Woohoo! First post!
Anyway, I guess I'll get going with a review of a film I saw last weekend,
W.Instead of talking about the fact that this film brings nothing new about Bush to the table, an issue which the Rotten Tomatoes crowd has been all over, I'm going to talk about an issue that was raised in a troubled phone call from my grandmother, "Is this film unpatriotic?" After seeing the film itself, and watching a few Oliver Stone interviews, I can tell you my opinion is a definitive no.
Oliver Stone is a left-wing voter, and he has made it clear from the start that this film does not portray his
opinions. Stone is merely telling the story of George W. Bush's improbable rise to head of state. Yet, Bush still appears as a bumbling idiot in sections of the film. Is portraying the current president in this manner unpatriotic? My grandmother seems to think so. I can safely say that I don't feel Oliver Stone is being unpatriotic, but I can say that creating and releasing this film during Bush's presidency was a bad idea. When I think of what this film would have been like if it was made ten years from now, I see something that is edgier and bringing more to the table. This is something that
W. did not deliver on. The primary reason I'm guessing that
W. was released before Bush left office, is because of this thing that it lacked, edginess. When either the producers or Stone realized they had nothing new to bring to the table about Dubya, they decided the only way to make this film edgy was to release it while Bush was still in office. This is a feat never done with a film before. The result: a film which restates the countless articles of media detailing Bush's preposterous ascent to presidency and thereafter. This brings me back to why the film isn't unpatriotic. How is this film any different than the countless other mockeries which have been made of Bush over the years? In fact, this film goes pretty easy on the guy, in some parts even making me feel sorry for him. The reason why people are getting in a fit over the message of this film, and not the countless other coffee table books with funny "Bushisms," is because film is big. Cinema, an infant compared to art forms such as painting and writing, has become the largest in the world in terms of audience. When people think of a film, they think of it less as a medium of art, and more as a statement, affecting millions of people.
So what's the verdict? While
W. was in no way unpatriotic, it was lacking due to its release so early after the events it entailed, including the Iraq war which is still ongoing. "W." is a classic example of new ideas and methods failing as compared with methods that have been proven to work. Throughout history, we have uncovered pieces of data from much later from the point when they occurred. Releasing "W." in theaters while Bush is still in office has resulted in something that teaches me nothing new about Bush, aside from the fact that he could never follow in "daddy's footsteps." While this film was relatively mediocre, I found two notable reasons to see it, the first being some of the performances. Josh Brolin was able to excellently embody the character of George W. Bush and actors such as Thandie Newton portraying Condoleezza Rice, as well as Toby Jones as Karl Rove had dead-pan performances that gave me a few chuckles. The second notable piece of the film for me was seeing Colin Powell's hesitancy towards the occupation of Iraq, as just hours before I saw this film, he gave endorsed the election of Barack Obama.
I hope I didn't rant on too much... My advice would be to see the film if you can find something interesting that you look forward to seeing in it. If you think this film may offend you, or you're someone without much interest in such politics,
W isn't for you, although I would whole-heartedly advise you to not waste $8 on something else such as
Max Payne or
Sex Drive.
