(Movie Reviews)Well, as usual this movie got a delayed release in Japan. And, as usual, by the time I get around to reviewing it, everything that can be said about this movie has already been said. But I'll jot down a few thoughts anyway.
I like Oliver Stone. Looking over the movies he's done, we seem to have a lot of similar interests (classical history, classic rock, Vietnam War, Latin American Revolutions, and recent political history). On paper you would think I would be the biggest Oliver Stone fan ever.
If it weren't for the fact that his movies are so long and boring to sit through.
Now don't get me wrong, when he's good he's very good.
But "Nixon" was hard for me to sit through. And "Alexander" was absolutely awful. And there are a few more Stone films I had a hard time getting through.
And actually, now that I think of it, even his good movies usually have a few slow stretches in the middle.
So with all that in mind, the good news here is that "W." is a very entertaining movie to watch. The last 20 minutes or so Stone started to lose me a little bit, but on the whole I was not only entertained, I was glued to the TV the whole time. I didn't want to miss a word.
No doubt part of the increased interest is due to the relevance of the film. "Nixon" was released after the former President had passed away, so it was just another biopic of a dead president.
"W." came out before George W. Bush had even finished his Presidency. So, even if you watch it a year later like I did, the whole time you have a feeling like it is hitting below the belt.
But besides that, I think this film is just better written and better acted than "Nixon", and is just generally more entertaining all around.
Josh Brolin is really great in this movie.
I had never heard of Josh Brolin until a year ago, when I saw him popping up in "No Country For Old Men", "Planet Terror" and "American Gangster ." He did a great job in all of those movies, and he does a great job in this one. In fact he plays the part so well, it's hard to believe he was really a last minute replacement for Christian Bale.
I had read reviews of this film long before it came to Japan, so I knew that the film wasn't so much a liberal hack-job against George W. Bush (although there are a few jibes thrown in here) as it was an almost sympathetic view of a tragic life. So I was prepared for that going in, and knew there would be more character examination than politics.
Actually it's really both politics and personal tragedy, and that's what makes this film so engaging.
Bush's personal story, at least the way Oliver Stone has retold it, does have very Shakespearean overtones to it. Specifically Bush is the perfect Young Hal from "King Henry IV".
[In fact (short digression here) I remember the first time I heard George Bush Junior's name. In 1990, my 7th grade history teacher was telling us about John Adams and John Quincy Adams, at that time the only father-son Presidential team in American history.
"Can you imagine how strange that is?" he said. "It would be like if George Bush Junior ever became president."
Somebody in the class who was better informed than I was in those days let out a short laugh, and some comment was made about George Bush Jr's drinking habits. And the teacher said, "Alright, admittedly in the case of George Bush Jr it could never happen."]
However unlike Young Hal, Bush does not go on to become Henry V, one of the world's greatest leaders. Instead Bush has the bittersweet distinction of achieving the world's greatest office, only to go down in history as one of the worst Presidents.
In this final regard, the story of a man who overcame all his personal demons to become President, only to leave the office disgraced, the themes of this film are remarkably similar to Stone's earlier film "Nixon."
With such a polarizing subject as Bush, and such a polarizing film maker as Oliver Stone, the film's accuracy can be debated ad infinitum. And if you read the reviews across the internet, you can see that it already has been.
So for the most part I'm going to try and stay clear of it.
Obviously Stone is not above inventing fictional conversations to create the necessary scenes that serve to fill out the themes of his movie. At the same time though, after doing a bit of internet research, I agree with the review in Slate by Timothy Noah (link here) which says that often the scenes you most expect to be fictional turn out to be the ones drawn directly from real life.
I also agree with Timothy Noah that this film is not nearly as hard on Bush as it could be. There are numerous scandals the film could have explored which it leaves completely untouched.
And the film also gives Bush the benefit of the doubt by assuming his good intentions. I would not have been so generous had I been writing it.
However the choice to play Bob Dylan's "With God on our Side" as the end credits roll was absolutely brilliant. Simple, and yet devastating.
Obviously, this film is the first draft. It was released in theaters before Bush's term was even over, and I'm assuming writing and filming started some time before it was released. 20 years from now, when we have a more complete view of Bush's legacy (and when a few more tell-all books have been written by insiders) it will be time for someone else to take another crack at this film.
And I'm also assuming production on this film was rushed through a little bit so it could get released while it was still timely. In that case, it's amazing the film turns out to be as interesting and as engaging as it is.
Update: After re-watching "Nixon", I've decided it's not a bad film at all. It's quite a piece of art in its own way actually. The problem is that it goes on for 3 hours. "W" clocks in quite nicely at just over 2 hours, and thus is much more watchable. (And it would have been even more watchable if they had trimmed another 20 minutes off of it, but I guess you can't ask for too much.)
Link of the Day
Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours.
2 comments:
I watched Nixon in the theatres, back in the day, and thought it was fabulous. When Stone finally released the longer cut he originally wanted, I thought that was terrific too. But then I'd just finished watching "Watergate," which I loved. After that, no filmmaker could possibly overstay his welcome on the subject matter. (I especially recommend Dick -- very funny, once you're familiar with the history.)
But W. ... I was lukewarm on this one. Brolan's Jr was certainly a compelling character to watch, and not a little sympathetic. But the memory of it all was still very fresh, and there were so many aspects to the presidency that could have made a more compelling picture, but were avoided. F'rinstance, Bush grew consistently cooler toward Cheney as his second term wore on, to the point where Cheney's machinations had to become exceedingly subtle indeed if they were to get any traction whatsoever. And I was frankly annoyed to see Condoleeza Rice portrayed as a bobble-headed nitwit. I thought the foreign policy she attempted to advance was deleterious to the health of her own nation, never mind others -- but there was no denying her keen intelligence and wit. One of the Washington wags once said, "If you want to hear the Bush doctrine expressed cogently and persuasively, listen to Rice."
You know, when I wrote the first half of my review, I was relaying just on my memories of the Nixon movie, which were several years old. When I re-watched it, it was much better than I remembered it (as I added in the addendum). It is undeniably a peace of artwork, masterfully directed in places, and with a powerful epic feeling throughout.
I still say it is too long to sit through though. Especially the drawn out resignation sequence at the end. I ended the movie with a drained feeling. But I think if you stop it halfway through and watch it over a couple days, it can be a great movie.
I only wish Oliver Stone would have left out that conspiracy theory junk about JFK's assassination, because that undermines the whole credibility of what otherwise is a very painstakingly historically accurate film.
I have seen "Dick" and did get a few laughs out of it. I haven't seen the "Watergate" documentary you link to though. That looks interesting.
As for "W", I agree that there was a whole bucketfull of stuff that could have been included in this movie, and wasn't. But then we get into time limitation factors again.
Some of the actors were also better cast than others. As for the Rice character, I think if you listen to the lines she actual says in the film, she's still portrayed as the intellectual in the room. (For example she was the one who had to explain to Bush that Iran was a democracy.) But the actor plays her as a bit of an airhead, kind of bobbling her head back and forth after everything she's said. I agree it could have been better, but for me it was a minor point.
I guess what sold me on this film more than anything else was just the fact that it was entertaining to watch, despite the fact that there were a whole bunch of things I wish they would have covered, but they didn't.
Post a Comment