelved it because of temporary lack of technical and financial resources. If Saddam had been able to rule on and pass the country on to one of his insane sons, the world would have been ablaze sooner or later.
It is not surprising that Bin Laden escaped capture. There is a cultural gulf the size of half the world between the west and the east and certain elements will never give him up. Who, knows, he may even be dead but kept alive as a ghost to spook people with.
When it comes to Bush's economic and environmental policies I think he's done an excellent job supporting the people and the interests that got him elected. If that's not what you wanted, maybe you should have voted for the other guy?
It's the essence of democracy, I guess.
https://weblion.psu.edu/trac/weblion/ticket/1086 - buy cheap online tramadol