W

Corelyn and I went out of our way to see Oliver Stone’s “W” last weekend, mostly out of a desire to marvel at the wonders of our country, and how we may participate in a public excoriation of our most powerful leader with no fear of reprisal. Even to a child born in America, it’s a surprising feeling.

Here’s my review. And by the way, I’m changing over to a 0-10 system on .10 intervals. It’s more nuanced. Consider anything from 0-4 to be awful, 4-6 to be bad, 6-7 to be “meh,” 7-8 to be good, 8-9 to be great, 9 and up is fabulous and possibly classic.

“W”

Rating: 6.5

Oliver Stone’s “W” is, above everything else, a consistently missed opportunity. To make a film about a sitting president, to say nothing of the fact that this one has been in office during some of the most transitional moments in American history, is a tremendously audacious and definitively American thing to do. And despite what many people somewhat accurately think of Stone (conspiracy theory nut), he is a decorated Vietnam veteran, and he did make the overwhelmingly patriotic “World Trade Center,” as well as classics like “Wall Street” and “JFK.” The potential was there for him to be the right guy.

Furthermore, he seemed to be doing his homework in his preparation for the movie, and he claimed again and again that he wanted to make an honest and fair portrait of Bush. It was hard to believe him, but at least he was making the effort. Then came the casting, with several consecutive home run choices: Josh Brolin for the lead, Elizabeth Banks for Laura, James Cromwell as Bush Senior, and Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney. Smart moves, all. There was reason to be optimistic.

Alas, they didn’t pull it off. And I have to admit I’m surprised at what went wrong.

“W” works perfectly well while it’s setting up George Jr’s path to the White House, but when it gets him there, the damned thing falls apart. The “meetings” that are depicted in the Oval Office and Situation Room are amateur, sounding more like Saturday Night Live skits than transcriptions of political bull sessions. Honestly, “Dr. Strangelove” was more authentic than this. Dick Cheney and Condy Rice in particular are effectively cardboard cut-outs, completely absent motivations for their actions. Stone promised us that his rage against the current administration wouldn’t seep into his portrayal of Bush, and technically he was correct, but it did find its way to the supporting cast. I swear to you, there are times that Dreyfuss’ vice president (whom Bush hilariously calls “vice”) comes within an inch of saying, “I’m evil. I’m really evil. Let’s kill people for oil.” Stuff like this keeps us from suspending our disbelief; never once did I get that goosebumps-inducing sensation that I really was a fly on the wall at the White House.

The acting is split, half of it being great and the other half bordering, again, on sketch comedy. Cromwell’s H.W. Bush is decent, flawed and compelling, and I liked the movie’s thesis that even good fathers can create daddy issues in their sons. Elizabeth Banks shines as Laura, putting a warmth and steadfastness in the role that can’t be traced to a line in the script. Dreyfuss’ Cheney is almost a Bond villain, but he’s a damned good one and he looks exactly like his counterpart.

Then comes the pick-up team. Thandie Newton is distractingly bad as Condy Rice, pushing the role too far over the brink. I’m not sure it was her fault, and I think she was a good choice for the role, but Stone pushes her in the wrong direction. The same is true for Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell, and that’s a hard blow for this film, since he’s the voice of reason in the chaos.

Smack in the middle of these extremes comes Josh Brolin in the title role. My overall assessment of his performance is that he did a very solid job, but there were moments where he forced a few Bush mannerisms into places that didn’t seem to require them. Still, I’m happy to let that go, because there are so many tricky moments that he sells completely, reminding us of the real-life person but drafting an original character simultaneously. His best moment comes after a failed speech, as he storms angrily away from the press room and, in a moment of boiled-over emotion, throws his arms out in a spasm of frustration. It’s such a tiny gesture, but the vulnerability of it is real. Little details like that sell him for us.

I’m sure many of you are wondering what the Stone intends to say about our president with “W,” and I think the best answer to that question is this: he’s far from an evil man, but he sought and acquired the presidency for the wrong reasons, and once he got it he wrought accidental havoc on his country with it. Not exactly a burning at the stake, but certainly inflammatory enough to potentially incite controversy, which this movie is desperately hoping to do. It won’t, it’s just not a good enough film.

It’s hard to imagine a bigger creative failure than setting a movie at the dawn of America’s war with terror, and completely glazing over how our country, and its leaders, changed in the face of a new enemy. There is no 9/11 in this movie, the plot skips right past it and if you watched this film in 2000, you’d have no idea anything took place, besides a few off-hand references. That’s just not acceptable, leaving that element out of the story keeps it from being anything more than a bizarre fantasy version of reality. I don’t care how much Dubya wants the love of his father, his life dramatically changed the day those towers fell, as did his cabinet, and we needed to experience that with them for this movie to work.

“W” could have been a lot more, and during some moments in the set-up, it feels like it will be. I personally expected Stone to fumble the ball on the backstory, then get his act together once he sunk his teeth into Washington politics, but much to my surprise the opposite is true. There’s an image at the movie’s end, where Dubya stands alone in a massive baseball stadium, playing a game with himself. He imagines a ball flying through the air, and he shuffles back to catch it, but it disappears in mid-air, and he simply stands there, asking himself what happened. Stone meant this to be a critique of the Bush administration, but I think it applies to his film much more.