Thoughts regarding Oliver Stone's "W."

For those who haven't seen it, I'd highly recommend it.  The movie isn't Stone's best work, but almost 24 hours after seeing the film I'm still mulling over some of the ideas that the director raises in his film.

Some of the thoughts that I have about the film are as follows:
1. I think Stone achieves his objective to provide a "humanized" version of Bush -- a guy who isn't a devil or an angel -- just a conflicted guy who had ambition and some political acumen, but someone who was ultimately promoted above his pay grade.  

The take away that I had was "hate the sin, but not the sinner".  Stone touches on some of his motivations in a Slate article, which seem to echo this approach:

http://www.slate.com/id/220266...

While we attempted to paint a human portrait of George W. Bush, I firmly believe that history will not spare this man. His record of playing the fiddle while Rome burned will speak for itself. But I believe our film offers, ironically to me, a strange compassion for W, who is so hard to like. By trying to achieve compassion rather than condemnation, I do hope that we can open our thinking and understanding to the great price we have paid for allowing him to be our leader for the last eight years. Compassion for the man, yes, but a greater compassion for our country. And maybe some long-forgotten humility from all of us. Whether our leaders understand it or not, there is great strength in humility.

2. I was kind of surprised about the approach of the movie, which came across as a dark, sardonic comedy.  There are some echoes of this in Stone's use of the "M.A.S.H" theme song from Altman's like titled story about the Korean War, as well as some visual echoes of Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove".  On the one hand Stone provides some human details about Bush -- the tension between W. and his father; and the supportive relationship between he and his wife -- on the other we see the main protagonist as a guy who is presented as something of a buffoon.  We see a fraternity hazing ritual from Bush's Yale days that echoes detainee treatment during his presidency (note the stress positions, water boarding with booze and a funnel, and temperature manipulation); there's Bush first meeting Laura talking with a full mouth of food; Bush winning the Texas Governorship being told by Laura to "put your pants on" when his father comes in to congratulate him; Bush cogitating on the toilet after Rove tells him that he needs to do something with his life if he wants to run for political office; there's Bush making an ass out of himself in his reckless younger days as well as some other things that attempt to deconstruct the myth of Bush as a heroic figure.

3. I thought Stone made the right choice in NOT making Bush a tragic, larger than life figure (e.g. unlike Stone's "Nixon" or the ordinary soldiers in "Platoon").  It seems that tragic figures need to have some level of self-reflection and some exceptional quality. The qualities that are exceptional in "W." seem largely incidental -- accidents of birth and circumstance.  Rather than pushing history forward in a new direction, Bush comes across as reacting against the world -- fighting old battles on terms that someone else has dictated for him.  

4. In terms of the overall feel, Stone's movie reminds me a bit of late Shakespeare tragi-comedies (e.g. "Pericles" or the "Winter's Tale" instead of "Hamlet" or "Macbeth").  With the exception of Laura Bush and George H.W. the characters surrounding W. seem to be two-dimensional.  W. himself strikes me as more of a comic character.  A walking self-parody.  The real tragedy in the story isn't Bush, or what happens to him -- there's a sense that he is largely insulated from the real consequences of his choices.  The real tragedy is what happens off-screen -- something that is only hinted at in the quick glimpse of W. meeting with wounded soldiers.  

Comments