Thoughts on W.

Over the Bush years, I often considered the somewhat pointless question of who Bush really is. Is he a Rovian political cynic exploiting the culture and values of Real Americans (TM) faking the whole Texan act secretly speaking with an ultra New England WASPy country club accent? Or does he truly believe he is a salt-of-the-Earth Texan who thinks God tells him what to do? Either way his only possible excuses for his history making F-ups are either he is a liar or profoundly ignorant.

Nevertheless, I was still excited about Oliver Stone's attempt to answer this question. In W., Stone argues it is a hybrid of these two arguments---Bush is subconsciously lying to himself as a means for political power. Stone argues all of Bush's actions can be traced to an Oedipal Complex. The Iraq War, folksiness, and religion are means to overcome his father's and family's achievements.
Stone's portrait of Bush is relatively sympathetic. Sure, Bush is not exceptionally bright, talented, or motivated but it sort of sucks to know you live in privilege and are worthless. Instead of making the best of the situation, Stone implies Bush found the easy way out, Religion! Instead of following the traditional tenets of Christianity, you know, humility, helping the poor, Bush discovers this is how he can out Christian and out Texan his dad and his detractors. And so Bush becomes president.

Of course, even an Oliver Stone lengthed film is going to be a gross oversimplification of any person's life. Why did Bush when running in 2000 argue against nation building if his intent was always to invade Iraq when he had the chance? Sure the Iraq War fits nicely into this Odeipal tale but where does Katrina, political firing of judges, covering for internal leaks of a CIA spy identity, basic sidestepping of all cultural issues and so on come into play? Was he over his head, corrupt, or both?

I must also comment on the tertiary characters in W. as no one as simple as Bush could have screwed America over alone. Stone doesn't leave any of the major cabinet figures out and presents them all as amusing one-dimensional talking points. Cheney is evil, Rove is conniving, Condi is a yes-(wo)man, Rumsfeld is cold-hearted, and poor ol' Powell is ignored. There is one overly melodramatic scene with the whole bunch argues over whether to invade Iraq. Stone admits this is an abridged version of events that took place over many months but it comes off as unrealistic and silly. Stone presents Bush's cabinet not as people but as a physical manifestation of Bush's Brain. And in this crowd, wisdom and patience loses out.

It is hard to judge this film on it's merits. It was impossible to separate the Bush I have known for eight years to the Brolin Bush on screen. I can say that the film played out too much like a made-for-TV biopic. Where is the Stone sizzle? He has gone low-key in his last few films. I wanted this to be like Nixon, where Stone sympathizes with Nixon as a Charles Foster Kane power-monger who realizes his failings all too late. (I read Stone has one scene in W. where Bush flies over Iraq in a magic carpet dropping bombs. Sounds like a hybrid of the hallucination sequence in The Big Lebowski and the strawberry bombs over Vietnam in Across the Universe. Anyway, probably a good idea to cut it.) The best scene in W. is towards the end when Bush Jr. has a dream of his father challenging him to a fist fight in the Oval Office. W. need more of this Stonesque historical dramatization.

In conclusion, I still don't understand Bush. Maybe over the years when more information is leaked other filmmakers will take a stab at this story so history will not repeat itself.